Statement of the Problem

This study will determine the public opinion about the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.

Specifically, it will seek to answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents? (Please work out on this)

2. What is the opinion of the public on Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act in terms of:

2.1 Nature of the youth offenders

  Nature of the youth

Average Interpretation
offenders
1 3.80  
2 3.27  
3 3.60  
4 3.20  
5 2.78  
Legend: 1.00 – 1.79 - 1.80 – 2.59 –
2.60 – 3.39 - 3.40 – 4.19 –
4.20 – 5.00 -

2.2 Principles in the administration of Juvenile Justice and Welfare

Principles in the administration of

Average Interpretation
Juvenile Justice and Welfare
1 4.22  
2 3.92  
3 4.17  
4 4.00  
5 4.20  
6 4.02  
7 3.83  
8 4.05  
9 4.07  
10 3.68  
Legend: 1.00 – 1.79 - 1.80 – 2.59 –
2.60 – 3.39 - 3.40 – 4.19 –
4.20 – 5.00 -
2.3 Minimum age of criminal responsibility
 Minimum age of criminal
Average Interpretation
responsibility
1 3.13  
2 3.02  
Legend: 1.00 – 1.79 - 1.80 – 2.59 –
2.60 – 3.39 - 3.40 – 4.19 –
4.20 – 5.00 -

2.4 Role of different sectors in the prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

Role of different sectors in the prevention of

Average Interpretation
Juvenile Delinquency
1 4.55  
2 4.55  
3 4.42  
4 4.52  
5 4.45  
Legend: 1.00 – 1.79 - 1.80 – 2.59 –
2.60 – 3.39 - 3.40 – 4.19 –
4.20 – 5.00 -

2.5 Treatment of children below the age of criminal responsibility

Treatment of children below the age of criminal

Average Interpretation
responsibility
1 3.30  
2 3.88  
Legend: 1.00 – 1.79 - 1.80 – 2.59 –
2.60 – 3.39 - 3.40 – 4.19 –
4.20 – 5.00 -

2.6 Offenses not applicable to children

 Offenses not applicable to children Average Interpretation

1 2.73  
2 3.40  
Legend: 1.00 – 1.79 - 1.80 – 2.59 –
2.60 – 3.39 - 3.40 – 4.19 –
4.20 – 5.00 -

2.7 Proposed amended House Bill No. 002

Proposed amended House Bill No. 002 Average Interpretation

1 3.38  
2 4.27  
Legend: 1.00 – 1.79 - 1.80 – 2.59 –
2.60 – 3.39 - 3.40 – 4.19 –
4.20 – 5.00 –

3. Is there a significant difference in the opinion of the public on Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act in terms of 2.1- 2.7 when grouped according to the demographic profile?

Level of Result and

Null Hypothesis P-value K-Wallis
Significance Decision
 
  H 0 : There is no significant difference in the p>α
“level of youth defenders when grouped according α =0.05   0.5590  0.342 
to gender. Fail to reject
Ho
  p>α
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “level
of youth defenders” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.0561 10.77 
Fail to reject
Age.  Ho
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “level   p<α
of youth defenders when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.0090 11.572 
Educational Status.  Reject Ho 
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “level   p<α
of youth defenders when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.0043 10.907 
Employment.  Reject Ho 

Level of Result and

Null Hypothesis P-value K-Wallis
Significance Decision
  p>α
  H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
“Juvenile Justice” when grouped according to α =0.05   0.2969  1.088 
Fail to reject
gender. Ho
   p>α
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
“Juvenile Justice” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.5818 3.778 
Fail to reject
Age.  Ho
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the p>α
“Juvenile Justice” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.0527 7.695 
Fail to reject
Educational Status.  Ho 
  p>α
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
“Juvenile Justice” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.1950 3.27 
Fail to reject
Employment.  Ho

Level of Result and

Null Hypothesis P-value K-Wallis
Significance Decision
p>α
  H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “Age
α =0.05    0.1141 2.496 
of Criminal” when grouped according to gender. Fail to reject
Ho 
p>α
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “Age
 α =0.05 0.1511   8.094
of Criminal” when grouped according to Age.  Fail to reject
Ho
  p>α
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “Age
of Criminal” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.2375 4.231 
Fail to reject
Educational Status.  Ho
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “Age p>α
of Criminal” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.2465 2.801 
Fail to reject
Employment.  Ho 

Level of Result and

Null Hypothesis P-value K-Wallis
Significance Decision
  p>α
  H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
“Role of different sectors” when grouped α =0.05   0.8953  0.017 
Fail to reject
according to gender. Ho
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “Role p>α
of different sectors” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.1546 8.029 
Fail to reject
Age.  Ho 
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “Role  α =0.05  0.1286 5.674  p>α
 of different sectors” when grouped according to
Fail to reject
Educational Status. 
Ho 
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the “Role p>α
of different sectors” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.7150 0.671 
Fail to reject
Employment.  Ho 

Level of Result and

Null Hypothesis P-value K-Wallis
Significance Decision
  H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
p>α
“Treatment of children” when grouped according α =0.05   0.5646  0.332 
Fail to reject
to gender. Ho 
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the p>α
“Treatment of children” when grouped according  α =0.05  0.4619  4.636
Fail to reject
to Age.  Ho 
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the p>α
“Treatment of children” when grouped according  α =0.05  0.1109 6.014 
Fail to reject
to Educational Status.  Ho 
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the p>α
“Treatment of children” when grouped according  α =0.05  0.0927 4.757 
Fail to reject
to Employment.  Ho 

Level of Result and

Null Hypothesis P-value K-Wallis
Significance Decision
  p>α
  H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
“Offenses not applicable” when grouped according α =0.05    0.9757 0.001 
Fail to reject
to gender. Ho
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the p<α
“Offenses not applicable” when grouped according  α =0.05  0.0332 12.119 
to Age.  Reject Ho  
  p>α
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
“Offenses not applicable” when grouped according  α =0.05  0.8097 0.965 
Fail to reject
to Educational Status.  Ho
 H 0 : There is no significant difference in the p>α
“Offenses not applicable” when grouped according  α =0.05  0.5027 1.375 
Fail to reject
to Employment.  Ho 

Level of Result and

Null Hypothesis P-value K-Wallis
Significance Decision
  H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
p>α
“Proposed Bill” when grouped according to α =0.05    0.2617 1.260 
Fail to reject
gender. Ho 
p>α
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the
 α =0.05  0.165 7.845 
“Proposed Bill” when grouped according to Age.  Fail to reject
Ho 
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the p>α
“Proposed Bill” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.0710 7.027 
Fail to reject
Educational Status.  Ho 
H 0 : There is no significant difference in the   p<α
“Proposed Bill” when grouped according to  α =0.05  0.0310 6.948 
Employment.  Reject Ho