CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data

gathered. The findings are presented as follows: Level of awareness of the respondents

on the duties and responsibilities of the MSU Security Personnel (Peace Keeping

Force); Perception of the respondents on the execution of the duties and responsibilities

of the PKF; Problems and challenges on the execution of the duties and functions of the

MSU PKF of perceived by the respondents; and Perceived recommendation.

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Duties and functions of PKF

DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF RESPONSE TOTAL
PKF Aware Not Aware
F % F %
1. Maintain peace and 75 75% 25 25% 100/100
order within vicinity
2. Approach suspicious
and reports unusual 73 73% 25 25% 100/100
happening and accident
3. Perform assigned police
duties on university 80 80% 27 27% 100/100
function and special
events
4. Walks on assign beat on
alternating shift bases 60 60% 20 20% 100/100
patrol
5. Apprehend speeders 45 45% 55 55% 100/100
6. Arrest malefactors who
are valuating university 57 57% 43 43% 100/100
rules and regulations
7. Assist security officer in
obtaining information 78 78% 22 22% 100/100
and evidence in case
involving loss or
damage to university
property
 Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage of duties and functions of PKFs.

The students were asked about their level of awareness on the duties and

responsibilities of the MSU PKF. Table 1 revealed that of the 7 statement indicators

taken from the mandated duties and functions of the PKFs, only few of them were not

aware; almost all the students at the selected colleges were aware of the duties and

functions of the MSU PKF.

(ANALYSIS)

(RELATE TO RRL)

Table 2. Frequency Count, Weighted mean, and Verbal Interpretation

Distributions on Duties and functions of PKFs.

ET AET S AN N Total % WM VI
DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF 1 2 3 4 5
PKF

1. Maintain peace and 12 25 56 5 0 100/100 100 2.5 AET

order within vicinity.
2. Approach suspicious
and reports unusual 10 27 55 10 0 100/100 100 2.69 S
happening and accident.
3. Perform assigned police
duties on university 15 42 47 6 0 100/100 100 2.64 S
function and special
events.
4. Walks on assign beat on
alternating shift bases 6 32 48 14 0 100/100 100 2.70 S
patrol.
5. Apprehend speeders. 7 28 48 19 1 100/100 100 2.79 S
6. Arrest malefactors who
are valuating university 5 26 45 17 4 100/100 100 2.80 S
rules and regulations.
7. Assist security officer in
obtaining information 10 30 53 6 0 100/100 100 2.58 AET
and evidence in case
involving loss or damage
 to university property.

In table 2, we asked the respondents about the availability of the PKF inside the
campus. Question number 1 is about the maintenance of peace and order within
vicinity, out of 100 respondents, 12 respondents answered every time (ET), 25
respondents answered to almost every time (AET), 56 respondents answered
sometimes (S), 5 respondents answered almost never (AN), and 0 answered to never
(N). In the second question, we asked them about the approachability of the PKF on
suspicious accidents and reports of the unusual happening inside the campus, out of
100 respondents, 10 respondents answered to every time (ET), 27 respondents
answered to almost every time (AET), 55 respondents answered sometimes (S), 10
respondents answered to almost never (AN), and 0 answered to never (N). On the third
question out of 100 respondents, 15 of them answered every time, 42 answered to
almost every time, 47 answered to sometimes, 6 answered to almost never, and 0
answered to never. We can also see on the fourth question that out of 100 respondents,
6 of them answered every time, 32 respondents answered almost every time, 48
respondents answered sometimes, 14 respondents answered almost never, and 0
answered to never.
(ANALYSIS)
(RELATE TO RRL)

Table 3. Frequency, Percentage Distribution on the Problem and Challenges

PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES Frequency Percentage Ranking

1. The MSU PKFs are not

always on the alert 71 71% 1
observing everything that
take place within sight or
hearing
2. The MSU PKFs do not give
alarm in case of fire or 57 57% 2
disaster
3. The MSUPKFs are not
visible in taking charge of 53 53% 3
their post
4. The MSU PKFs do not
ensure protection of life and 48 48% 4
property within the
university
We have listed some of the problems and challenges that we have observed from the
PKFs behavior and actions. The first problem that we have listed on the third table is
“The MSU PKFs are not always on the alert observing everything that take place within
sight or hearing” and 71% agreed to this.
(ANALYSIS)
(RELATE TO RRL)

Table 4. Frequency, Percentage distribution and ranking on the Problem

Perceived Recommendation

PERCEIVED Frequency Percentage Ranking

RECOMMENDATION

1. The MSU PKFs should

investigate unusual
occurrence and 92 92% 1
infractions of rules and
regulations on security
matters

2. The MSU PKFs should

take note of person 90 90% 2
and vehicles entering
and leaving premises
or compound
3. The MSU PKFs should
be always on their 86 86% 3
posts
4. The MSU PKFs should
always walk in a 83 83% 4
military manner during
their tour in duty
We have given some recommendations to our respondents, and these are the result.
92% of our respondents put a check (/) on the first recommendation which is the “The
MSU PKFs should investigate unusual occurrence and infractions of rules and
regulations on security matters”, 90% percent voted into the second recommendation
the “The MSU PKFs should take note of person and vehicles entering and leaving
premises or compound”, 86% voted for the third recommendation which is also the “The
MSU PKFs should be always on their post, and 83% voted into the last
recommendation which is the “The MSU PKFs should always walk in a military manner
during their tour in duty”.
(ANALYSIS)
(RELATE TO RRL)