Chapter 2

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

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

gathered on the personal financial management practices of faculty of all junior high

schools in Bilar, Bohol. It reveals the socio - demographic profile of the faculty and

efficiency level of their personal financial management practices. This chapter also

illustrates the significant difference between the public and private faculty on their

efficiency level of personal financial management practices.

Table 1 presents the profile of the faculty in terms of age, sex, civil status,

employment status and monthly gross income.

Age. The findings shows that 23 (38.3%) of the all Junior High School

faculty belong to 25-29 age class and 2 (3.3 %) are in ages 50-54 age class and

55 and above. This implies that all Junior High Schools in Bilar, Bohol are

inhabited with younger and new employees.

Sex. The researchers did not observe equal gender distribution. Hence,

according to the distribution of questionnaire, it ends up having greater number of

female (90%) which is 80% higher than male (10%).

Civil Status. The researchers have no intention to distribute the

questionnaires among a certain civil status of the respondents; but it ends up

soliciting feedbacks from the married respondents with 51.7% and 0% who were

widow/ widower.
 Employment Status. In this part, 78.3% of them were regular employees

while those who were casual employees make up 21.7%.

Monthly Gross Income. There are 18.3% of the respondents who have a

monthly gross income of 29,001- 34,000. Relatively, 3.3% of the respondents

only earn income between 14,001- 19,000.

 Table 1
Profile of the Faculty
N=60
Age Class F %
20-24 9 15
25-29 23 38.3
30-34 7 11.7
35-39 7 11.7
40-44 6 10
45-49 4 6.7
50-54 2 3.3
55 and above 2 3.3
TOTAL 100
Sex
Male 6 10
Female 54 90
TOTAL 100
Civil Status
Single 29 48.3
Married 31 51.7
Separated 0 0
Widow/ Widower 0 0
TOTAL 100
Employment Status
Regular 47 78.3
Casual 13 21.7
TOTAL 100
Monthly Gross Income
9,000 and below 8 13.3
9,001-14,000 9 15
14,001-19,000 2 3.3
19,001-24,000 4 6.7
24,001-29,000 11 18.3
29,001-34,000 18 30
34,001-39,000 4 6.7
39,001 and above 4 6.7
TOTAL 100
 It can be inferred from the facts Table 2 that public junior high faculty are very

efficient in setting financial goals and having planned to reach financial goals and

following the plan with a weighted mean of 3.30 and 3.26 respectively. Private junior

high faculty are very efficient in setting their financial goals with a weighted mean of

3.29. The table shows that the public junior high faculty are more efficient in terms of

budget management practices with an average weighted mean of 3.05.

Table 2
Budget Management Public Private
WMS DI WMS DI
1. Setting financial goals 3.30 VE 3.29 VE

2. Having planned to reach financial 3.26 VE 3.18 E

goals and follow the plan
3. Creating a budget to understand 3.16 E 3.18 E
income and determine spending and
saving
4. Generally achieving money 3.12 E 2.94 E
management goals
5. Establishing an adequate financial 3.02 E 2.59 E
record keeping system
6. Maintaining healthy spending budget 3.12 E 2.94 E
to avoid financial situation out of
control
7. Preparing a budget every month 3.05 E 3.24 E

8. Making goals about how to spend 3.12 E 2.94 E

money and discuss them with family
9. Recording cash inflows 2.67 E 2.71 E
10. Recording cash outflows 2.70 E 2.76 E
Average Weighted Mean 3.05 E 2.98 E
LEGEND: Scale Description Range Code
4 Very Efficient 3.26 – 4.00 VE
3 Efficient 2.51 – 3.25 E
2 Less Efficient 1.76 – 2.50 LE
1 Inefficient 1.00 – 1.75 I
 As presented in Table 2.1, public junior high faculty is efficient in limiting their

expenses to an amount that would not exceed to their budget with the highest weighted

mean of 3.09 while the private junior high faculty is efficient in closely watching the

amount they would spend to with a highest weighted mean of 3.06. However, both the

public and private faculty are less efficient in spending more than their income with a

lowest weighted mean of 2.17 and 2.24 respectively. These results imply that the faculty

are wise spenders. Since they used to carefully plan their budget to fit their needs;

hence, they are conscious and selective about what they spend for.

Table 2.1
Expenditure Management Public Private

WMS DI WMS DI
1. Tracking some or all expenses 2.95 E 2.94 E
2. Comparing prices from major 2.95 E 2.65 E
expenses
3. Limiting expenses to an amount that 3.09 E 2.88 E
would not exceed to my budget
4. Using a spending plan or budget 2.93 E 2.88 E
5. Closely watching the amount to 2.93 E 3.06 E
spend
6. Weighing the pros and cons before 3.07 E 2.88 E
making big expenditure
7. Hesitating to spend money, except 3.05 E 2.94 E
on absolute necessities
8. Being uncertain about where money 2.42 LE 2.41 LE
are spent
9. Spending more than my income 2.17 LE 2.24 LE
10. Often spending without planning 2.09 LE 2.59 E
Average Weighted Mean 2.77 E 2.75 E
LEGEND: Scale Description Range Code
4 Very Efficient 3.26 – 4.00 VE
3 Efficient 2.51 – 3.25 E
2 Less Efficient 1.76 – 2.50 LE
1 Inefficient 1.00 – 1.75 I
 It can be gleaned from Table 2.2 that public junior high faculty are efficient in

setting aside money for future needs such as children’s education, emergency and

retirement with a highest weighted mean of 3 while the private junior high faculty are

efficient in being very particular with how much they can save by carefully selecting

items to purchase with a highest weighted mean of 3. The private junior high faculty, as

can be seen in the table is less efficient in saving money only if portion of their income is

left with a lowest weighted mean of 2.35. Hence, it can be stated that respondents are

applying some appropriate saving practices.

Table 2.2
Saving Management Public Private

WMS DI WMS DI
1. Saving different amounts each time I 2.72 E 2.82 E
earn some income
2. Saving fixed amount or 10% of 2.56 E 2.53 E
monthly income
3. Saving money only if portion of 2.70 E 2.35 LE
income is left
4. Setting aside money for future 3 E 2.82 E
needs such as children’s education,
emergency and retirement
5. Saving money for wants such as 2.67 E 2.82 E
buying expensive items and travelling
6. Increasing savings when receive a 2.74 E 2.94 E
salary increase
7. Keeping money in a secure location 2.93 E 2.71 E
by saving cash in a bank
8. Closely monitoring savings account 2.95 E 2.71 E
9. Being very particular with how much 2.77 E 3 E
I can save by carefully selecting items
to purchase
10. Saving with household member 2.56 E 2.59 E
Average Weighted Mean 2.76 E 2.73 E
LEGEND: Scale Description Range Code
4 Very Efficient 3.26 – 4.00 VE
3 Efficient 2.51 – 3.25 E
 2 Less Efficient 1.76 – 2.50 LE
1 Inefficient 1.00 – 1.75 I

It can be inferred from the facts Table 2.3 that public junior high faculty are

efficient in getting long-term healthcare to prepare their older years when they can’t do

some basic activities with a highest weighted mean of 2.79 while the private junior high

faculty is efficient in three insurance management practices which are; understanding

insurance through attending financial literacy seminars, buying both health and life

insurance and getting short-term healthcare with a highest weighted mean of 2.59. Both

public and private faculty are less efficient in buying life insurance with a coverage

equivalent to 10 times of their annual income with the lowest weighted mean of 1.98

and 2.35 respectively. It implies that the respondents are securing their future through

buying and consulting health and life insurances.

Table 2.3
Insurance Management Public Private

WMS DI WMS DI
1. Understanding insurance through 2.56 E 2.59 E
attending financial literacy seminars
2. Consulting to financial educators 2.51 E 2.47 LE
before getting insurance
3. Buying both Health and Life 2.67 E 2.59 E
Insurance
4. Getting short-term healthcare 2.51 E 2.59 E
5. Getting long-term healthcare to 2.79 E 2.53 E
prepare my older years when I can’t do
some basic activities
6. Getting healthcare (short-term + 2.21 LE 2.47 LE
long-term) equivalent to 5 times of my
annual income
7. Buying Life Insurance using DIME 2.02 LE 2.24 LE
Method ( Debt, Income, Mortgage,
Education)
 8. Buying Life Insurance with a 1.98 LE 2.35 LE
coverage equivalent to 10 times of my
annual income
9. Buying Life Insurance to ensure my 2.05 LE 2.35 LE
family’s finances even without me
10. Buying Life insurance with 2.19 LE 2.47 LE
investments
Average Weighted Mean 2.38 E 2.47 LE
LEGEND: Scale Description Range Code
4 Very Efficient 3.26 – 4.00 VE
3 Efficient 2.51 – 3.25 E
2 Less Efficient 1.76 – 2.50 LE
1 Inefficient 1.00 – 1.75 I

Findings revealed in table 2.4 that the public junior high faculty are very efficient

in repaying the money they owe on time with a highest mean of 3.44 and inefficient in

making late payments on loans and debts; miss payments with a lowest weighted mean

of 1.70. On the other hand, private junior high faculty are efficient in limiting their debt to

an amount that they know they can repay and paying bills on time, with a highest

weighted mean of 3.12. They are both less efficient in using credit card whenever they

do not have enough money in bank or cash to meet their monthly commitments, with a

lowest weighted mean of 2.09 and 2.24. It implies that the respondents know the

importance of paying bills on time and limiting the amount of debt.

Table 2.4
Credit Management Public Private

WMS DI WMS DI

1. Repaying the money I owe on time 3.44 VE 2.24 LE

2. Paying off the full credit card 3.23 E 2.82 E

outstanding amount every month to
avoid financial charges
3. Limiting my debt to an amount that I 3.33 VE 3.12 E
 know I can repay
4. Paying bills on time 3.33 VE 3.12 E

5. Taking up personal loans at least 2.56 E 2.65 E

once a year to pay off other debt
6. Carefully checking the details of my 2.86 E 2.47 LE
bank statements/ credit card bills
7. Making comparisons before asking 3 E 2.65 E
for loans or using credit cards
8. Making a schedule to pay off the 2.95 E 2.71 E
most expensive debts first
9. Using credit card whenever I do not 2.09 LE 2.24 LE
have enough money in bank or cash to
meet my monthly commitments
10. Making late payments on loans and 1.70 I 2.24 LE
debts; miss payments
Average Weighted Mean 2.85 E 2.63 E

LEGEND: Scale Description Range Code

4 Very Efficient 3.26 – 4.00 VE
3 Efficient 2.51 – 3.25 E
2 Less Efficient 1.76 – 2.50 LE
1 Inefficient 1.00 – 1.75 I

As presented in Table 2.5, both the public and private junior high faculty are

efficient in starting to save for emergency funds with small amount with a highest

weighted mean of 2.63 and 2.82 respectively. In addition, both of the public and private

junior high faculty are less efficient in putting their emergency funds in bond fund and

money market funds with a lowest weighted mean of 2.05 and 2.41 respectively. The

table also stated that the public junior high faculty are less efficient than the private

junior high faculty in the overall efficiency level in emergency funds management

practices with an average weighted mean of 2.40.

Table 2.5
Emergency Funds Management Public Private
 WMS DI WMS DI
1. Having the idea of emergency funds 2.40 LE 2.76 E
from my friends and colleagues
2 Understanding emergency funds in 2.56 E 2.76 E
financial literacy seminars
3. Talking to financial educators to fully 2.44 LE 2.53 E
understand about emergency funds
4. Building emergency funds to prepare 2.58 E 2.65 E
for unforeseen expenses like
emergency home repairs, loss of job,
etc.
5. Starting to save for emergency funds 2.63 E 2.82 E
with small amount
6. Increasing my emergency funds 2.35 LE 2.65 E
monthly
7. Having now the emergency funds 2.16 LE 2.59 E
which is equivalent to 3 to 6 months of
my monthly income
8. Putting my emergency funds in 2.35 LE 2.41 LE
banks
9. Putting my emergency funds in bond 2.05 LE 2.41 LE
fund and money market funds.
10. Using emergency funds for 2.44 LE 2.71 E
emergencies only.
Average Weighted Mean 2.40 LE 2.63 E
LEGEND: Scale Description Range Code
4 Very Efficient 3.26 – 4.00 VE
3 Efficient 2.51 – 3.25 E
2 Less Efficient 1.76 – 2.50 LE
1 Inefficient 1.00 – 1.75 I

In Table 3.4, both public and private junior high faculty have the highest weighted

mean of 2.53 and 2.71 respectively, which is interpreted as efficient on doing research

to avoid investment scams. However, they are both less efficient in investing all their

money in one investment having the lowest weighted mean of 1.98 and 2.29

respectively. This finding denotes that public and private junior high faculty do not have

much interest about investments.

 Table 2.6
Investment Management Public Private

WMS DI WMS DI

1. Investing 10% of my income 2.30 LE 2.35 LE

2. Investing out of reach income I 2.14 LE 2.47 LE

receive
3. Investing in different investment 2.09 LE 2.41 LE
instruments such as share; bonds; unit
trust and real estate with minimal
knowledge and understanding
4. Fully understanding stocks and 2.33 LE 2.53 E
other financial instruments before
investing in them
5. Consulting with competent persons 2.30 LE 2.47 LE
on deciding what investments to make
6. Spreading money across more than 2.07 LE 2.29 LE
two type of investment
7. Investing all my money in one 1.98 LE 2.29 LE
investment
8. Investing money based in the 2.09 LE 2.29 LE
opinions of others such as friends and
family
9. Researching to avoid investment 2.53 E 2.71 E
scams
10. Investing regularly 2.16 LE 2.29 LE

Average Weighted Mean 2.20 LE 2.41 LE

LEGEND: Scale Description Range Code

4 Very Efficient 3.26 – 4.00 VE
3 Efficient 2.51 – 3.25 E
2 Less Efficient 1.76 – 2.50 LE
1 Inefficient 1.00 – 1.75 I

Table 3 reveals that there is no significant difference between the level of

efficiency in their personal financial management practices of the public and private
junior high faculty since the P value of 0.652 is greater than 5% (0.05) level of

significance.

Table 3
Significant Difference
N=60
VARIABLES MEAN P INTERPRETATION DECISION
VALUE

PUBLIC 2.61
PERSONAL
FINANCIAL NO SIGNIFICANT Accept H 0
MANAGEMENT 0.652 DIFFERENCE

PRIVATE 2.67