CHAPTER 4

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of data

This chapter presents the statistical data relative to the problems as earlier posted.

Corresponding analysis and interpretation regarding these data were also presented.

Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the respondents as to their age, gender, status.

1.Socio - Demographic Profile of the Respondents

To understand the knowledge and competency of the respondents in this study their profiles

were presented below.

The following table presented the distribution and percentage of the respondents in terms of

age.

Table 1.1

Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Age

Age Police Barangay

Personnel Officials

Frequency % Rank Frequency % Rank

18-24 years old - - - - - -
25-34 years old 8 40 2 2 10 3.5
35-44 years old 10 50 1 12 60 1
45-54 years old 2 10 3 4 20 2
55 years old and - - - 2 10 3.5
above
Total 20 100% 20 100%
 Table 1.2 presented the distribution and percentage of the demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of gender.

Table 1.2

Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Gender

Gender Police Barangay

Personnel Officials

Frequency % Rank Frequency % Rank

Male 15 75 1 14 70 1

Female 5 25 2 6 30 2

Total 20 100% 20 100%

Table 1.3 presented the distribution and percentage of the demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of civil status.

Table 1.3

Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Civil Status

Civil Status Police Barangay

Personnel Officials

Frequency % Rank Frequency % Rank

 Married 16 80 1 20 100 1
Single 4 20 2 - - -
Widow/er - - - - - -
Total 20 100% - - 100% -

Table 1.4 presented the distribution and percentage of the demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of civil status.

Table 1.4

Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Higher Educational attainment

Highest PNP Highest Baranga

Educationa Personnel Educational y
l Attainment Officials
Attainment
f % Rank f % Rank
College 17 85 1 College 10 50 1
Degree
Masteral 2 10 2 High 5 25 2.5
Degree School
Masteral 1 5 3 Elementary 5 25 2.5
Degree
Total 20 100% 100%

Table 1.5
 Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Years of service of PNP Personnel and

Years of service of Barangay official

Years in PNP Barangay

Service Personnel Officials
f % Rank f % Rank
1-10 years 13 65 1 15 75 1
11-20 4 20 2 2 10 3
years
21 years 3 15 3 3 15 2
And above
Total 20 100% 20 100%

Table 2 Presents the weighted mean verbal interpretation, and ranking in terms of the

Effectiveness of Anti-drug Abuse Council in Handling Drug users within San Jose City.

Table 2

Assessment of the respondents on the Effectiveness of Anti-drug Abuse Council in

Handling Drug users within San Jose City

 PNP Barangay
Personne Officials
l
Statement WM VI Rank WM VI Rank
2.1 Give an emphasis on information 2.75 A 5.5 2.7 A 7
gathering, analysis, and preventative
education regarding drugs.
2.2 Implement long-term support initiatives 2.95 A 8 2.5 DA 4
including social, religious, and sporting
events in every barangay
2.3 Regulate surveillance and operations 2.9 A 7 2.85 A 10
within the city.
2.4 Personnel have enough knowledge and 2.6 A 2 2.6 A 5
experience in handling drug users/abusers.
2.5 Organize educational activities, seminars, 2.25 DA 0.5 2.35 DA 3
and programs in every barangay.
2.6 Medical professionals visit the 2.8 A 6.33 2.95 A 12
dependents regularly to conduct
examinations.
2.7 Implement sustainable livelihood 3.05 A 9 2.9 A 11.50
initiatives as part of a program for
reintegrating former drug pushers and users.
2.8 Conduct community and family 2.65 A 3.5 2.25 DA 2
counseling programs for drug users and their
families.
2.9 Excellent communication and good 2.75 A 5.5 2.65 A 6.50
connection for the ADAC personnel and drug
dependents
2.10 Ensure the safety, privacy and security 2.25 DA 0.5 2.65 A 6.50
of drug personalities.
2.11 Establish quarterly meeting. Monitor 2.7 A 4.5 2.8 A 9.50
well-organized reports and submission of the
reports about the updates in drug
dependence counseling
2.12 Immediately respond for report 2.8 A 6.33 2.75 A 8
problems encountered in the ADAC.
2.13 Limited support and assistance from 2.7 A 4.5 2.9 A 11.50
LGU officials.
2.14 A program establish for reuniting 2.8 A 6.33 2.8 A 9.50
former drug users to drug users.
2.15 Every personnel perform their duties 2.65 A 3.5 2.2 DA 1
and responsibilities well.
TWM/OVI 2.71 A 2.66 A
Legend:
WM= Weighted Mean
VI= Verbal Interpretation
R= Ranking
AWM= Average Weighted Mean