Governance and Response

Cross-stage service delivery review across awareness, availment, satisfaction, and need for action.

8 indicators
Avg Awareness
74.57%
Avg Availment
63.16%
Avg Satisfaction
93.22%
Avg Need for Action
46.68%

Stage Overview

Service Gaps

This view highlights indicators where citizens may know about a service but do not use it, use it but are not satisfied, or still need government action. For filtered Region/LGU views, results are descriptive evidence for local planning and should be validated with LGU records or field review.
vi · Need for Action

Traffic Management

51.5% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness61.6%
  • Availment76.3%
  • Satisfaction89.2%
  • Need for Action51.5%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
vii · Need for Action

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

48.1% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness76.3%
  • Availment58.1%
  • Satisfaction95.7%
  • Need for Action48.1%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
ii · Need for Action

Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU

47.7% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness63.8%
  • Availment40.5%
  • Satisfaction91.8%
  • Need for Action47.7%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
viii · Need for Action

Public Information Services

46.2% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness70.3%
  • Availment82.9%
  • Satisfaction94.8%
  • Need for Action46.2%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
iii · Need for Action

Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays

46.0% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness69.1%
  • Availment63.9%
  • Satisfaction95.1%
  • Need for Action46.0%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
i · Need for Action

Delivery of Frontline services

45.9% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness84.0%
  • Availment73.6%
  • Satisfaction93.1%
  • Need for Action45.9%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
v · Need for Action

Timely Response on Peace and Order and Public Safety-related incidents

45.8% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness87.7%
  • Availment65.3%
  • Satisfaction92.0%
  • Need for Action45.8%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
iv · Need for Action

Conflict and dispute resolution in the barangays

42.4% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness83.8%
  • Availment44.8%
  • Satisfaction94.0%
  • Need for Action42.4%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.

Frequency Count

This view shows compact Yes/No frequency counts and percentages for each service indicator across awareness, availment, satisfaction, and need for action.
i

Delivery of Frontline services

Aware Yes 83.96% · No 16.04%
Availed Yes 73.58% · No 26.42%
Satisfied Yes 93.13% · No 6.87%
Action Needed Yes 45.88% · No 54.12%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 3778 83.96 722 16.04
Availed 2780 73.58 998 26.42
Satisfied 2589 93.13 191 6.87
Action Needed 1275 45.88 1504 54.12
ii

Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU

Aware Yes 63.78% · No 36.22%
Availed Yes 40.5% · No 59.5%
Satisfied Yes 91.78% · No 8.22%
Action Needed Yes 47.71% · No 52.29%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 2583 63.78 1467 36.22
Availed 1046 40.5 1537 59.5
Satisfied 960 91.78 86 8.22
Action Needed 499 47.71 547 52.29
iii

Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays

Aware Yes 69.06% · No 30.94%
Availed Yes 63.89% · No 36.11%
Satisfied Yes 95.08% · No 4.92%
Action Needed Yes 46.0% · No 54.0%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 2797 69.06 1253 30.94
Availed 1787 63.89 1010 36.11
Satisfied 1699 95.08 88 4.92
Action Needed 822 46.0 965 54.0
iv

Conflict and dispute resolution in the barangays

Aware Yes 83.81% · No 16.19%
Availed Yes 44.77% · No 55.23%
Satisfied Yes 93.97% · No 6.03%
Action Needed Yes 42.39% · No 57.61%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 3520 83.81 680 16.19
Availed 1576 44.77 1944 55.23
Satisfied 1481 93.97 95 6.03
Action Needed 668 42.39 908 57.61
v

Timely Response on Peace and Order andPublic Safety-related incidents

Aware Yes 87.72% · No 12.28%
Availed Yes 65.3% · No 34.7%
Satisfied Yes 92.05% · No 7.95%
Action Needed Yes 45.75% · No 54.25%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 3816 87.72 534 12.28
Availed 2492 65.3 1324 34.7
Satisfied 2294 92.05 198 7.95
Action Needed 1140 45.75 1352 54.25
vi

Traffic Management

Aware Yes 61.6% · No 38.4%
Availed Yes 76.27% · No 23.73%
Satisfied Yes 89.17% · No 10.83%
Action Needed Yes 51.45% · No 48.55%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 2495 61.6 1555 38.4
Availed 1903 76.27 592 23.73
Satisfied 1697 89.17 206 10.83
Action Needed 979 51.45 924 48.55
vii

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

Aware Yes 76.28% · No 23.72%
Availed Yes 58.08% · No 41.92%
Satisfied Yes 95.74% · No 4.26%
Action Needed Yes 48.11% · No 51.89%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 3318 76.28 1032 23.72
Availed 1927 58.08 1391 41.92
Satisfied 1845 95.74 82 4.26
Action Needed 927 48.11 1000 51.89
viii

Public Information Services

Aware Yes 70.33% · No 29.67%
Availed Yes 82.87% · No 17.13%
Satisfied Yes 94.81% · No 5.19%
Action Needed Yes 46.16% · No 53.84%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 2954 70.33 1246 29.67
Availed 2448 82.87 506 17.13
Satisfied 2321 94.81 127 5.19
Action Needed 1130 46.16 1318 53.84
Finding 1

Citizen segment evidence

Available

The clustering result identifies citizen segments and shows whether any segment has lower awareness, lower availment, lower satisfaction, or higher need for action.

Finding 2

Classification evidence

32 indicator models

The decision-tree classification uses citizen segment membership and profile variables as predictors. Most current indicator results are grouped as usable signal, which guides how strongly the result may be interpreted.

Finding 3

Association-rule evidence

Lift 1.04

The strongest repeated service-stage pattern is: Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). This pattern was observed together 81.5% of the time for the eligible records.

Integrated research interpretation

For Governance and Response, the harmonized evidence identifies this service-stage concern: Need for Action in Traffic Management (51.5%). The recurring factor to check is Need Further Action (Governance background) appears in 19 model(s) across 4 stage(s). The repeated service-stage pattern is Awareness pattern: 81.5% confidence, lift 1.04. Together, these findings show whether the service-stage, citizen-segment, classification, and association-rule evidence point toward the same analytical interpretation.

Evidence agreement: strong consensus. The findings should be checked against local service records and field context before they are used for planning. Proposed actions, responsible offices, and monitoring indicators are presented separately in the Decision Support module.

Research Interpretation Guide

The result is not based on one model alone. Clustering contributes the citizen-segment lens, classification contributes predictor-based explanation, and association rules contribute repeated service-stage relationships. This supports the thesis claim that the portal implements a multi-model predictive analytics framework for evidence-based service evaluation.

Analytics → Harmonization → Human Review → Action

Harmonized Evidence Table Supporting Human Decision-Making

Cross-stage, clustering, classification, and association-rule results are integrated as evidence for LGU review. Recommended actions remain subject to local validation and approval.

8 action items
Priorities are generated from the active dataset's largest indicator-level service gaps. Segment labels identify the portal group with the strongest related concern signal.
Every evidence record includes: 1. Rank 2. Cross-Stage Result 3. Citizen Segment Summary 4. Decision Tree Evidence 5. Repeated Service-Stage Pattern 6. Recommended LGU Action 7. Evidence Audit 8. Implementation
Dynamic indicator flow

Traffic Management

Hover over each node for the complete generated result. The four analytical evidence sources are harmonized to support human review of the recommended action, validation requirement, and monitoring measure.
Rank Cross-Stage Result Citizen Segment Summary Decision Tree Evidence Repeated Service-Stage Pattern Recommended LGU Action Evidence Audit Implementation
1 Traffic Management
Need for Action (51.5%)
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
Awareness 61.6%; availment 76.3%; satisfaction 89.2%; need for action 51.5%.
 Young single student citizens (Segment B) (59.8%)
Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 59.8% for this indicator.
View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments
Model quality
Usable signal: F1 72.9%, ROC AUC 70.4%. The model shows helpful separation based on F1, ROC AUC, and gain over the majority-class baseline.
Strongest feature
Need Further Action (94.2% importance)
Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). Support 52.3%, confidence 81.5%, lift 1.04.
 Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
Supports:
Conflicts:
Insufficient:
Harmonized evidence statuses
Office of the Local Chief Executive / DILG Focal Office
Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage
Validate:
2 Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Need for Action (48.1%)
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
Awareness 76.3%; availment 58.1%; satisfaction 95.7%; need for action 48.1%.
 Young single student citizens (Segment B) (54.3%)
Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 54.3% for this indicator.
View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments
Model quality
Usable signal: F1 71.2%, ROC AUC 71.3%. The model shows helpful separation based on F1, ROC AUC, and gain over the majority-class baseline.
Strongest feature
Need Further Action (80.6% importance)
Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). Support 52.3%, confidence 81.5%, lift 1.04.
 Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
Supports:
Conflicts:
Insufficient:
Harmonized evidence statuses
Office of the Local Chief Executive / DILG Focal Office
Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage
Validate:
3 Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU
Need for Action (47.7%)
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
Awareness 63.8%; availment 40.5%; satisfaction 91.8%; need for action 47.7%.
 Married women outside school or reported work (Segment E) (49.1%)
Married women outside school or reported work (Segment E) has the highest concern signal at 49.1% for this indicator.
View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments
Model quality
Usable signal: F1 73.4%, ROC AUC 73.4%. The model shows helpful separation based on F1, ROC AUC, and gain over the majority-class baseline.
Strongest feature
Need Further Action (63.9% importance)
Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). Support 52.3%, confidence 81.5%, lift 1.04.
 Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
Supports:
Conflicts:
Insufficient:
Harmonized evidence statuses
Office of the Local Chief Executive / DILG Focal Office
Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage
Validate:
4 Public Information Services
Need for Action (46.2%)
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
Awareness 70.3%; availment 82.9%; satisfaction 94.8%; need for action 46.2%.
 Married locally working men (Segment D) (48.4%)
Married locally working men (Segment D) has the highest concern signal at 48.4% for this indicator.
View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments
Model quality
Usable signal: F1 70.3%, ROC AUC 70.6%. The model shows helpful separation based on F1, ROC AUC, and gain over the majority-class baseline.
Strongest feature
Need Further Action (92.9% importance)
Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). Support 52.3%, confidence 81.5%, lift 1.04.
 Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
Supports:
Conflicts:
Insufficient:
Harmonized evidence statuses
Office of the Local Chief Executive / DILG Focal Office
Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage
Validate:
5 Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays
Need for Action (46.0%)
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
Awareness 69.1%; availment 63.9%; satisfaction 95.1%; need for action 46.0%.
 Married locally working men (Segment D) (49.9%)
Married locally working men (Segment D) has the highest concern signal at 49.9% for this indicator.
View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments
Model quality
Usable signal: F1 70.7%, ROC AUC 72.0%. The model shows helpful separation based on F1, ROC AUC, and gain over the majority-class baseline.
Strongest feature
Need Further Action (86.7% importance)
Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). Support 52.3%, confidence 81.5%, lift 1.04.
 Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
Supports:
Conflicts:
Insufficient:
Harmonized evidence statuses
Office of the Local Chief Executive / DILG Focal Office
Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage
Validate:
6 Delivery of Frontline services
Need for Action (45.9%)
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
Awareness 84.0%; availment 73.6%; satisfaction 93.1%; need for action 45.9%.
 Young single student citizens (Segment B) (54.2%)
Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 54.2% for this indicator.
View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments
Model quality
Moderate signal: F1 66.1%, ROC AUC 65.5%. The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited.
Strongest feature
Need Further Action (90.3% importance)
Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). Support 52.3%, confidence 81.5%, lift 1.04.
 Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
Supports:
Conflicts:
Insufficient:
Harmonized evidence statuses
Office of the Local Chief Executive / DILG Focal Office
Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage
Validate:
7 Timely Response on Peace and Order and Public Safety-related incidents
Need for Action (45.8%)
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
Awareness 87.7%; availment 65.3%; satisfaction 92.0%; need for action 45.8%.
 Working male homeowners (Segment A) (47.6%)
Working male homeowners (Segment A) has the highest concern signal at 47.6% for this indicator.
View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments
Model quality
Moderate signal: F1 69.7%, ROC AUC 70.9%. The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited.
Strongest feature
Need Further Action (93.4% importance)
Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). Support 52.3%, confidence 81.5%, lift 1.04.
 Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
Supports:
Conflicts:
Insufficient:
Harmonized evidence statuses
Office of the Local Chief Executive / DILG Focal Office
Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage
Validate:
8 Conflict and dispute resolution in the barangays
Need for Action (42.4%)
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
Awareness 83.8%; availment 44.8%; satisfaction 94.0%; need for action 42.4%.
 Working male homeowners (Segment A) (44.3%)
Working male homeowners (Segment A) has the highest concern signal at 44.3% for this indicator.
View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments
Model quality
Moderate signal: F1 66.1%, ROC AUC 71.0%. The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited.
Strongest feature
Need Further Action (81.8% importance)
Respondents who availed the governance had a 81% likelihood of also were aware of the governance, and were satisfied with the governance (Lift: 1.04). Support 52.3%, confidence 81.5%, lift 1.04.
 Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
Supports:
Conflicts:
Insufficient:
Harmonized evidence statuses
Office of the Local Chief Executive / DILG Focal Office
Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage
Validate:
Priority method: Critical for satisfaction or need-for-action gaps of at least 50%; High for gaps of at least 40%; Medium for gaps of at least 20%; otherwise Low. Recommendations remain decision-support evidence and should be confirmed with service records, budget feasibility, field validation, and stakeholder review.
Showing 4500 of 4500 respondent records for All Mindanao records.