Social Welfare Services

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

6 indicators
Avg Awareness
74.02%
Avg Availment
41.01%
Avg Satisfaction
92.08%
Avg Need for Action
52.04%

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.
iv · Need for Action

Older Persons / Senior Citizens Program

60.7% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness94.8%
  • Availment49.3%
  • Satisfaction83.7%
  • Need for Action60.7%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
iii · Need for Action

PersonswithDisabilities (PWD)Welfare Program

56.5% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness66.8%
  • Availment15.3%
  • Satisfaction90.0%
  • Need for Action56.5%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
vi · Need for Action

Programs for Internally Displaced Persons

53.3% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness51.2%
  • Availment32.2%
  • Satisfaction92.8%
  • Need for Action53.3%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
i · Need for Action

ChildandYouthWelfareProgram

49.1% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness88.6%
  • Availment53.3%
  • Satisfaction97.4%
  • Need for Action49.1%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
ii · Need for Action

Women’s Welfare Program

46.6% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness80.7%
  • Availment49.3%
  • Satisfaction93.0%
  • Need for Action46.6%
Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.
v · Need for Action

Family and Community Welfare Program

46.0% highest concern signal
Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.
  • Awareness62.0%
  • Availment46.6%
  • Satisfaction95.5%
  • Need for Action46.0%
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

ChildandYouthWelfareProgram

Aware Yes 88.64% · No 11.36%
Availed Yes 53.27% · No 46.73%
Satisfied Yes 97.41% · No 2.59%
Action Needed Yes 49.13% · No 50.87%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 3989 88.64 511 11.36
Availed 2125 53.27 1864 46.73
Satisfied 2071 97.41 55 2.59
Action Needed 1044 49.13 1081 50.87
ii

Women’s Welfare Program

Aware Yes 80.71% · No 19.29%
Availed Yes 49.34% · No 50.66%
Satisfied Yes 92.96% · No 7.04%
Action Needed Yes 46.57% · No 53.43%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 3510 80.71 839 19.29
Availed 1732 49.34 1778 50.66
Satisfied 1610 92.96 122 7.04
Action Needed 807 46.57 926 53.43
iii

PersonswithDisabilities (PWD)Welfare Program

Aware Yes 66.82% · No 33.18%
Availed Yes 15.34% · No 84.66%
Satisfied Yes 90.02% · No 9.98%
Action Needed Yes 56.49% · No 43.51%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 3007 66.82 1493 33.18
Availed 461 15.34 2545 84.66
Satisfied 415 90.02 46 9.98
Action Needed 261 56.49 201 43.51
iv

Older Persons / Senior Citizens Program

Aware Yes 94.78% · No 5.22%
Availed Yes 49.31% · No 50.69%
Satisfied Yes 83.74% · No 16.26%
Action Needed Yes 60.69% · No 39.31%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 4265 94.78 235 5.22
Availed 2103 49.31 2162 50.69
Satisfied 1761 83.74 342 16.26
Action Needed 1277 60.69 827 39.31
v

Family and Community Welfare Program

Aware Yes 61.96% · No 38.04%
Availed Yes 46.57% · No 53.43%
Satisfied Yes 95.53% · No 4.47%
Action Needed Yes 46.04% · No 53.96%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 2788 61.96 1712 38.04
Availed 1298 46.57 1489 53.43
Satisfied 1240 95.53 58 4.47
Action Needed 598 46.04 701 53.96
vi

Programs for Internally Displaced Persons

Aware Yes 51.18% · No 48.82%
Availed Yes 32.23% · No 67.77%
Satisfied Yes 92.85% · No 7.15%
Action Needed Yes 53.34% · No 46.66%
View counts
Stage Yes Yes % No No %
Aware 1996 51.18 1904 48.82
Availed 643 32.23 1352 67.77
Satisfied 597 92.85 46 7.15
Action Needed 343 53.34 300 46.66
<<<<<<< HEAD =======
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

24 indicator models

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

Finding 3

Association-rule evidence

Lift 1.09

The strongest repeated service-stage pattern is: Respondents who availed the social_welfare, and were aware of the social_welfare had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social_welfare (Lift: 1.09). This pattern was observed together 96.7% of the time for the eligible records.

Integrated research interpretation

The multi-model result for Social Welfare Services points to need for action in Older Persons / Senior Citizens Program as the main area needing attention. Clustering provides the citizen-segment lens, classification tests whether profile or segment variables help explain the service outcome, and association rules check whether the service-stage pattern repeatedly appears in the data.

Together, these findings show how the framework moves from citizen grouping, to prediction, to pattern discovery. The result should be treated as research-based decision support and validated with local service records, field context, and stakeholder review.

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 → Evidence → Decision → Action

Decision Matrix for Local Government Action

Cross-stage, clustering, classification, and association-rule results integrated into evidence-backed LGU actions.

0 action items
Rank Cross-Stage Result Clustering Result Decision Tree Evidence Repeated Service-Stage Pattern Recommended LGU Action Priority Implementation
No decision rows are available for the selected service area.
Priority method: Recommendations remain decision-support evidence and should be confirmed with service records, budget feasibility, field validation, and stakeholder review.
>>>>>>> 60d115e25d503c682390f0eacfec730c27bc35aa
Showing 4500 of 4500 respondent records for All Mindanao records.