Social Welfare Services

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

6 indicators

Service Area Region LGU

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

Personswith Disabilities (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

Childand Youth Welfare Program

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

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 were aware of the social_welfare, and availed 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

For Social Welfare Services, the harmonized evidence identifies this service-stage concern: Need for Action in Older Persons / Senior Citizens Program (60.7%). The recurring factor to check is MCA Dim1 (MCA profile dimension) appears in 17 model(s) across 4 stage(s). The repeated service-stage pattern is Satisfaction pattern: 96.7% confidence, lift 1.09. 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.

Supporting Evidence Views

Citizen Segments: View segment profile and statistical support
Classification: View predictor and model readiness evidence
Association Rules: View repeated service-stage patterns

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.

6 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

Older Persons / Senior Citizens Program

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	Older Persons / Senior Citizens Program Need for Action (60.7%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 94.8%; availment 49.3%; satisfaction 83.7%; need for action 60.7%.	Retired or older home-secure citizens (Segment C) (63.9%) Retired or older home-secure citizens (Segment C) has the highest concern signal at 63.9% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 65.5%, ROC AUC 50.5%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature MCA DimMagnitude (50.1% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the social_welfare, and availed the social_welfare had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social_welfare (Lift: 1.09). Support 27.1%, confidence 96.7%, lift 1.09.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Social Welfare and Development Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:
2	Personswith Disabilities (PWD)Welfare Program Need for Action (56.5%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 66.8%; availment 15.3%; satisfaction 90.0%; need for action 56.5%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (79.3%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 79.3% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 41.0%, ROC AUC 43.7%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature MCA Dim1 (58.9% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the social_welfare, and availed the social_welfare had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social_welfare (Lift: 1.09). Support 27.1%, confidence 96.7%, lift 1.09.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Social Welfare and Development Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:
3	Programs for Internally Displaced Persons Need for Action (53.3%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 51.2%; availment 32.2%; satisfaction 92.8%; need for action 53.3%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (63.3%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 63.3% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 64.3%, ROC AUC 46.4%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature MCA Dim1 (73.5% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the social_welfare, and availed the social_welfare had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social_welfare (Lift: 1.09). Support 27.1%, confidence 96.7%, lift 1.09.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Social Welfare and Development Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:
4	Childand Youth Welfare Program Need for Action (49.1%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 88.6%; availment 53.3%; satisfaction 97.4%; need for action 49.1%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (52.9%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 52.9% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 52.8%, ROC AUC 48.7%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature Place of Work (27.7% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the social_welfare, and availed the social_welfare had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social_welfare (Lift: 1.09). Support 27.1%, confidence 96.7%, lift 1.09.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Social Welfare and Development Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:
5	Women’s Welfare Program Need for Action (46.6%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 80.7%; availment 49.3%; satisfaction 93.0%; need for action 46.6%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (51.1%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 51.1% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 45.3%, ROC AUC 45.1%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature MCA DimMagnitude (21.9% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the social_welfare, and availed the social_welfare had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social_welfare (Lift: 1.09). Support 27.1%, confidence 96.7%, lift 1.09.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Social Welfare and Development Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:
6	Family and Community Welfare Program Need for Action (46.0%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 62.0%; availment 46.6%; satisfaction 95.5%; need for action 46.0%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (56.6%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 56.6% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 50.3%, ROC AUC 50.4%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature MCA Dim1 (49.8% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the social_welfare, and availed the social_welfare had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social_welfare (Lift: 1.09). Support 27.1%, confidence 96.7%, lift 1.09.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Social Welfare and Development 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.