SELECTED MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVES IN CITY OF CABUYAO, LAGUNA: ITS IMPACT TO LIVELIHOOD SUSTAINABILITY

8/18/2019 SELECTED MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVES IN CITY OF CABUYAO, LAGUNA: ITS IMPACT TO LIVELIHOOD SUSTAINABILITY

1/58

SELECTED MULTI-PURPOSECOOPERATIVES IN CITY OFCABUYAO, LAGUNA: ITS

IMPACT TO LIVELIHOODSUSTAINABILITY

BALAORO, Ika ClarishM.IBALE, Alexandra E.

MEDRANA, JennylyneS.

Guided y!"r#$. %ernan "eral&a

"resen&ed y!


2/58

Contents:

• Conceptual Framework• Research Methodology

• Statement of the Problem• Findings• Conclusions

• Recommendations


3/58

ONCE"T'AL (RAME%OR


4/58

1. Demographic profile of

respondents

2. The services acquired by the

members from the SelectedMulti-purpose Cooperatives

. The level of satisfaction on the

services acquired by the

members of the selected multi-

purpose cooperatives

!. The financial performance of

the selected multi-purpose

cooperatives

". The impact of the selected

multi-purpose cooperative to

livelihood sustainability

#. The significant relationship

bet$een the level of satisfactionon the services acquired and

the impact of selected multi-

purpose cooperatives to

livelihood sustainability

INPUT

SUSTAINABLELIVELHOOD OFITS MEMBERS

Analysis and

Interpretation of

data:• Interview• Survey

Questionnaire

Statistical ools:•Frequency and

percentage

distribution•Weighted Mean

• StandardDeviation•Chi square test

PROCESS

OUTPUT

FEEDBACK


5/58

ESEARC* MET*ODOLOG


6/58

Respondents of the Study

The proponents selected ulti!purpose cooperatives in

City o" Cabuyao# $aguna are MFM%C and C&M%C'( Theproponents involved the selected o""icers and ebers as

respondents in conducting the survey( Strati"ied )ando

Sapling technique was used in the study because it is the

appropriate technique since there are two classes o"

respondents( The proponents selected*+ out o" *, ebers

"ro MFM%C and -. out o" /0+ "ro C&M%C'( This saple

was obtained with the use o" Slovins Forula( Therespondents were chosen because the proponents believe

that they can give rational in"oration and insights about theipact o" selected ulti!purpose cooperatives to livelihood

sustainability(


7/58

Sources of !ata

The priary in"oration needed in the study was

gathered by the proponents and a trained

enuerator "ro the ebers and o""icers o" the

selected ulti!purpose cooperatives through

personal interview with the use o" pre!testedinterview guide or a questionnaire( In addition#

secondary data such as boo1s# articles and other

studies related to the current endeavor were used(

Moreover# "inancial per"orance analysis cae "rothe CD2 were used to collect relevant in"oration

that could not be e3plicitly elicited through the

interview schedule or the questionnaire(


8/58

Instrumentation and "alidation

The dra"t o" the questionnaires was presented to the

pro"essors and adviser in accounting "or soe odi"ications

and changes to the di""erent ites listed( In a1ing

in"erences and drawing conclusions# the instruent andtools that were used were questionnaires# interviews and

data coing "ro Cooperative Developent 2uthority

4CD25(


9/58

#$aluation and Scoring

SCA%# I&#RPR#AI'&

* 6ighly Satis"ied

0 Moderately Satis"ied

7 Satis"ied

/ Dissatis"ied

able A( Scale Particulars for %e$el of Satisfaction


10/58

SCA%# I&#RPR#AI'&

* Strongly 2gree

0 2gree

7 Disagree

/ Strongly Disagree

able )( Scale particulars for Impact to %i$elihood Sustainability


11/58

Rating Sca!

*(+,-.(// 0ighly Satisfied Strongly Agree

+(12-*(+1Moderately

Satisfied

Agree

2(3,-+(1/ Satisfied !isagree

2(//-2(31 !issatisfied Strongly !isagree


12/58

Stati"ticaT!c#ni$%!"

he Slo$in4s Formula was usedto deterine the nuber o" saple o"

the respondents(

n8 9

/: 9e7

Relati$e Fre5uency is a -easure#$ &he nu-er #$ &i-es &ha& an

een& #//urs. T#/#-0u&e &!ati'! (&!$%!nc),#ne #&ainsa (&!$%!nc) /#un& $#r &he

&al 0#0ula&i#n anda (&!$%!nc) /#un& $#r a

)F 8 F 3 /++ 9


13/58

*!ig#t!+ !an is a kind #$

aera2e. Ins&ead #$ ea/h da&a0#in& /#n&riu&in2 e3ually &he4nal !an, s#-e da&a 0#in&s/#n&riu&e -#re 56ei2h&7 &han#&hers. I$ all &he 6ei2h&s aree3ual, &hen &he !ig#t!+!an e3uals &heari&h-e&i/ !an 8&he re2ular5aera2e7 y#u9re used :.

; 8 ;"3 9

Stan+a&+ +!'iati.n is

a "tati"tic used as a -easure#$ &he dis0ersi#n #r aria&i#n ina dis&riu&i#n, e3ual &hes3uare r##& #$ &he ari&h-e&i/

-ean #$ &he s3uares #$

Stati"tica T!c#ni$%!"


14/58

C#i: is as&a&is&i/al t!"t a00lied se&s

#$ /a&e2#ri/al da&a ealua&eh#6 likely i& is &ha& any#sered di?eren/e e&6een&he se&s ar#se y /han/e. I& issui&ale $#r un0aired da&a $r#-lar2e sa-0les.


15/58

TEMENT OF THE PROB

/( What is the deographic

pro"ile o" the respondents#in ters o" their


16/58


17/58

The age brac1et o" *, to ,* 4*/ or

*/(.=5 coprised the a>ority o" the

ebers o" C&M%C' while "orMFM%C# a>ority o" the ebers

4/+ or 7,(+=5 are in the age brac1et

o" ,, to ?*(

Fin+ing"

/0/ Ag!


18/58

/07 Ci'iStat%"

Ci'iStat%"

CEMPCO MFMPCF 1 R F 1 R

Sin2le @> @>.> > @ >. >

Married @ >.H @ >@ >. @

Se0ara&ed .@ @.

%id#6ed . @>.

TOTAL F@.

@. able 2(+ he Fre5uency and Percentage !istribution in terms of

Ci$il Status


19/58

2s a whole# a>ority o" the

ebers o" C&M%C' 4./ or.7(@=5 and MFM%C 47/ or

,7(,=5 were arried(

Fin+ing"

/07 Ci'i Stat%"


20/58


21/58

Fin+ing"

/08 E+%cati.na Attain!ntFor C&M%C'# a>ority o" the ebers 4@-

or .+(?=5 were able to graduate in college

while the lowest nubers o" respondents 4/ or/(+=5 are high school graduate and others

were able to obtain their asteral degrees( For

MFM%C# a>ority o" the ebers 47/ or ,7(,=5

are high school graduates while only one o"the 4/ or 7(,=5 was able to graduate in

college(


22/58

L!ngt# .(M!9!&"#i

CEMPCO MFMPC

F 1 R F 1 R

Bel#6 @ @. > H @H. >.

. @. @ .@ @. >@ . H @H. >.

>


23/58

Fin+ing"

/06 L!ngt# .( M!9!&"#iThe greater part o" the ebers

o" C&M%C' 4*+ or *+(.=5 and

MFM%C 4/? or *+(+=5 has been aeber "or , to /+ years(


24/58


25/58

/0;0/ Ot#!& S.%&c!" .(Inc.!

Ot#!& ".%&c!".( Inc.!<

CEMPCO MFMPCF 1 R F 1 R

+es @ @. > @> . >N# @. @ > H. @

T.ta23

/440

4 64

/44

04

able 2(1(2 he Fre5uency and Percentage other Sources of Income


26/58

Fin+ing"/0; Inc.!

Ma>ority o" the ebers o" C&M%C' 47? or

7?(,=5 receive an average annual dividend that

ranges "ro %hp7#++/ to 7#,++ while the lowest

nubers o" respondents 4/ or /(+=5 receive anaverage annual dividend that ranges "ro %hp0#,+/

to *#+++ and "ro %hp*#++/ to *#,++( For MFM%C#

a>ority o" the ebers 47? or ?,(+=5 receive an

average annual dividend that ranges "ro %hp,++ to/#+++ while si3 o" the 4? or /,(+=5 receive an

average annual dividend that ranges "ro %hp/#++/

to /#,++( Ma>ority o" the ebers o" the two

cooperatives have no other sources o" incoe apart

"ro their current livelihood(


27/58

Most people who are interested in >oining to a

ulti!purpose cooperative are in the age brac1ets

o" *, to ,* and ,, to ?* years old# arried# with

secondary and tertiary educational bac1ground(Ma>ority o" the ebers stays in the cooperative

"or , to /+ years receiving an average annual

dividend o" %hp ,++ to /#+++ or %hp 7#+++ to

7#,++( $arge nuber o" ebers has no othersources o" incoe aside "ro the incoe coing

"ro their current livelihood and "ro the incoe

coing "ro the cooperative(

SOP /

C.nc%"i.n


28/58

7( What are the services the

ebers have acquired "ro

the selected ulti!purposecooperativesA


29/58

Seri/es A/3uiredCEM"CO M(M"C

( R ( RSalary L#an .H @

E-er2en/y L#an .F @. @Ri/e L#an .H >

Su00ly #$ seedlin2 >F H>.

Su00ly #$ $er&iliKers >H H.

Su00ly #$ 0es&i/ides > . >

(ar- E3ui0-en&

Ren&als @ . H

Gr#/ery I&e-s @ @. @ . "r#/essed (##ds .H @.

O&hers

Se-inarsTrainin2s > >.H @ HH. NOTE: Multiple Responses

able +(2 he Fre5uency and Percentage !istribution of Ser$ices ac5uired

by the Members from the Selected Multi-purpose Cooperati$es


30/58

Fin+ing" an+ C.nc%"i.n"SOP 7

The respondents have ultiple responses whichrepresent the nuber o" services they have acquired "ro

the two cooperatives(

The service which accuulated the highest "requency

and percentage is the salary loan "or C&M%C'( It eansthat a>ority o" the ebers o" C&M%C' are availing such

service( 'ther services which the ebers have been

acquiring are eergency loan# rice loan# availent o" grocery

ites# processed "oods# and seinarsBtrainings( For

MFM%C# the service which accuulated the highest"requency and percentage is the eergency loan( It also

eans that a>ority o" the ebers o" MFM%C are availing

such service( 'ther services are supply o" seedlings# supply

o" "ertiliers# supply o" pesticides and seinarsBtrainings(


31/58

0( What is the level o" satis"action

on the services acquired by the

ebers o" the selected ulti!purpose cooperatives# along with<

0(/ Credit services

0(/(/ Cash and0(/(7 9on!cash $oan

/ C +it S i


32/58

CREDIT

SERVICES

CEMPCO MFMPC

*M SD VI R *M SDV

I R

@. In&eres& ra&e

#n l#ans

.@

.

FF*S @

>.>H

.

HS

>.

>. l#an release

and

.F

.

H@FH@

*S >.

.

@

S @

.

re3uire-en&s

a//ess

.F

>

.

H*S >

>.>H

.

HS

>.

TOTAL

*EIGHTEDMEAN

8063

=6

40=3;

7 HS

7073

88

4062/

2 S

0/ C&!+it S!&'ic!"

able *(2 %e$el of Members> Satisfaction in terms of Credit Ser$ices

Legend:

WM= Weighted Mean

SD= Standard Deviation

VI= Verbal Interpretation

R=Rank


33/58

Fin+ing" an+ C.nc%"i.n"80/ C&!+it S!&'ic!"

In ters o" the credit services which were

identi"ied as a whole# a>ority o" the ebers o"

C&M%C' were 0ighly Satisfied with the

interest rate on loans while "or MFM%C#ebers were Satisfied with loan release( In

overall assessent# C&M%C' ebers were

highly satis"ied with the ipleented policies o"

the cooperative in acquiring loans while MFM%C

ebers were only satis"ied(

7 C S i


34/58

CONSUME

RSERVICES

CEMPCO MFMPC

*M SD VI R *M SD VI R

@. aailaili&y

#$ /#nsu-er

2##ds

>.F

F

@.F@

F

MS >.@.

.

S @

>. 0ri/es #$

/#--#di&ies

and

>.H@

@.H

MS @

@.>

.

H>DS

. arie&y #$

/#nsu-er

2##ds

>.FF

@.>

MS >. @.>

.H>

DS >

TOTAL

*EIGHTED

MEAN

70?44

?

/083/

3

M

S

/0;3

88

40?77

4DS

able *(+ %e$el of Members> Satisfaction in terms of Consumer Ser$ices

7 C.n"%!& S!&'ic!"


35/58

Fin+ing" an+ C.nc%"i.n"

807 C.n"%!& S!&'ic!"In ters o" the consuer services which were

identi"ied as a whole# a>ority o" the ebers o"

C&M%C' were Moderately Satisfied with theprices o" coodities while "or MFM%C# ebers

were Satisfied with the availability o" consuer

goods( In overall assessent# C&M%C' ebers

were oderately satis"ied with the overall product"eatures as to its availability# prices and variety

while MFM%C ebers were dissatis"ied(

8 S i T i i


36/58

8 S!ina& T&aining"SEMINARS@

TRAININGS

CEMPCO MFMPC

*M SD VI R *M SD VI R

@. 0r#-ul2a&i#n #$

/##0era&ie

0ra/&i/es and ne6

ideas in lielih##d

deel#0-en&

@.

H@.> S @.

>.>H

.F@ S >

>. i-0r#e-en& #$

&e/hni/al skills

@.

@@.>H S

>.

.H S @

. /##0era&ie

-ana2e-en& and

@.>

@.>>@ S

>.@

.F> S

. deel#0-en& #$ex0er&ise and

skills a-#n2 &he

-e-ers.

@.

H@.>H S @.

>.@H

. S

TOTAL

*EIGHTED /037=; /07;34; S 707/7; 40;=86/ STa9! 808 L!'! .( M!9!&"> Sati"(acti.n in t!&" .(S!ina&"@T&aining"


37/58


808 S!ina&@T&aining"The ebers o" C&M%C' were Satisfied with the

cooperatives capability to proulgate the cooperativepractices and new ideas in livelihood developent and to

develop the e3pertise and s1ills o" its ebers( ForMFM%C# the ebers are Satisfied with the cooperativescapability to provide iproveents to their technical s1ills( In

suary# C&M%C' ebers were oderately satis"ied

with the seinarsBtrainings conducted by the cooperative inorder to educate the ebers "or the atters regarding the

operations o" the cooperative as well as the iproveents

o" the ebers personal capabilities while MFM%Cebers were only satis"ied(


38/58

*( What is the "inancialper"orance o" the selected

ulti!purpose cooperatives# in

ters o"<*(/ %ro"itability %er"orance

*(7 Institutional Strength*(0 Structure o" 2ssets and

*(* 'perational StrengthA


39/58

Financia

Rati."

Mai%

Ra Sc.&!

NAME OF MULTI-

PURPOSE

COOPERATIVES

Act%a Sc.&!

CEMPCO MFMPC

"r#4&aili&y"er$#r-an/e > > @

Ins&i&u&i#nal

S&ren2&h> H H

S&ru/&ure #$ Asse&s > > @

O0era&i#nalS&ren2&h > >>

TOTAL /44 ?3 ;2P!&c!ntag!

Rating/441 ?31 ;21

V!&9aV!&)

Sati"(act.&) Fai&

able .(2 Financial Performance of the Selected Multi-Purpose

Cooperati$es


40/58

Fin+ing"

SOP 6 2s a result# the "inancial per"orance o" the twocooperatives based on pro"itability per"orance# institutional

strength# structure o" assets and operational strength was

signi"icantly di""erent( The result o" the "inancial

per"orance o" C&M%C' earned an overall percentagerating o" @.= based on the variables( It "alls under the

range o" @/!.+=# which has a verbal interpretation o" "ery

Satisfactory Performance while# MFM%C earned an

overall percentage rating o" ,-= based on the variables( It"alls under the range o" ,/!?+=# which has a verbal

interpretation o" Fair Performance( Fro the two

cooperatives# C&M%C' has a better "inancial per"orance

copared to MFM%C(


41/58

C.nc%"i.n

SOP 6In /#n/lusi#n ased #n &he resul&s, &he reas#n

ehind &he ery sa&is$a/ry 4nan/ial 0er$#r-an/e #$CEM"CO is &ha& &hey hae lar2e nu-ers #$-e-ers &ha& /an aail &he seri/es &hey 0r#ideand &he sys&e- #$ CEM"CO 6hen i& /#-es

arran2e-en&s a#u& eery &ransa/&i#n is eryreas#nale and &he asse&s #$ &he /##0era&ie 6eree/ien&ly used. This 2ies rise &he /#n/lusi#n&ha& &he i2 $a/r #$ a ery sa&is$a/ry0er$#r-an/e #$ CEM"CO is &he ex/ellen&0er$#r-an/e #$ 0r#4&aili&y and s&ru/&ure #$ asse&s.On &he #&her hand, M(M"C has s-all nu-er #$-e-ers and &h#se -e-ers are rarely a/3uirin2&he seri/es &ha& M(M"C 0r#ides as 6ell as &hey

hae als# 6eak 4nan/ial 0#si&i#n, s# &he resul& 6as


42/58

,( What is the ipact o"

selected ulti!purpose

cooperatives to livelihood

sustainability# in ters o"<

; /


43/58

;0/S.ciaSOCIAL

CEMPCO MFMPC*M SD VI R *M SD VI R

@. hae ne6 a/3uain&an/esand $riends

.> .@ SA H .@H . A

>. learn e a 2##d leaderand a r#le -#del #&her0e#0le

.HH .>HF SA F . .H A F

. e/#-e s#/iale. .F .>@HH SA . .H .H> A . learn &he real alue #$&ea-6#rk y hel0in2 #&hers

.> .F>H SA @ .> .HFH> A @

. 4nd &i-e a&&endin2di?eren& /#--uni&y 0r#e/&s

.F .H SA .@> .H@> A .

. learn $airness and e3uali&y .F .@@H SA . . .HFH A @@

H. re/eie su00#r& and hel0$r#- #&her -e-ers

.>H .H@ SA @> >.F .FH A @>

. in/rease -y &rus& and/#n4den/e

. .H SA @ .@> . A .

F. learn unders&and &heneeds #$ #&hers

.>H .H> SA @@ .> .@ A >

@. hear -y #i/e in de/isi#n-akin2

. .F> SA .>H .H SA @

@@. r#aden -y kn#6led2e

0ar&i/i0a&in2 in /##0era&ie6#rks and

.F . SA >. .@ .HF A H

@>. ex&end -y hel0in2 hands #&hers.

.F .>> SA >. .@ .>H A

T.ta *!ig#t!+M!an

806/

76

0

;;76

4

SA

80/46

7

0

;/3?

;

A

able 1(2 Impact of Selected Multi-purpose Cooperati$es to %i$elihoodSustainability in terms of Social


44/58


;0/ S.ciaMa>ority o" the ebers o" the C&M%C'

strongly agreed that the cooperative was able to

increase their trust and con"idence while a>ority o"the ebers o" MFM%C strongly agreed that the

cooperative was able to hear their voice in decision

a1ing( In overall evaluation# the C&M%C'

ebers strongly agreed while MFM%C ebersonly agreed that ulti!purpose cooperatives have a

social ipact(

;07 Ec.n.ica


45/58

;07 Ec.n.icaECONOMICAL

CEMPCO MFMPC*M SD VI R *M SD VI R

@. I a- n#6 /#n4den& &ha& -yines&-en& 2ains 0r#4& &hr#u2hdiidends

.>> .>HF SA @ .@H . A

>. I /an uy 3uali&y 0r#du/&s a&l#6 0ri/es

.>H . SA @> . .H A F

. I learned e &hri$& and sae-y -#ney

.F .H> SA . .H .H> A

. My kn#6led2e in usiness isenhan/ed

.@ . SA @@ .> .HFH> A @

. I s&ar&ed -ee& -y asi/

needs

.H@ .> SA H .@> .H@> A .

. I /an #rr#6 en#u2h -#ney in&i-es #$ needs

.> .H@ SA . .HFH A @@

H. I hae u0li$&ed #ur lies ande-0#6er #ur 4nan/ial#00#r&uni&ies

.F .F> SA . >.F .FH A @>

. I hae in/reased -y0ur/hasin2 0#6er

.H . SA .@> . A .

F. I 0ar&i/i0a&ed in lielih##d0r#2ra-s

.> .@> SA @ .> .@ A >

@. I hae a/3uired se/uri&y $#r#ur $u&ure

. .H SA . .>H .H SA @

@@. I had easy a//ess l#anand

. .H SA . .@ .HF A H

@>. I hae n# need $#r /#lla&eral

$#r l#ans.

.HF .@ SA > .@ .>H A

0 0able 1(+ Impact of Selected Multi-purpose Cooperati$es to %i$elihoodSustainability in terms of #conomical


46/58


;07 Ec.n.icaFor C&M%C'# a>ority o" the ebers strongly

agreed that they are now con"ident that their

investent gains pro"it while a>ority o" the

ebers o" MFM%C strongly agreed that becauseo" the cooperative# they have acquired security "or

their "uture( In overall evaluation# the C&M%C'

ebers strongly agreed while MFM%C ebers

only agreed that ulti!purpose cooperatives have

an econoical ipact(


47/58

?( Is there a signi"icant relationship

between the level o" satis"action on

the services acquired and theipact o" selected ulti!purpose

cooperativesA


48/58

L!'! .(

Sati"(act

i.n

SOCIAL

T.ta

C.%t

!+ C#i-

S$%a&!

D

(

C&itic

a

Va%

!

D!ci"i

.nVI

7 8 6

Credi&

@

>.Ha F.R!!ct

H.S

> @ > F > @ >

T.ta / 62 63 23

C#nsu-

er

Seri/es

@ @ @ @

>.@Ha @>.F>Acc!

t H.

N

S> H @ >> >

T.ta / 62 63 23 Se-inar

s Trainin2

s

@ @ >

@@.>@a @>.F> Acc!t H.

NS

> > > >

@H >>

T.ta / 62 63 23able ,(2 Significant relationship between the le$el of satisfaction on

the ser$ices ac5uired and the impact of C#MPC' to li$elihood

sustainability in terms of social

#conomical


49/58

%e$el of

Satisfaction

#conomical

otalComputed

Chi-S5uaredf

Critical

"alue

!ecisio

n"I

+ * .

Credit

/ / @ / -

7@(.,7a * -(*.. Re6ect 0o S7 + 77 - 0/

0 + /. *+ ,.

* / *@ ,+ -.

otal 2 .7 .8 78

Consu

mer

Ser$ice

s

/ / /- /, 0,

.(0-*a ? /7(,-7Accept

0o &S

7 + ? / @

0 + * ? /+

* + /. 7. *?

otal 2 .3 1/ 78

Semina

rs9

rainings

/ / 0? 7- ??

.(*00a ? /7(,-7Accept

0o&S

7 + 7 7 *

0 + * 7 ?* + , /@ 77

otal 2 .3 1/ 78

able ,(+ Significant relationship between the le$el of satisfaction on the

ser$ices ac5uired and the impact of C#MPC' to li$elihood sustainability

in terms of economical

S'CIA%


50/58

%e$el of

Satisfaction

S'CIA%

otalComputed

Chi-S5uaredf

Critical

"alue

!ecisio

n"I

+ * .

Credit

/ + + + +

*(+0+a 7 ,(--/ Accept0o

&S7 + 7@ 7 7-0 / . 7 //

* + + + +

otal 2 *1 . ./

Consu

merSer$ic

es

/ + /. + /.

,(@/*a * -(*.. Accept0o &S7 / /, * 7+

0 + 7 + 7

* + + + +

otal 2 *1 . ./

Semin

ars9

rainin

gs

/ + / + /

7(,/.a * -(*..Accept

0o &S

7 + 70 7 7,

0 / // 7 /*

* + + + +

otal 2 *1 . ./

able ,(* Significant relationship between the le$el of satisfaction on the

ser$ices ac5uired and the impact of MFMPC to li$elihood sustainability interms of Social

#conomical


51/58

%e$el of Satisfaction

#conomical

otal Computed Chi-S5uare !f Critical

"alue!ecision "I

+ * .

Credit

/ + + + +

(*.0

a

7 ,(--/

Accept

0o &S

7 / 7* * 7-

0 + - 7 //* + + + +

otal 2 *1 . ./

Consu

mer

Ser$ice

s

/ + /. + /.

.(*.,a * -(*..Accept

0o&S

7 / /0 ? 7+

0 + 7 + 7

otal 2 ** , ./

Semina

rs9

rainin

gs

/ + / + /

7(+--a * -(*..Accept

0o&S

7 + 7/ * 7,

0 / // 7 /*

* + + + +otal 2 *1 . ./

able ,(. Significant relationship between the le$el of satisfaction on the

ser$ices ac5uired and the impact of MFMPC to li$elihood sustainability in

terms of economical

Fi +i


52/58

Fin+ing"SOP =

For credit services o" C&M%C'# the null hypothesis is re>ected(There"ore# there is a signi"icant relationship between the level o"

satis"action on the services acquired in ters o" credit services and the

ipact o" C&M%C' to livelihood sustainability in ters o" social and

econoical(

For consuer services and seinarsBtrainings o" C&M%C'# the null

hypothesis is accepted( There"ore# there is no signi"icant relationship

between the level o" satis"action on the services acquired in ters o"

consuer services and seinarsBtrainings and the ipact o" C&M%C' to

livelihood sustainability in ters o" social and econoical(

For credit services# consuer services and seinarsBtrainings o"

MFM%C# the null hypothesis is accepted( There"ore# there is no signi"icantrelationship between the level o" satis"action on the services acquired in

ters o" credit services# consuer services and seinar trainings and the

ipact o" MFM%C to livelihood sustainability in ters o" social and

econoical(

C.nc%"i.n


53/58

C.nc%"i.nSOP =

For credit services o" C&M%C'# there is a signi"icant relationshipbetween the level o" satis"action on the services acquired in ters o"

credit services and the ipact o" C&M%C' to livelihood sustainability in

ters o" social and econoical(

6ence# the level o" satis"action o" C&M%C' ebers on credit

services acquired directly a""ects the ipact to livelihood sustainabilityin ters o" social and econoical(

For consuer services and seinarsBtrainings o" C&M%C'# there

is no signi"icant relationship between the level o" satis"action on the

services acquired in ters o" consuer services and

seinarsBtrainings and the ipact o" C&M%C' to livelihoodsustainability in ters o" social and econoical(

6ence# the ipact o" C&M%C' on livelihood sustainability in ters

o" social and econoical was not a""ected by the level o" satis"action on

consuer services and seinarsBtrainings(

C.nc%"i.n


54/58

For credit services# consuer services andseinarsBtrainings o" MFM%C# there is no signi"icant

relationship between the level o" satis"action on the services

acquired in ters o" credit services# consuer services and

seinarsBtrainings and the ipact o" MFM%C to livelihoodsustainability in ters o" social and econoical(

6ence# the ipact o" MFM%C on livelihood sustainability

in ters o" social and econoical was not a""ected by the

level o" satis"action on credit and consuer services and

seinar trainings(

C.nc%"i.nSOP =

R + ti


55/58

R!c.!n+ati.n"

/( For C&M%C'# since ebers were highlysatis"ied with the ipleented policies in availing

the credit services# the proponents recoend to

aintain and continue its well!"ounded policies( For

MFM%C# since ebers were only satis"ied# theproponents recoend to adapt ost o" the

ipleented policies "ro C&M%C' with regards

to acquisition o" loans "or better per"orance(


56/58

7( Eased on the results# consuer services were not

e""iciently contributing to the pro"itability o" both ulti!purpose cooperatives( There"ore# the proponents

recoend assigning an o""icer to be in!charge in

organiing and planning "or the goods to be distributed and

"or the anageent o" "orulating policies regarding

consuer services( I" the "und appropriated "or consuerservices is inadequate to increase the availability o"

consuer goods# at least provide the necessary goods

needed by the a>ority( For the two ulti!purpose

cooperatives# especially "or MFM%C# the proponents highlyrecoend to ad>ust the prices to becoe a""ordable "or

the ebers in a way that it gives no encubrances to the

part o" the ulti!purpose cooperatives(

0 For both ulti!purpose cooperatives the proponents


57/58

0( For both ulti purpose cooperatives# the proponents

recoend to the o""icers to give "ocus in conducting

seinars about iproving the ebers technical s1ills and

with providing the ebers 1nowledge about cooperative

anageent( The two ulti!purpose cooperatives ight

educate the ebers to becoe 1nowledgeable in

operating odern technology to increase their cooperative

per"orance(

*( The two ulti!purpose cooperatives ust regularly 1eep

an eye on the services that needs iproveents and

odi"ications# and on the services that needs aintenance

and continuity(

,( The proponents recoend to the two ulti!purpose

cooperatives to have regular evaluation with their

cooperative per"orance especially the "inancial aspect(


58/58

The End. Thank +#uP

Documents

SELECTED MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVES IN CITY OF CABUYAO, LAGUNA: ITS IMPACT TO LIVELIHOOD SUSTAINABILITY