SELECTED MULTI-PURPOSE

COOPERATIVES IN CITY OF
CABUYAO, LAGUNA: ITS
IMPACT TO LIVELIHOOD
SUSTAINABILITY
Presented by:
BALAORO, Ika Clarish
M.
IBALE, Alexandra E.
MEDRANA, Jennylyne
S.

Guided by:
Prof. Wernan Peralta

Contents:

Conceptual Framework
Research Methodology
Statement of the Problem
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

INPUT
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

Demographic profile of
respondents
The services acquired by the
members from the Selected
Multi-purpose Cooperatives
The level of satisfaction on the
services acquired by the
members of the selected multipurpose cooperatives
The financial performance of
the selected multi-purpose
cooperatives
The impact of the selected
multi-purpose cooperative to
livelihood sustainability
The significant relationship
between the level of satisfaction
on the services acquired and
the impact of selected multipurpose cooperatives to
livelihood sustainability

PROCE
SS
Analysis and
Interpretation of
data:
Interview
Survey
Questionnaire
Statistical Tools:
Frequency and
percentage
distribution
Weighted Mean
Standard
Deviation
Chi square test

FEEDBACK

OUTPU
T

SUSTAINABLE
LIVELHOOD OF
ITS MEMBERS

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Respondents of the Study

The proponents selected multi-purpose cooperatives in
City of Cabuyao, Laguna are MFMPC and CEMPCO. The
proponents involved the selected officers and members as
respondents in conducting the survey. Stratified Random
Sampling technique was used in the study because it is the
appropriate technique since there are two classes of
respondents. The proponents selected40 out of 45 members
from MFMPC and 98 out of 130 from CEMPCO. This sample
was obtained with the use of Slovins Formula. The
respondents were chosen because the proponents believe
that they can give rational information and insights about the
impact of selected multi-purpose cooperatives to livelihood
sustainability.

Sources of Data
The primary information needed in the study was
gathered by the proponents and a trained
enumerator from the members and officers of the
selected multi-purpose cooperatives through
personal interview with the use of pre-tested
interview guide or a questionnaire. In addition,
secondary data such as books, articles and other
studies related to the current endeavor were used.
Moreover, financial performance analysis came from
the CDA were used to collect relevant information
that could not be explicitly elicited through the
interview schedule or the questionnaire.

Instrumentation and Validation

The draft of the questionnaires was presented to the

professors and adviser in accounting for some modifications
and changes to the different items listed. In making
inferences and drawing conclusions, the instrument and
tools that were used were questionnaires, interviews and
data coming from Cooperative Development Authority
(CDA).

Evaluation and Scoring

SCALE

INTERPRETATION

Highly Satisfied

Moderately Satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Table A. Scale Particulars for Level of Satisfaction

SCALE

INTERPRETATION

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table B. Scale particulars for Impact to Livelihood Sustainability

Rating Scale
3.26-4.00

Highly Satisfied

Strongly Agree

2.51-3.25

Moderately
Satisfied

Agree

1.76-2.50

Satisfied

Disagree

1.00-1.75

Dissatisfied

Strongly Disagree

Statistical
Techniques
The Slovins Formula was used
to determine the number of sample of
the respondents.

Relative Frequency is a measure

of the number of times that an
event
occurs.
To
computerelative frequency,
one
obtains
afrequencycount
for
the
total
population
and
afrequencycount
for
a

n=

N
1+ Ne2

RF = F x 100
N

Statistical Techniques
Weighted meanis a kind of
average. Instead of each data
point contributing equally to the
finalmean, some data points
contribute more weight than
others. If all the weights are
equal,
then
theweighted
meanequals
the
arithmeticmean(the
regular
average
to).
Standardyou're used
deviationis
astatisticused as a measure
of the dispersion or variation in
a distribution, equal to the
square root of the arithmetic
mean
of
the
squares
of

= fx
N

Chi-squared test(2) is a
statisticaltestapplied to sets
of categorical data to evaluate
how likely it is that any
observed difference between
the sets arose by chance. It is
suitable for unpaired data from
large samples.

ATEMENT OF THE PROBL

1. What is the demographic
profile of the respondents,
in terms of their:

1.1 Age
Age
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 above
TOTAL

CEMPCO
F
%
R
0
0
12 12.2 4
29 29.6 2
41 41.8 1
16 16.3 3
0
0.0
100.
98
0

MFMPC
F
%
R
0
6
9
9
10
6
40

0
15.0
22.5
22.5
25.0
15.0
100.
0

4.5
2.5
2.5
1
4.5

Table 1.1 The Frequency and Percentage Distribution in terms of

Age

Findings
1.1 Age

The age bracket of 45 to 54 (41 or

41.8%) comprised the majority of the
members of CEMPCO while for
MFMPC, majority of the members
(10 or 25.0%) are in the age bracket
of 55 to 64.

1.2 Civil
Status

CEMPCO

MFMPC

Civil
Status

Single

12

12.2

10

25.0

Married

81

82.7

21

52.5

Separated

5.1

10.0

Widowed

0.0

12.5

100.
100.
TOTAL
98

40
Table 1.2 The Frequency and0Percentage Distribution0
in terms
of
Civil Status

Findings
1.2 Civil Status
As a whole, majority of the
members of CEMPCO (81 or
82.7%) and MFMPC (21 or
52.5%) were married.

1.3 Educational
Attainment
CEMPCO
Educational
Attainment
Elementary
Graduate
High School
Graduate
College UnderGraduate
College
Graduate
Others

TOTAL

1.0

17

MFMPC
F

20.0

3.5

21

52.5

17.3

10

25.0

79

80.6

2.5

1.0

3.5

0.0

98

100
.0

40

100
.0

3
1
2

Table 1.3 The Frequency and Percentage Distribution in terms of

Educational Attainment

Findings
1.3 Educational Attainment
For CEMPCO, majority of the members (79
or 80.6%) were able to graduate in college
while the lowest numbers of respondents (1 or
1.0%) are high school graduate and others
were able to obtain their masteral degrees. For
MFMPC, majority of the members (21 or 52.5%)
are high school graduates while only one of
them (1 or 2.5%) was able to graduate in
college.

1.4 Length of
Membership
CEMPCO
Length of
Membershi
p

Below 5
5-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
Above 35

31
40
23
3
0
0
0
1

MFMPC
R

31.6 2
7
17.5 2.5
40.8 1
16 40.0 1
23.5 3
6
15.0 4
3.1
4
4
10.0 5
0.0

7
17.5 2.5
0.0

0
0.0

0.0

0
0.0

1.0
5
0
0.0

100
100.
TOTAL
98 and Percentage Distribution
40
Table
1.4 The Frequency
in terms of

0
Length .0
of Membership

Findings
1.4 Length of Membership
The greater part of the members
of CEMPCO (40 or 40.8%) and
MFMPC (16 or 40.0%) has been a
member for 5 to 10 years.

1.5 Income
Income
from
Cooperativ
e

CEMPCO
F

MFMPC
R

Php500-1,000
10
10.2
5.5
26
65.0
1
1,001 1,500
20
20.4
2
6
15.0
3
1,501 2,000
11
11.2
3.5
8
20.0
2
2,001 2,500
26
26.5
1
0
0.0
2,501 3,000
11
11.2
3.5
0
0.0
3,001 3,500
10
10.2
5.5
0
0.0
3,501 4,000
1
1.0
8.5
0
0.0
4,001 4,500
1
1.0
8.5
0
0.0
4,501
5,000
8
8.2
7
0
0.0
Table 1.5 The Frequency and Percentage Distribution in terms of
Income100
from Cooperative

TOTAL

98

.0

40

100
.0

1.5.1 Other Sources of

Income
Other sources
of Income?
Yes
No
Total

CEMPCO

18 18.4
80 81.6
100.
98
0

MFMPC

R
2
1

12 30.0
28 70.0
100
40
.0

R
2
1

Table 1.5.1 The Frequency and Percentage other Sources of Income

Findings
1.5 Income
Majority of the members of CEMPCO (26 or
26.5%) receive an average annual dividend that
ranges from Php2,001 to 2,500 while the lowest
numbers of respondents (1 or 1.0%) receive an
average annual dividend that ranges from Php3,501
to 4,000 and from Php4,001 to 4,500. For MFMPC,
majority of the members (26 or 65.0%) receive an
average annual dividend that ranges from Php500 to
1,000 while six of them (6 or 15.0%) receive an
average annual dividend that ranges from Php1,001
to 1,500. Majority of the members of the two
cooperatives have no other sources of income apart
from their current livelihood.

SOP 1
Conclusion

Most people who are interested in joining to a

multi-purpose cooperative are in the age brackets
of 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 years old, married, with
secondary and tertiary educational background.
Majority of the members stays in the cooperative
for 5 to 10 years receiving an average annual
dividend of Php 500 to 1,000 or Php 2,000 to
2,500. Large number of members has no other
sources of income aside from the income coming
from their current livelihood and from the income
coming from the cooperative.

2. What are the services the

members have acquired from
the selected multi-purpose
cooperatives?

Services Acquired
Salary Loan
Emergency Loan
Rice Loan
Supply of seedling
Supply of fertilizers
Supply of pesticides
Farm Equipment
Rentals
Grocery Items
Processed Foods
Others
Seminars/Trainings

CEMPCO
F
%
R

84
45
83
0
0
0

85.7
45.9
84.7
0
0
0

0
40
0
29
27
32

0
100.0
0
72.5
67.5
80.0

16

40.0

41
34
0
32

41.8
34.7
0
32.7

18
6
0
31

45.0
15.0
0
77.5

6
8

1
3
2

4
5
6

MFMPC
%
R
1
4
5
2

NOTE: Multiple Responses

Table 2.1 The Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Services acquired

by the Members from the Selected Multi-purpose Cooperatives

Findings and Conclusions

SOP 2

The respondents have multiple responses which

represent the number of services they have acquired from
the two cooperatives.
The service which accumulated the highest frequency
and percentage is the salary loan for CEMPCO. It means
that majority of the members of CEMPCO are availing such
service. Other services which the members have been
acquiring are emergency loan, rice loan, availment of grocery
items, processed foods, and seminars/trainings. For
MFMPC, the service which accumulated the highest
frequency and percentage is the emergency loan. It also
means that majority of the members of MFMPC are availing
such service. Other services are supply of seedlings, supply
of fertilizers, supply of pesticides and seminars/trainings.

3. What is the level of satisfaction

on the services acquired by the
members of the selected multipurpose cooperatives, along with:
3.1 Credit services
3.1.1 Cash; and
3.1.2 Non-cash Loan;

3.1 Credit Services

CREDIT
SERVICES

CEMPCO
WM

SD

MFMPC
V
VI R WM SD
R
I

1. Interest rate 3.551

.
2.275
.
2.
HS 1
S
on loans;
0
65994
0
50574
5
2. loan release; 3.449
.
2.300
.
HS 3
S 1
and
0
71971
0
46410
3.
3.459
.
2.275
.
2.
requirements
HS 2
S
2
67608
0
50574
5
access
TOTAL
3.48 0.685
2.28 0.491
WEIGHTED
HS in terms of Credit Services
S
Table 3.1 Level of Members Satisfaction
64
2
33
9
MEAN

Legend:
WM= Weighted Mean
SD= Standard Deviation
VI= Verbal Interpretation
R=Rank

Findings and Conclusions

3.1 Credit Services
In terms of the credit services which were
identified as a whole, majority of the members of
CEMPCO were Highly Satisfied with the
interest rate on loans while for MFMPC,
members were Satisfied with loan release. In
overall assessment, CEMPCO members were
highly satisfied with the implemented policies of
the cooperative in acquiring loans while MFMPC
members were only satisfied.

.2 Consumer Services
CONSUME
R
SERVICES

CEMPCO
WM

SD

VI R

MFMPC
WM

SD

VI R

1. availability
2.693 1.3951
1.800
.
of consumer
MS 2.5
S 1
9
9
0
85335
goods
2. prices of
2.714 1.3847
1.325
.
commodities;
MS 1
DS 3
3
5
0
57233
and
3. variety of
2.693 1.3653
1.625
.
consumer
MS 2.5
DS 2
9
2
0
74032
Table 3.2 Level of Members Satisfaction in terms of Consumer Services
goods
TOTAL
2.700 1.381 M
1.58 0.722
WEIGHTED
DS
7
8
S
33
0
MEAN

Findings and Conclusions

3.2 Consumer Services
In terms of the consumer services which were
identified as a whole, majority of the members of
CEMPCO were Moderately Satisfied with the
prices of commodities while for MFMPC, members
were Satisfied with the availability of consumer
goods. In overall assessment, CEMPCO members
were moderately satisfied with the overall product
features as to its availability, prices and variety
while MFMPC members were dissatisfied.

.3 Seminar Trainings
SEMINARS/
TRAININGS
1. promulgation of
cooperative
practices and new
ideas in livelihood
development
2. improvement of
technical skills
3. cooperative
management and
4. development of
expertise and
skills among the
members.

CEMPCO
WM

SD

VI

1.836
1.26568 S
7
1.806
1.24070 S
1
1.826
1.25201 S
5
1.836
1.27380 S
7

MFMPC
R

WM

SD

2.275
1.5
.59861
0

4
3

1.5

2.300
.56387
0
2.100
.59052
0
2.175
.50064
0

VI R

TOTAL
1.826
1.2580 Satisfaction
2.212in0.563
Table 3.3 Level
of Members
terms of
WEIGHTED
S
S
Seminars/Trainings
5
5
5
41

Findings and Conclusions

3.3 Seminar/Trainings
The members of CEMPCO were Satisfied with the
cooperatives capability to promulgate the cooperative
practices and new ideas in livelihood development and to
develop the expertise and skills of its members. For
MFMPC, the members are Satisfied with the cooperatives
capability to provide improvements to their technical skills. In
summary, CEMPCO members were moderately satisfied
with the seminars/trainings conducted by the cooperative in
order to educate the members for the matters regarding the
operations of the cooperative as well as the improvements
of the members personal capabilities while MFMPC
members were only satisfied.

4.
What
is
the
financial
performance of the selected
multi-purpose cooperatives, in
terms of:
4.1 Profitability Performance;
4.2 Institutional Strength;
4.3 Structure of Assets; and
4.4 Operational Strength?

Financial
Ratios

Maximu
m Raw
Score

NAME OF MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVES
Actual Score
CEMPCO

MFMPC

Profitability
25
25
15
Performance
Institutional
20
7
7
Strength
Structure of Assets
25
23
15
Operational
30
23
22
Strength
TOTAL
100
78
59
Percentage
100%
78%
59%
Rating
Table 4.1 Financial Performance of the
Selected Multi-Purpose
Very
Verbal
Fair
Cooperatives
Satisfactory

Findings
SOP 4

As a result, the financial performance of the two

cooperatives based on profitability performance, institutional
strength, structure of assets and operational strength was
significantly different. The result of the financial
performance of CEMPCO earned an overall percentage
rating of 78% based on the variables. It falls under the
range of 71-80%, which has a verbal interpretation of Very
Satisfactory Performance while, MFMPC earned an
overall percentage rating of 59% based on the variables. It
falls under the range of 51-60%, which has a verbal
interpretation of Fair Performance. From the two
cooperatives, CEMPCO has a better financial performance
compared to MFMPC.

Conclusion
In conclusion based on the results, the reason
SOP 4
behind the very satisfactory financial performance of
CEMPCO is that they have large numbers of
members that can avail the services they provide
and the system of CEMPCO when it comes to
arrangements about every transaction is very
reasonable and the assets of the cooperative were
efficiently used. This gives rise to the conclusion
that the big factor of a very satisfactory
performance
of
CEMPCO
is
the
excellent
performance of profitability and structure of assets.
On the other hand, MFMPC has small number of
members and those members are rarely acquiring
the services that MFMPC provides as well as they
have also weak financial position, so the result was

5. What is the impact of

selected
multi-purpose
cooperatives to livelihood
sustainability, in terms of:

5.1
SOCIAL
Social

1. have new acquaintances

and friends;
2. learn to be a good leader
and a role model to other
people;
3. become sociable.
4. learn the real value of
teamwork by helping others;
5. find time attending
different community projects;
6. learn fairness and equality;
7. receive support and help
from other members;
8. increase my trust and
confidence;
9. learn to understand the
needs of others;
10. hear my voice in decision
making;
11. broaden my knowledge
to participating in cooperative
works; and
12. extend my helping hands
to others.

WM

CEMPCO
SD
VI

WM

MFMPC
SD
VI

3.4286

.55613

SA

3.1750

.50064

3.3776

.52789

SA

3.0500

.45007

3.4694

.52177

SA

4.5

3.0750

.57233

3.3265

.49274

SA

10

3.0250

.47972

10

3.3980

.58750

SA

3.1250

.60712

5.5

3.4694

.54117

SA

4.5

3.0000

.67937

11

3.2755

.67014

SA

12

2.9500

.59700

12

3.5000

.57884

SA

3.1250

.56330

5.5

3.2857

.47624

SA

11

3.2000

.46410

3.4388

.59320

SA

3.2750

.50574

SA

3.4898

.56065

SA

2.5

3.1000

.37893

3.4898

.52258

SA

2.5

3.1500

.42667

.
.
3.104
Total Weighted 3.41
5524 SA
5187 A
Mean
24
2
0
Cooperatives to5Livelihood
Table 5.1 Impact of Selected Multi-purpose
Sustainability in terms of Social

Findings and Conclusions

5.1 Social
Majority of the members of the CEMPCO
strongly agreed that the cooperative was able to
increase their trust and confidence while majority of
the members of MFMPC strongly agreed that the
cooperative was able to hear their voice in decision
making. In overall evaluation, the CEMPCO
members strongly agreed while MFMPC members
only agreed that multi-purpose cooperatives have a
social impact.

5.2 Economical
ECONOMICAL

WM

CEMPCO
SD
VI

MFMPC
WM
SD
VI

1. I am now confident that my

investment gains profit through
3.6224
.52789
SA
1
3.1750 .50064
A
dividends;
2. I can buy quality products at
3.2755
.53304
SA
12
3.0500 .45007
A
low prices;
3. I learned to be thrift and save
3.3469
.57620
SA
8.5
3.0750 .57233
A
my money;
4. My knowledge in business is
3.3061
.56364
SA
11
3.0250 .47972
A
enhanced;
5. I started to meet my basic
3.3571
.54205
SA
7
3.1250 .60712
A
needs;
6. I can borrow enough money in
3.4082
.57143
SA
5
3.0000 .67937
A
times of needs;
7. I have uplifted our lives and
empower our financial
3.3469
.53923
SA
8.5
2.9500 .59700
A
opportunities;
8. I have increased my
3.3673
.54466
SA
6
3.1250 .56330
A
purchasing power;
9. I participated in livelihood
3.3265
.58812
SA
10
3.2000 .46410
A
programs;
10. I have acquired security for
3.4388
.57556
SA
3.5
3.2750 .50574 SA
our future;
11. I had easy access to loan;
3.4388
.57556
SA
3.5
3.1000 .37893
A
and
12. I have no need for collateral
3.4796
.54166
SACooperatives
2
3.1500 to.42667
A
Table 5.2 Impact of Selected
Multi-purpose
Livelihood
for loans.

Sustainability in terms
. of Economical

R
3
9
8
10
5.5
11
12
5.5
2
1
7
4

Findings and Conclusions

5.2 Economical
For CEMPCO, majority of the members strongly
agreed that they are now confident that their
investment gains profit while majority of the
members of MFMPC strongly agreed that because
of the cooperative, they have acquired security for
their future. In overall evaluation, the CEMPCO
members strongly agreed while MFMPC members
only agreed that multi-purpose cooperatives have
an economical impact.

6. Is there a significant relationship

between the level of satisfaction on
the services acquired and the
impact of selected multi-purpose
cooperatives?

SOCIAL
Level of
Satisfact
ion

Credit

1
2
3
4

Total
Consum
er
Services

1
2
3
4

Total
Seminar
s/
Training
s

Total

1
2
3
4

Critic
Comput
Tota
D
al
Decisi
ed ChiVI
l
f Valu
on
Square
e

0
1
0
0

0
6
23
20

0
2
8
38

0
9
31
58

49

48

98

1
0
0
0

18
4
5
22

16
3
5
24

35
7
10
46

49

48

98

1
0
0
0

40
2
2
5

25
2
4
17

66
4
6
22

49

48

98

24.764a

9.488

Reject
S
Ho

2.157a

12.592

Accep N
t Ho S

11.216a

12.592

Accep N
t Ho S

Table 6.1 Significant relationship between the level of satisfaction on

the services acquired and the impact of CEMPCO to livelihood
sustainability in terms of social

Level of
Satisfaction

1
2
3

1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

7
22
18
47
49
19
6
4
18
47
36
2
4

1
9
40
50
48
15
1
6
28
50
29
2
2

9
31
58
98
98
35
7
10
46
98
66
4
6

17

22

47

50

98

Credit
Total
Consu
mer
Service
s

1
2
3
4

Total

Total

Computed
Critical Decisio
Total
df
VI
Chi-Square
Value
n

1
2
3
4

Semina
rs/
Trainin
gs

Economical

27.852a

9.488

Reject Ho S

8.394a

12.592

Accept
Ho

NS

8.433a

12.592

Accept
Ho

NS

Table 6.2 Significant relationship between the level of satisfaction on the

services acquired and the impact of CEMPCO to livelihood sustainability
in terms of economical

Level of
Satisfaction 2

1
2
3

0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1

0
27
8
0
35
18
15
2
0
35
1
23
11

0
2
2
0
4
0
4
0
0
4
0
2
2

0
29
11
0
40
18
20
2
0
40
1
25
14

35

40

Credit
Total
Consu
mer
Servic
es

1
2
3
4

Total

Total

Total

1
2
3
4

Semin
ars/
Trainin
gs

SOCIAL

Computed
Critical Decisio
df
VI
Chi-Square
Value
n

4.030a

5.991

Accept
NS
Ho

5.714a

9.488

Accept
NS
Ho

2.518a

9.488

Accept
NS
Ho

Table 6.3 Significant relationship between the level of satisfaction on the

services acquired and the impact of MFMPC to livelihood sustainability in
terms of Social

Economical
Level of Satisfaction

Credit
Total
Consu
mer
Service
s

1
2

0
1
0
0
1
0
1

0
24
9
0
35
18
13

0
4
2
0
4
0
6

0
29
11
0
40
18
20

33

40

0
0
1
0

1
21
11
0

0
4
2
0

1
25
14
0

35

40

1
2
3
4

Total
Semina
rs/
Trainin
gs
Total

Total

1
2
3
4

Computed Chi-Square

Df

Critical
Value

Decision

VI

.483a

5.991

Accept
Ho

NS

8.485a

9.488

Accept
Ho

NS

2.099a

9.488

Accept
Ho

NS

Table 6.4 Significant relationship between the level of satisfaction on the

services acquired and the impact of MFMPC to livelihood sustainability in
terms of economical

Findings
SOP 6
For credit services of CEMPCO, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Therefore, there is a significant relationship between the level of
satisfaction on the services acquired in terms of credit services and the
impact of CEMPCO to livelihood sustainability in terms of social and
economical.
For consumer services and seminars/trainings of CEMPCO, the null
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant relationship
between the level of satisfaction on the services acquired in terms of
consumer services and seminars/trainings and the impact of CEMPCO to
livelihood sustainability in terms of social and economical.
For credit services, consumer services and seminars/trainings of
MFMPC, the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant
relationship between the level of satisfaction on the services acquired in
terms of credit services, consumer services and seminar trainings and the
impact of MFMPC to livelihood sustainability in terms of social and
economical.

Conclusion
SOP 6
For credit services of CEMPCO, there is a significant relationship
between the level of satisfaction on the services acquired in terms of
credit services and the impact of CEMPCO to livelihood sustainability in
terms of social and economical.
Hence, the level of satisfaction of CEMPCO members on credit
services acquired directly affects the impact to livelihood sustainability
in terms of social and economical.
For consumer services and seminars/trainings of CEMPCO, there
is no significant relationship between the level of satisfaction on the
services acquired in terms of consumer services and
seminars/trainings and the impact of CEMPCO to livelihood
sustainability in terms of social and economical.
Hence, the impact of CEMPCO on livelihood sustainability in terms
of social and economical was not affected by the level of satisfaction on
consumer services and seminars/trainings.

Conclusion
SOP 6
For
credit
services,
consumer
services
and
seminars/trainings of MFMPC, there is no significant
relationship between the level of satisfaction on the services
acquired in terms of credit services, consumer services and
seminars/trainings and the impact of MFMPC to livelihood
sustainability in terms of social and economical.
Hence, the impact of MFMPC on livelihood sustainability
in terms of social and economical was not affected by the
level of satisfaction on credit and consumer services and
seminar trainings.

Recommendations
1. For CEMPCO, since members were highly
satisfied with the implemented policies in availing
the credit services, the proponents recommend to
maintain and continue its well-founded policies. For
MFMPC, since members were only satisfied, the
proponents recommend to adapt most of the
implemented policies from CEMPCO with regards
to acquisition of loans for better performance.

2. Based on the results, consumer services were not

efficiently contributing to the profitability of both multipurpose
cooperatives.
Therefore,
the
proponents
recommend assigning an officer to be in-charge in
organizing and planning for the goods to be distributed and
for the management of formulating policies regarding
consumer services. If the fund appropriated for consumer
services is inadequate to increase the availability of
consumer goods, at least provide the necessary goods
needed by the majority. For the two multi-purpose
cooperatives, especially for MFMPC, the proponents highly
recommend to adjust the prices to become affordable for
the members in a way that it gives no encumbrances to the
part of the multi-purpose cooperatives.

3. For both multi-purpose cooperatives, the proponents

recommend to the officers to give focus in conducting
seminars about improving the members technical skills and
with providing the members knowledge about cooperative
management. The two multi-purpose cooperatives might
educate the members to become knowledgeable in
operating modern technology to increase their cooperative
performance.
4. The two multi-purpose cooperatives must regularly keep
an eye on the services that needs improvements and
modifications, and on the services that needs maintenance
and continuity.
5. The proponents recommend to the two multi-purpose
cooperatives to have regular evaluation with their
cooperative performance especially the financial aspect.

The End. Thank

You!