ABSTRACT
The main objective of this study is to assess budget allocation and utilization for community development programs as part of the resource management.
The researcher gathered and collected the targeted data of 20 faculty members to assess the budget allocation and utilization for community development programs as study of resource management in a university. The writer used 20 faculty respondents through quota and purposive sampling. The data were collected through a survey-questionnaire and undergone descriptive analysis such as frequency, weighted mean, and data range. Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1. Age
1.2. Gender
1.3. Highest Educational Attainment
1.4. Community Involvement
2. How do the respondents assess the practice of budget allocation and utilization for community development programs?
3. What recommendations could be given in budget allocation and utilization for community development programs?
Findings
1. Profile of the Respondents
This part of the study presents the profile of the respondents based on their age, gender, highest educational attainment, and community involvement.
There was an equal distribution of male (50%) and female (50%) respondents. Majority of the respondents are within the 31-40 (41.0%), the typical age of seasoned faculty members. As to the highest educational attainment, most of the respondent attained master’s degree (60%). When it comes to the community involvement, all 20 respondents (100%) are actively involved in extension services (95%).
2. Assessment on the Budget Allocation and Utilization for Community Development Programs
Among the assessment of budget allocation and utilization for community development programs, it was revealed that the respondents gained a composite mean of 3.71 with an overall interpretation of “strongly agree” and the standard deviation of 0.09 indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (average) value of the data set.
Indicator 1 which stated as “the community development provides clear information on how funds from the donation drive are allocated for community development programs” and indicator 3, “the community development office updates faculty and employees on the status of the donation drive” garnered the highest weighted mean 3.85 with an interpretation of “strongly agree”.
Meanwhile, indicator 10 which states “I feel comfortable raising questions about the budget allocation for the donation drive” garnered the lowest weighted mean of 3.45, SD of 0.59 and with an overall verbal interpretation of “agree”. Indicator 15 which states that “I am satisfied with the level of transparency regarding how my donations are utilized” garnered the second lowest weighted mean of 3.50, SD of 0.67 and with an overall verbal interpretation of “strongly agree”.
The findings indicate a strong consensus among respondents regarding the effectiveness of budget allocation and utilization for community development programs, with a composite mean of 3.71 and a low standard deviation of 0.09. Respondents particularly agreed that the community development office effectively communicates fund allocation details, with indicators 1 and 3 receiving the highest scores of 3.85. However, there is some hesitance about raising questions regarding budget allocations, as indicated by the lowest score of 3.45 for Indicator 10. In general, although respondents say they are satisfied with the openness of how funds are used, advancements in stakeholder trust and engagement in community development could be improved through communication office procedures.
see PDF attachment for more information