English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The main objective of this study was to determine the stakeholders (faculty/personnel, students, and clients) perception in the implementation of LSPUs Discipline, Safety and Security Measures. The research method used for this study is descriptive research to gather information regarding the problem. It is specifically designed for the collection of data in order to test the hypotheses and answer the questions concerning the study. The respondents of this study were fifty (50) employees, fifty (50) students, and fifty (50) clients in each of the four campuses of the Laguna State Polytechnic University comprised of six hundred (600) total respondents from Siniloan, Santa Cruz, San Pablo City and Los Baños, campuses. The following statistical tools were used; weighted mean and standard deviation and Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The Pearson’s R was used to test the individual relationship between the Faculty/Personnel, Students, and Clients/Visitors perception on the implementation of Laguna State Polytechnic University’s Discipline, Safety and Security Measures. The study revealed that all indicators of Security Policies and Procedures to wit; Miscellaneous Rules and Regulations, Norms and Decorum, and Disciplinary Measures are all significant, although respondents from Faculty/Personnel, and Students are significantly different to Client. Indicators of Security Risk Management Practices namely: Approach, Responsibilities, and Resources are all significant, although respondents from Faculty/Personnel and Students are significantly different to Client. Indicators of Security Measures namely: Preparedness, Efficiency, and Effectiveness are all significant, although respondents from Faculty/Personnel and Students are significantly different to Client. As to Preparedness, all indicators of security policies/procedures, security risk management practices are significantly related to its security measures the first four indicators show strong relationship as follow: Security Policies and Procedures Miscellaneous Rules and Regulations (r= .732, p= <.01), Norms and Decorum (r= .691, p= <.01), Disciplinary Measures (r= .730, p= <.01), Security Risk Management Practices Approach (r= .761, p= <.01) and the last two indicators shows very strong relationship as follows: Security Risk Management Practices Responsibilities (r= .837, p= <.01) and Resources (r= .810, p= <.01). Significance is clearly manifested by p values that are all <.01 significance level. As to Efficiency, all indicators of security policies/procedures, risk management practices are significantly related to its security measures. The first four indicators show strong Security Policies/Procedures Miscellaneous Rules and Regulations (r= .720, p= <.01), Norms and Decorum (r=.702, p= <.01), Disciplinary Measures (r=.724, p= <.01) Security Risk Management Practices Approach (r=.761, p= <.01). The last two indicators shows very strong relationship as follows: Security Risk Management Practices Responsibilities (r= .832, p= <.01), and Resources (r= .810, p= <.01). Significance is clearly manifested by p values that are all <.01 significance level. As to Effectiveness, all indicators of security policies/procedures, risk management practices are significantly related to its security measures. The first four indicators show strong Security Policies/Procedures Miscellaneous Rules and Regulations (r= .729, p= <.01), Norms and Decorum (r= .715, p= <.01), Disciplinary Measures (r= .731, p= <.01) Security Risk Management Practices Approach (r= .771, p= <.01). The last two indicators show very strong relationship as follows: Security Risk Management Practices Responsibilities (r= .822, p= <.01), and Resources (r= .819, p= <.01). Significance is clearly manifested by p values that are all <.01 significance level.

STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTION IN THE LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY’S IMPLEMENTATION OF DISCIPLINE, SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES