EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION AND CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED BY

PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THE DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: BASIS FOR CUSTOMIZED PLAN

Ferdinand E. Arcala
School Head
Kababa Elementary School

Abstract

This study assessed the extent of implementation and challenges of public

elementary school administrators and teachers in the Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Program (DRRMP) in the district of Sarangani, Division of Davao
Occidental during the school year 2016-2017. It examined their extent of
implementation and challenges in the three components, namely: disaster
preparedness and mitigation, disaster response, and disaster rehabilitation and
recovery. It also identified the topmost challenges encountered and the customized
plans to be taken by school administrators and teachers in implementing DRRMP.
The descriptive method of research was used employing the questionnaire as
the main data-gathering tool supplemented by interviews and focus group discussion.
There were 15 school administrators and 111 teachers in public elementary schools,
giving a total of 126 participants. Mean, standard deviation, and frequency and
percentages were used to treat the data.
Findings revealed that the school administrators and teachers implement the
three components of the DRRMP to a high extent indicating that they do the activities
in most situations. The foremost challenges of the school administrators and teachers
in the implementation of DRRMP were: lack of funds needed for disaster facilities and
equipment under the component for disaster preparedness and mitigation; No clear
and exact functions of evacuation center in the school under the component for
disaster response; and difficulty to maintain school drainage system under the
component for disaster rehabilitation and recovery.
The foremost customized plans to be taken by school administrators and
teachers in the implementation of DRRMP include: The school may make a
resolution/requisition letter addressed to the LGU DRRM/MDRRC in allocating funds
for disaster facilities and equipment for disaster preparedness and mitigation;
determine the exact functions of evacuation center in the school, then coordinate with
the LGU DRRM and MDRRC for the School Hazard Mapping for disaster response; and
there must be a monthly ocular inspection to maintain the school drainage system in
disaster rehabilitation and recovery.

Introduction

The effective and efficient implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction Management

Program (DRRMP) is the most pressing global issues today. Currently, as decades of
disaster risk data show, more than 226 million people globally are affected on average
by disasters associated with natural hazards every year. These include both geo-
physical events such as earthquake, tsunamis, and volcanos, and hydro-
meteorological events such as floods, cyclones and draughts.
As part of the Philippine territory, the Municipality of Sarangani Island, Davao
Occidental, formerly part of Davao del Sur is not exempted from these problems.
Sarangani Islands experienced typhoon Juan and Inday dated August 8, 2006, that
triggered landslide at Sitio Babantol and Barangay Konel, Sarangani, Davao del Sur.
Six were found dead and were not recovered. There was a municipal wide storm
surged with the total damage assessed to Php8,166,000.00 in crops, properties,
utilities, and facilities. This brought heavy rains and strong winds, causing storm
surges and toppling trees, localized flooding and forcing people to seek refuge in
emergency shelters. The typhoon hit the entire municipality which resulted in the
destruction of some schools especially nearby coastal areas and facilities (MDRRMC,
2006).

Statement of the Problem

This study assessed all aspects of the extent of implementation and challenges
encountered by public elementary school administrators and teachers in the Disaster
Risk Reduction Management Program (DRRMP) of Sarangani District, Division of
Davao Occidental during the school year 2016-2017.

Specifically, this study answered the following questions:

1. What is the extent of implementation on the Disaster Risk Reduction Management
Program among the public elementary school administrators and teachers considering
the components in:
1.1 Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation;
1.2 Disaster Response; and
1.3 Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery?

2. What are the challenges encountered by the public elementary school

administrators and teachers in the implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Program along with the three components in:
2.1 Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation;
2.2 Disaster Response; and
2.3 Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery?
3. What customized plan can be designed to address the challenges in the
implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction Management Program?

Methodology

Research Design
The research design used in this study was a combination of qualitative and
quantitative designs. It was quantitative in terms of its statistical computations and
qualitative because it involved a qualitative description on the challenges encountered
in the implementation of disaster risk reduction management program. The research
employed various methods to gather data and established the prevailing situation.
The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is an informal, guided discussions about a
particular topic. This is a brilliant method of getting an indication of how pervasive an
idea, value or behaviour is likely to be in the community. FGDs with 5-7 selected
public school administrators and public teachers with similar backgrounds were held
to gather opinions on DRRMP in the district (Peninsula Research and Development
Support Unit, s.a; Guijt and Woodhill, 2002). The semi-structured interviews comprise
of open ended questions to individuals selected for their knowledge and experience on
the subject. These were used to gain information, face-to-face, from the individual key
informants. The interviews were guided by a series of broad, instead of pre-
determined, questions that allowed new questions to feature in the discussions. The
interviews encouraged the respondents to express their views at length and this aided
in developing an in-depth understanding of qualitative issues with regards to this
research (Family Health International, s.a; Peninsula Research and Development
Support Unit, s.a, 2002).

Participants of the Study

The participants of this study are all public elementary school administrators
and public elementary school teachers assigned in Sarangani District. Purposive
selection of participants was done.
The school administrators are accountable to plan for disaster risk reduction
program and implement it. The entire district has a total of 117 teachers. Of this
number 8 are newly hired, 5 are retirables, and 3 are assigned in multi-grade schools
in the district.

Research Instruments

The instrument used in this research is a researcher-made questionnaire which

is composed of three parts. It is patterned from the Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction 2015-2030, the successor instrument to the Hyogo For Action HFA in
lessening disasters impact to school itself, children and staffs. This deals with the
school administrators and teachers challenges in the implementation of disaster risk
reduction management program. The items include: Disaster preparedness and
mitigation, disaster response, and disaster rehabilitation and recovery.

The triangulation of the methodology enhanced the quantitative and qualitative

approaches in this study which are useful in improving the validity, analytic power
and relevance of the findings. The used of questionnaire survey, FGDs actually cross-
check or triangulate themselves and interview. The mixture of informants also gave
balanced perspectives: the public administrators and public school teachers in
Sarangani District, Davao Occidental. So, by combining respondents, methods and
sources, the researcher aimed to overcome the intrinsic bias that comes with a single
source and single respondent research (Patton, 1990

Results and Findings

The salient findings of the study were as follows:

1. The three components of DRRMP in the school were implemented to a high extent by
teachers and administrators with disaster response obtaining the highest mean
followed by disaster rehabilitation and recovery; and disaster preparedness and
mitigation at last.
2. The foremost challenges of the school administrators and teachers in the
implementation of DRRMP were: lack of funds needed for disaster facilities and
equipment for disaster preparedness and mitigation; no clear and exact functions of
an evacuation center in the school for disaster response; and difficulty to maintain
school drainage system for disaster rehabilitation and recovery.
3. The foremost customized plans to be taken by school administrators and teachers
in the implementation of DRRMP include: The school may make a
resolution/requisition letter addressed to the LDRRMC/MDRRC in allocating funds
for disaster facilities and equipment for disaster preparedness and mitigation;
determine the exact functions of evacuation center in the school, then coordinate
with the LGU DRRM and MDRRC for the School Hazard Mapping for disaster
response; and there must be a monthly ocular inspection to maintain the school
drainage system in disaster rehabilitation and recovery.

Conclusions

Based on the findings, the following conclusions are made:

1. School administrators and teachers implement the DRRMP to a high extent,

therefore they do these mandated activities in most situations.
2. The school administrators and teachers have encountered challenges in the
implementation of DRRMP. Therefore, some indicators under each component were
not fully done by them in all situations.
3. Since there are customized activities suggested to address the challenges of DRRMP
implementation in every component, therefore the customized activities to be done
 should be followed and implemented.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are
recommended:

1. School administrators may require all the teachers to help in facilitating and
improvising early warning device and make a bulletin board for the DRRMP for the
sustenance of the program.
2. Teachers may emphasize, include and integrate DRRMP in school activities or in
lesson planning.
3. The school DRRMP coordinator may calendar the activities for monthly ocular
inspection of the old buildings to ensure the safety of the school community.
4. The school administrators, coordinators and teachers, may establish strong
linkages with the LGUs, NGOs, parents and stakeholders to integrate and
implement geo-hazard assessments and to promote understanding of forecasting
signals to prevent misconceptions and misunderstanding.
5. Rationalization of hazard map to ensure the safety of school structures like in flood-
prone areas, the inadequacy of flood control structures for example, may be
addressed.
6. The Municipal DRRM, LGU DRRM, and school DRRMP may work closely together to
address the gaps in DRRMP planning, implementation, as well as monitoring,
evaluation and documentation.
7. The school administrator or the school DRRMP coordinator may attend municipal
council meeting to lobby the allocation of budget for school DRRMP training and
equipment.
 References

Afedzie R, & MacEntire, D.A. (2010). Rethinking Disasters by Design. Disaster

Prevention and Management, 19 (1): 48-58.

Aguba, C.R. (2009). Educational administration and management: Issues and

perspectives. Enugu: Tons and Tons PDS.

Buckle, Marsh, & Smale, (2001). Reframing Risk Hazards.

Castro, T. (2012). The extent of school and community linkages in public

Elementary Schools. Unpublished master’s theses, Bukidnon State
University, City of Malaybalay.

DepEd Resource Manual, (2013)

Eyre, (2006). Assessment of Personal and Community Resilience.

Flynn, 1999, Salzer and Bickman, (1999). Psychological Aspects of Recovery.

Hassanain, M.A. (2006). Towards a design and operation of fire safe School
facilities, Disaster Prevention and Management, 15 (5): 838-846.
International Finance Corporation Disaster and Emergency Preparedness:
Guidance for Schools. 2010. [Online] Retrieved from: www.ifc.org [2016,
April 17].