Higher Education Institutions’ Risk Reduction ...oaji.net/articles/2015/352-1435945223.pdf · The possibility of being a victim is still lurking among the HEI’s. Having a disaster

Online Access: www.absronline.org/journals

*Corresponding author: Dr. Helen B. Boholano, Professor III, College of Teacher Education, Cebu Normal University, Philippine.

E-Mail: [email protected]

647

Management and Administrative Sciences Review

Volume 4, Issue 4

Pages: 647-678

July 2015

e-ISSN: 2308-1368

p-ISSN: 2310-872X

Higher Education Institutions’ Risk Reduction Implementation: Victor or Victim?

Dr. Jennifer D. Paño1, Dr. Ethel D. Abao2, and Dr. Helen B. Boholano3*

1. Assistant Professor III, College of Teacher Education, Cebu Normal University, Philippine.

2. Professor III, College of Teacher Education, Cebu Normal University, Philippine.

3. Professor III, College of Teacher Education, Cebu Normal University, Philippine.

This study aims to determine the level of implementation of the disaster-risk reduction of higher education institutions’ (HEI’s) along prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response and rehabilitation and recovery. A qualitative design was utilized in this study. Six higher education institutions were involved. This comprised two state universities, two private sectarian and two private non-sectarians in Cebu City. Respondents from each institution include Vice President for Administration, University Engineer, College Deans, faculty members, administrative staff, and students. Findings revealed that higher education institutions in Cebu City have done initial flurry on disaster risk-reduction management however considering that it is still sporadic for most of the respondents and on the initial stage for others; thus weaknesses are present. The possibility of being a victim is still lurking among the HEI’s. Having a disaster risk-reduction plan may better prepare the school community in the event of a disaster. The utmost desire of parents and school administrators is a safer environment. Hence, changing the mindset and scaffolding the skills on emergency preparedness of the school community are therefore recommended to becoming victors in the event of a calamity.

Keywords: School safety, disaster risk-reduction plan, higher education institutions

INTRODUCTION

afe school climate can be achieved through efficient, comprehensive and concerted efforts of the internal and external community.

Disasters are inevitable and have a major impact to the school, the students and the academic learning (ACEI, 2013). Despite the lion share of budget for education sector, still schools are prone to disaster. As stated by Matsura (2005) if schools can

anticipate, educate and inform the community then the impact of a disaster may be reduced. Parents are looking forward that the schools will care for the safety and well-being of their children.

Recent findings confirmed that there has been an increasing trend in the frequency of natural disasters across the globe in the last 50 years. This situation poses a higher risk considering that there

S

http://www.absronline.org/journals

mailto:[email protected]

Manag. Adm. Sci. Rev. e-ISSN: 2308-1368, p-ISSN: 2310-872X Volume: 4, Issue: 4, Pages: 647-678

648

is an increasing population and urbanization in addition to the physical assets in areas more exposed to disaster. The Philippines has recently experienced two of the worst calamities of the new millennium - the 7.2 magnitude earthquake in October 2013 and the “mega-typhoon” Yolanda (Haiyan) in November of the same year. As reported by the Philippine Humanitarian Response- Education Cluster (2013), there were 1.4 million school-aged children affected by typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) and 275,855 school children affected by the Bohol earthquake. This confirms the findings of Ministry of Home Affairs-India (2004) that “many of the schools do not address the issue of safety”.

It is the foremost desire of every stakeholder to ensure the safety and well-being of their students while in school. Big HEI’s in Cebu are mostly located in the highly urbanized parts of the City. The regular occupants of the HEI’s in addition to the posted 2.55 million Cebu City population (Census, 2010) altogether may pose a high vulnerability and hazard in cases of calamity. The necessity of a disaster risk reduction management deems it indispensable for the safety of the school community. Thus there is a need to examine the disaster risk reduction management plan of the higher education institutions with the goal of assessing the HEI’s level of safety implementation. Hence, this study was conducted.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study is anchored on Republic Act 10121 series of 2010, otherwise known as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction Management Act of 2010. Among the main concerns of this law pertinent to this study are as follows: a) Uphold the people’s constitutional rights to life and property by addressing the root causes of vulnerabilities to disasters, strengthening the country’s institutional capacity for disaster risk reduction and management and building the resilience of local communities to disasters including climate change impacts; b) Adhere to and adopt the universal norms , principles and standards of humanitarian assistance and the global effort on risk reduction as concrete expression of the country’s commitment to overcome human sufferings due to recurring disasters; c) Adopt a disaster risk reduction management approach that

is holistic, comprehensive, integrated and proactive in lessening the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of disasters including climate change, and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors and all stakeholders concerned, al all levels, especially the local community; d) Develop and strengthen the capacities of vulnerable and marginalized groups to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the effects of disasters.

One of its mandate as stipulated in Section 6 a). Is the development of a National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework (NDRRMF). The said framework was signed for approval on June, 2011, with a vision of providing a “safer, adaptive and disaster-resilient Filipino communities towards sustainable development”. The Disaster Risk Reduction Management was subdivided into four thematic areas. These are Prevention and Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Rehabilitation and Recovery.

As stated in RA 10121 and as used in this study, disaster prevention refers to the outright avoidance of adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters, while disaster mitigation refers to the lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters. Mitigation measures encompass engineering techniques and hazard-resistant construction, environmental policies and public awareness. The higher education institutions were examined with or using the lens of prevention and mitigation with focus on non-structural safety and existing policies and capacity enhancement of the school community.

Disaster Preparedness was defined by law as the knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from, the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazards events or condition. HEI’s in this aspect will be examined based on strengthened capacities of communities to anticipate, cope and recover from the negative impacts of emergency situations and disasters. Further, activities revolving around community awareness and understanding, contingency planning; and conduct of local drills were also considered (NDRRMP, 2011).

Disaster Response “focuses on actual disaster response operations from needs assessment to


649

search and rescue to relief operations to early recovery activities. Its main target is to have a successful disaster response operations and its smooth transition towards early and long term recovery work” (NDRRMP, 2011). Rehabilitation and Recovery is the ability of the institution to restore normal conditions in the school community (UNESCO,2012).

METHODOLOGY

Research Method

This study made use of a survey design on the level of implementation to measure knowledge awareness on risk reduction considering its quantitative nature.

Research Environment

The study focused on selected universities in Cebu City, Philippines. Two state universities : Cebu Technological University and (A), Cebu Normal University (B); private sectarian universities: University of San Jose Recoletos and University of San Carlos and: private non-sectarian universities: University of the Visayas and University of Southern Philippines Foundation.

Research Respondents

The higher education institutions in Cebu City and their corresponding officials and students were the subjects and respondents of this research. In determining knowledge awareness on risk reduction, a longitudinal representation from various sectors of the school community life became part of this study. Respondents from each institution include vice president for administration, university engineer, college deans, faculty members, administrative staff, and students.

Research Instruments

Primary data were utilized in this research. A School Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Level of Implementation Instrument using likert scale were used in the entire study to assess the knowledge level of the school community. It is a researcher-made instrument adapted and modified from the United Nations-International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN-ISDR) Asia and the Pacific

(2010). It is a fifteen-page instrument answered by the various sectors of the university, focusing on the four thematic areas of disaster risk reduction management namely: Prevention and Mitigation, Disaster Preparedness, Response and Rehabilitation and Recovery. It made use of a five-point likert scale which aims to determine the disaster risk reduction level of implementation of the higher education institutions. The five-point likert scale signifies the various level of implementation with the following interpretations: 5 – very high level; 4 – high level; 3 – average; 2 – low level and 1 very low level.

Data Gathering Procedure

Preliminary procedures such as seeking permission from university heads and coordination with the possibly involved university personnel were done in preparation for this study.

The “School Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Level of Implementation Instrument” was given to a point person in the college/department for distribution to pre-identified school personnel whose work is related to disaster risk reduction management of the school; or were personally handed to the target respondents. Dates were identified by the respondents on the date and time for the retrieval of the said instrument. Data collection was done from July to August, 2014.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There are four thematic areas in disaster risk reduction in the Philippines. These include 1) prevention and mitigation, 2) preparedness, 3) response and 4) rehabilitation and recovery.

Disaster Prevention and Mitigation

In this area of prevention and mitigation, there were ten parameters assessed. These include leadership for the establishment of DRR, committee made of several university personnel, development, review and implementation of DRR plan, Organization of emergency brigades, emergency preparedness training and drill, emergency warning system, coordination with local authorities, integration of emergency preparedness into the curriculum, procurement storage, and maintenance of emergency supplies/equipment and procedure for regular maintenance.


650

Safety is the role of everybody in the school community. The measures undertaken by the HEI’s were a good start which has to be further enhanced.

The summary table for the Prevention and Mitigation measures of the university respondents is found in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1 HERE

It is noteworthy to mention that University C, D (both private sectarian universities) and F (private non-sectarian) have higher implementation than the rest of HEI’s on most of the prevention and mitigation measures. The school leadership could have propelled the presence of DRR plan and the installation of emergency warning system. Further, Khan (2008) posits that the absence of a central authority, internal and external coordination is considered a culprit for the failure of a disaster plan. As shown in Table 1, all universities provide a central leadership thus, making coordination easier.

Various committees made up of university personnel from various strata were perceived by all the respondents. This arrangement follows the suggestion of Action Aid International (2010) which states that the safety committee should be composed of teachers, administrative personnel and students which will create a wider community utilization eventually generating a powerbase for a speedy dissemination of disaster risk education information. Moreover, Johnson, (2000), reiterated that all phases of the emergency management has to be gathered, organized and logically framed to be appropriate to the scope and breadth of the safety program, before it can be implemented effectively. Further, HEI’s were compliant to CMO no. 9 series of 2013 section 28.3 which mandates “regular conduct of earthquake and fire drills involving majority of students, teaching and non-teaching personnel”. As purported by University F, “Apart from drills, we also include orientations on safety in four different programs in a year”.

Local and national government offices should be partners with the school even before crisis situations. Being the first responders, they have the civil responsibilities of protecting the school community (Khan, 2008). One University D respondent confirmed the following: “Every time we have the drill, the PNP, Red Cross, Bureau of Fire Protection, ERUF, PLDT, DEPED and CHED

representatives are monitoring and evaluating our drills”.

The graph below presents the summary data of the findings on prevention and mitigation.

FIGURE 1 HERE

From the figure above it can be gleaned that the two SUC’s had low implementation on prevention and mitigation. Several factors can be attributed to this: 1. SUC’s had several displacements and on-going constructions due to the most recent earthquake thus, DRR is not included in the priority; 2. Safety committee and DRR plan is still a work in progress. As one of their engineers in University A said, ”I am now doing a proposal to have a DRR committee, this will be next in line in our forthcoming administrative meeting.” While University B administrator confirmed, “Our DRR committee has proposed a DRR plan, It was already forwarded to our BOR for approval”. An old adage states that, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Prevention and mitigation measures are the main responsibility of the school administrators in securing a safer environment.

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

This section presents the sections of disaster preparedness which includes DRR plan, components of school emergency and disaster preparedness plan, emergency evacuation plan and emergency responsibilities of stakeholders.

TABLE 2 HERE

On Disaster Risk-Reduction Plan

The safety plan was characterized by UNISDR (2010) in having specific directions, updated, with simple step by step and standard procedures to follow and has a clear chain of command. From the table above, University C, D (both private sectarian) and F (private non-sectarian) had high implementation preparedness results. These universities probably capitalized on NSTP/CWTS in the knowledge- equipping on DRR. Thus all freshmen students and trainers per college were knowledgeable on specific directions of DRR. One of the achievements of University in relation to this is their being the champion in the “Fire Olympics” competition in 2013, thus winning explains why


651

they are very familiar with the directions of their safety plan.

However, specific preparedness measure was unfamiliar to the respondents of A, B and E. As separately claimed by teacher and student respondents, “I am not aware of any DRR plan in the campus.” Probably the DRR activities (if present) may not have cascaded to certain levels of the school community. It can also be considered that there may not be a tangible DRR plan; however, the universities claim to do drills on safety.

A continuous and constant risk reduction practice will reduce casualty (Shaw, 2012). This DRR plan moreover, has to be kept current and constantly reviewed in order to be successful. University C,D and F have been proactive in the said plan review, which explains their high level of implementation shared. “The various government service agencies like ERUF, Bureau of Fire and PNP served as our audience in the various emergency drills. They monitor and evaluate our DRR plan.” Its constant review and critiquing from other government service agencies can reduce overlapping of efforts, make the plan more realistic, increase the overall efficacy of the safety plan (IFRC,2000).

One risk communication strategy is the ability to translate scientifically assessed risk factors into easily understandable terminologies (Birkham, 2011). The plan as implemented in the school should be understood by the populace. Standard operating procedure (SOP) has the intention of standardizing the procedures in doing specific tasks, speed up integration of an individual into the intended culture of safety, and provide a valuable structure for internal communication, offers valuable background for monitoring, evaluation and improvement of plans. On top of these, standard operating procedures assist in knowledge transfer and skill (EBTE, 2012). Thus, proper compliance to the standard operating procedure would tantamount to safety for everybody. In relation to this, University C, D and F had a high implementation of the preparedness measure. Conversely, University C had recently implemented an emergency drill, thus, the familiarization and scaffolding of emergency procedure still need fine-tuning. As quoted from the comment of one faculty respondent, “There should have been the marshals to assist the students’ evacuation outside the school. Consequently, students

walk on all directions, eventually, the gate was clogged by all evacuees in the drill.” This is one indicator that the populace were not fully aware of the evacuation process, a parameter of emergency drill.

UNISDR (2010) prescribed that the DRR plan should contain specific instructions with a clear chain of command. University C, D and E has high implementation, which can be attributed to their distinct safety and security office, manned by expert personnel. These personnel and specific office made the chain of command clear for everybody. As identified by IFRC (2000), a clear chain of command is one of the key to effective implementation of the safety plan considering that it may coordinate timing, quality and efficacy of the response to an emergency.

Over all, an average implementation of the HEI’s on disaster risk-reduction plan was brought about by maximizing the use of NSTP/CWTS and having a distinct safety and security office.

On Components of a School Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Plan

There are various components of a school emergency and disaster preparedness plan. These may include a complete contact information of the safety committee members, complete contact numbers of the emergency and support agencies (e.g. fire departments, hospitals, police, radio and television stations etc.), maps and floor plans, topographic maps and street maps, floor plans and site plans of the school facilities, school evacuation map, emergency warning systems, school buildings as shelters, emergency preparedness orientation and drills for the school populace, a procedure for informing parents and guardian through any means of communication revealing equipment that may pose danger, school property inventory, provision of emergency transport for students and staff, alternate warning system for power failure, contingency plan for student learning and off-site back-up of important school records.

Referring to table 2, University C, D and F incurred a high implementation in complying with the components of a school emergency and disaster preparedness plan. In the course of data gathering, Universities D and F showed out rightly the list of contact numbers of their safety and security officer and their contact numbers.


652

The second component is the presence of contact numbers of emergency and support agencies such as fire departments, hospitals, police, and radio and television stations on all school offices. Local and national offices are the first responders in an emergency situation, thus every office should have an access to their numbers apart from the telephone directories. Each office is provided with telephone directories by the telephone companies. Thus the reliance on the directories could be ascribed to the low implementation of University A and B and E.

School site maps, neighbourhood maps, evacuation maps and topographic maps are vital tools to visualize and record risks and resources in the campus and in the community (IFC, 2010). School site maps, neighbourhood maps, and evacuation maps were posted on designated areas on every floor for every building in Universities C, D, and F, thus visible to everybody. As prescribed by the Fire Code of the Philippines, Section 10.2.6.4, “emergency evacuation plan shall be posted on strategic and conspicuous locations in the building. This shall be drawn with a photoluminiscent background to be readable in case of power failure.” The aforementioned universities complied the requirements as seen during the researchers’ visit to the said schools However, maps in universities A, and B, were inconspicuous or are not available on designated areas. There were many claims of administrative personnel and faculty members saying that, “formerly those maps were seen visibly along corridors and buildings, however, at present we do not know where those are”. Its absence could probably be due to school construction and disorganized school arrangements brought about by the recent earthquake.

Moreover, topographic maps, and street maps, floor plans and site plans, were not available by any of the HEI’s. The school administrator might have the mental map of the schools location. Further, floor plans and site plans are mandated in the building code of the Philippines, thus they must have it, however, was not shown to the researcher due to their stringent preparation for accreditation.

The intention of the alarm system is to inform the school populace of the actual or impending danger. This warning should be in addition to the public address system of the institution. The early warning system empowers individuals and

communities for a timely and appropriate response to hazards (Jacks, 2010). Further, in compliance to RA 9514 series of 2008 (Fire Code of the Philippines) section D no. 2, all schools should have a fire alarm system. Fortunately, all the HEI respondents claimed to have a bell or siren as an emergency warning. Nevertheless, A, B and E alarms were not sufficiently heard by everybody in the school thus a low level implementation score. As some of the students said, “We have not heard an alarm system in our school yet.”

Another disaster preparedness measure is the availability of school buildings which may be used as evacuation area after a disaster. Sheltering-in-place is a tactic for reducing exposure of the community to natural or man-made calamity Major Emergency Management’ (2006). Upon evacuation due to a disaster, school buildings can be a haven of safety.

The inability of university A, B and E to possibly provide shelter-in-place can be ascribed to series of building constructions, the make-shift classrooms and a limited campus space. Thus, the respondents felt that their academic space at present condition, were so limited to share with the community.

Emergency preparedness plan, orientation and drills should be conducted for all students, teachers and staff. This component was mandated in CMO no. 9 series of 2013 section 28 “There shall be a regular conduct of earthquake and fire drills involving majority of students and teaching and non-teaching personnel.” Further, all the respondents claim that they have had an orientation and drill in their respective campuses. In this study, figure 3 presents University C, D and F obtained a high level of implementation thus, were compliant to the CMO. The lowest level implementation was obtained by University A. This has supported that the statement of one of the faculty, “We did not receive any training on DRR.” It is strongly believed that the administrators were doing their job in the safe keeping of the school however; it may still need more emphasis on emergency preparations by giving orientation and drill to the school community.

During school emergency situations, parents or guardians should be informed through any form of media. In the course of data gathering, Univ C, D and F were able to discuss thoroughly how they


653

would coordinate with parents/guardians during emergency situation. Some respondents were Nursing faculty, thus, it is mandatory for them to have a list of parents/guardians’ contact number. “First thing on the first day of classes, we ask students to fill out personal information sheets for us to communicate should there be emergencies.” Moreover, these universities were making use of local radio stations in giving public announcements. As stated by Jacks et.al, (2010), media can be a stakeholder partner during crisis, in order to effectively communicate risks and possible actions during crisis situations. In making it more organized, there should be an identified officer to relate the necessary emergency data to the media (IFRC, 2000).

The school needs an inventory of equipment in order to assess possible hazard during emergency (UNISDR,2010). Chemicals and other equipment are found in the laboratories, stock rooms and other storage facilities. Despite its usefulness, it may also pose a risk if used unsafely or released in harmful amounts (EPA, 2006). The number of personnel in the supply or physical plant may dictate the presence or absence of such inventory. This finding is supported by the Constraints theory which states that organizational performance is affected by constraints which can prevent an organization from maximizing its performance and reaching their goal.

Each HEI has its own transportation means. However, in times of crisis the need for emergency vehicle is crucial. As pertaining to DBM National Budget Circular No. 446 series of 1995. Government vehicle are restricted for “those deemed necessary and appropriate for the officials authorized to use the official vehicles for the performance function or activities requiring transport mobility”. Referring to the said provision, University A incurred a low level of implementation. Their official vehicles were restricted to performance functions and occasional mobility transport. Having similar number of vehicles, University C had a high implementation, this can be due to their willingness for a car pool. “We asked some of the personnel of the university who has their own vehicle, and most of them are willing for a car pool should there be an emergency”, one priest administrator said, “Being a private university, several personnel and even students possesses a vehicle,

thus their safety and security personnel affirmed the carpooling in case of emergency.”

Power failure in the Philippines is either announced or unannounced. On both circumstances however, most universities may either have a generator set or just bear the power failure until it resume its service. Emergency light system is usually provided as a temporary relief. University C was rated to have a high level of implementation. Considering that all their classrooms are air-conditioned, thus they have ready stand-by generators. However, classes may resume in the state universities despite the power outage taking into account that stand-by generator set are for specific offices and not for classroom use only.

Continuity of learning is deemed necessary right after a disaster. HEI’s must have included this in their strategic planning. The Sloan Consortium (University of Texas, 2009) described continuity of learning as a process of uninterrupted learning despite the crisis situation brought about by natural or man-made disaster. Among the HEI’s, University C,D and F had an average implementation on contingency for learning continuity. Average score may mean that there could be contingency plans in mind as suggested by few faculty members and college deans such as “modules and online works”. Moreover, low scores of university A,B and E would mean little or no preparation at all. The same finding was reinforced in the study of Macharia and Ombui (2013) which states that there has been elaborate strategic plans made by higher education institutions, however, contingency plans for the continuity of student learning is lacking.

The disaster emergency plan necessitates the off-site back up of important documents. School records contain information which can be used to protect the interest of the institution. Noteworthy accomplishments, events, issues and other information that needs safekeeping and public accountability needs to be kept for a longer period of time for accountability purpose (NECCC, 2004). Despite the importance of off-site back up of important school record, only University C (High level implementation) uttered an off-site back up of school records. Moreover, University B had a low level of implementation primarily. When asked, one of the administrative personnel said “It was


654

included in the DRR plan; however, financial constraints inhibit the school in its implementation.” Therefore, each office should be responsible in safekeeping documents

In summary, the components of the school emergency and disaster preparedness plan are only pegged at the average implementation for the HEI’s. Possible reasons are the following: compliance to national policies and CMO’s, on-going constructions, limited campus space, limited or unavailability of personnel in the supply/physical plant offices, limited resources of the school and resource maximization.

On Emergency Evacuation Plan

Emergency Evacuation Plan is vital in saving lives. Components of this preparedness plan includes an evacuation route map, safe evacuation areas, simple rules on evacuation and site hazard and vulnerability assessment research/report (UNISDR, 2010). Evaluating the schools on these measures, University D and F had a high implementation.

An evacuation route map is a tool for safety which everybody has to bear in mind. As observed along the data gathering, University D has an evacuation route map. Considering that the College of Engineering was given the responsibility of the safety of the school and its infrastructure, thus, they ensured the compliance to the building code of the Philippines. Nonetheless, University A and B incurred a low level of implementation. Posting of the evacuation map may have been affected following their disarrangement due to the earthquake in 2013. Thus, their possible evacuation routes and areas were converted into make-shift classrooms.

Disaster has turned comfort zones into a danger zone. Thus a need for pre-identified safe evacuation areas is crucial in a DRR plan. Safe evacuation area is another component deemed important in times of crisis. All the schools have identified evacuation routes and areas. Nevertheless, University D and F got a high level of implementation on having evacuation or safe areas; primarily because of their spacious campus (es). University C, despite the fact that they are surrounded with busy streets, one of their key personnel, pointed out during an interview said,

“We have a problem of limited evacuation area. However, the railings surrounding the sidewalk extended the small evacuation in the campus and thus extended their area for evacuation. This knowledge was made known to everybody during our drills.” Therefore, the limited school space is a consideration in the emergency evacuation measure.

As required by the Fire Code of the Philippines Section 10.2.5.13, an emergency evacuation plan should be positioned in prominent areas of the building. It shall be drawn on a photoluminiscent background 8.5” x 11” size to be readable in case of power failure. This measure was complied by University D and F.

Going to safe areas, evacuation routes should avoid potentially hazardous conditions and elements. Evacuation areas will give a temporary safety haven for the school community. Going to its path, there should be no potential elements of risk for the evacuating people (UNISDR, 2010). University D respondents scored a high implementation in their campus attributing to their spacious soccer field and plenty of open area. However, limited damage due to earthquake converted the evacuation area to temporary classrooms; hence accumulation of debris and other temporary storage areas were visible in the campus.

Another preparation measure on evacuation is to have simple rules to be reiterated during the drill like, do not push, do not run, do not talk and do not go back(UNISDR,2010). These were claimed to be practiced by University C, D and F in their drills. Their high implementation was confirmed in the responses of the school community. Nevertheless a low implementation was attested by the respondents in University B. “We just had a drill once”. The old adage says, “Practice makes it perfect”. Therefore, there is a strong need for universities to change the mind set and imprint the proper things to be done during emergencies.

Site hazard and vulnerability assessment research or report is another component of disaster preparedness. It may serve as a springboard for a harmonized and efficient ways of reducing risks (Birkham, 2011). It is a tool which seeks to determine the weak areas in the environment with a purpose of reducing impact of disaster and promote resiliency (UNFCC, 2008). Despite its usefulness, University D and F had an average level


655

of implementation only. This score being the highest can be attributed to their preparation for accreditation. Nonetheless, other universities claimed unfamiliarity in having a site hazard and vulnerability assessment research or report.

Summing up, the emergency evacuation plan of HEI’s was on the average level of implementation only. Several factors interplay on the emergency evacuation preparations, these includes disarrangement due to earthquake, limited space, limited number of drills, compliance to building code, and maximization of resources.

On Emergency Responsibilities of Stakeholders

A. Faculty Members

Teachers are considered second parents. In case of a school emergency, the teachers act as “loco parentis”, caring for the students as their own children.

University C and F exerted high implementation in developing the safety plan; probably the parents had an involvement in the planning of the school. In University C, one administrator stated, “Despite having our safety and security office, our VP for Administration is calling all administrators for a meeting to discuss necessary things for school safety.” As purported by Action Aid International (2010), a wider community utilization will create a powerbase for a speedy dissemination of disaster risk education information.

Emergency response, first aid training and helping others particularly those with disabilities are included in the list of preparedness for the faculty members. The faculty members did not confirm attendance to trainings for emergency preparedness, moreover, a handful of respondents in University D were trainers in CWTS thus, they were given special training of emergency preparedness and F respondents were mostly nurses, thus they were exposed to emergency preparedness training. University B respondents were Music and Social Science and Education professors, thus their responses mirror the universities lack of exposure on in-service emergency training programs. Disaster preparations should not only be enriched in medical related fields only but it should be taught across discipline. As pertained in CMO 9 series of 2013 section 28.4, the contingency plan of the HEI

should incorporate these capacity enhancements on disaster risk reduction. Eventually, in case of disaster, the knowledge learned can be implemented. In addition, Khan (2008), emphasized that if the individual/ community has been capacitated towards safety, hazards will be decreased. It should also be noted here, that students with disabilities should also be part of the disaster contingency plan.

Therefore, the emergency preparedness of faculty members of various HEI’s is bolted to an average extent of implementation. This therefore necessitates involving, equipping and capacitating the faculty members through first aid, survival techniques, preparedness skills and training and assisting students and co-workers who have disabilities.

B. Administrative Staff

Administrative staff has responsibilities in emergency preparedness. These roles include the reporting structural defects to emergency committee, shutting off valves and switches, posting charts of protective equipment, use of fire extinguishers and emergency equipment, inventory of tools, and advising on emergency committee on safety equipment, areas and alternate power sources.

Reporting structural defects and safety hazards to the emergency committee was implemented to a high extent by University C and F. Their pool of engineers takes turn in maintaining and monitoring the infrastructure safety. Conversely, limited number of personnel slow down maintenance operations of the university.

It is imperative that the administrative staff develop the sense of office ownership, however from the data, not everyone knew the essentials of disaster preparedness apart from office work. As quoted from an interview, “after the purchase of the fire extinguishers office personnel were given demonstration on its proper use”. The presence of fire fighting equipment alone cannot save lives. The personnel should be well informed on its proper use. Moreover, section 10.2.9.5 provision of the RA 9514 Fire Code of the Philippines, series of 2008 implementing rules and regulations (IRR), requires not just a fire extinguisher (Sec 10.2.9.12.6c), rather fire alarm system (section D), automatic fire suppression system (E), smoke/heat detectors (Sec


656

10.2.9.12.6a), stand pipes (Sec 10.2.9.12.6d), sprinkler system, hose boxes, hose reels (RA 9514 series of 2008). Further, “hazardous areas or area for general storage, janitor’s closet, maintenance shops, woodworking and painting areas ... shall be separated from other parts of the building...” (Sec 10.2.9.12.7)

C. Students

A major bulk of the school population is the students. In the course of disaster preparedness they should also be empowered. School-based disaster risk reduction requires a strong built and efficient grass root support (Khan, 2008). Roles of students during disaster preparedness includes the following: cooperation during drills and exercise, being responsible for oneself and others, develop awareness on various hazards, organize activities to promote safety awareness, prepare first aid kit and learn first aid procedures, take care of younger children and assist students with disabilities (UNISDR, 2010). A high implementation may be attributed to consistent exposure of stakeholders to drills, “These students were used to emergency drills and exercises, in addition advertisement on our LED screen were posted on a regular basis and several safety posters were posted on designated places.” compliant with RA 9514 or the Fire code of the Philippines, which requires drill two times a year.

In case of emergency, students need to be responsible for themselves and others. University F had a high level of implementation score while University B had a low implementation. Disasters can bring people together; this supports the finding of Seppala (2012) that social connection is a human need. School community in University F must have perceived that they should help each other probably because of frequent emphasis of camaraderie on drills and orientation.

Students’ awareness on various hazards that affect the school was implemented highly by University C and F As studied by Ronan and Johnston (2002), hazard education programs for youth increases their resilience to a range of future hazards. Further, CHED Memorandum Order No.09 series of 2013 section 28.5 orders HEI’s to have an “established mechanism for the students to help in crime prevention, safety and security”. Low implementation of the said measure could probably be attributed to lack of drills, or no emphasis of this particular measure during drills.

School safety activities may promote safety awareness in University F and lowest in University B. There should be a provision on safety and security for students as required by CHED Memorandum Order No.09 series of 2013 section 28. In this measure, implementation of school safety activities may take its root from the administrative support and empowered student governance. These activities on safety are good reminders for students in promoting wellbeing and achieving balance between safety and nurturing normal school environment (NASP,2006).

First aid kit preparation and procedure has been highly implemented in University C and F. The trauma, injuries and accidents are inevitable, considering that students have a large network of possibly affected individuals, hence, the cost of complications and treatment may be decreased with the knowledge of first aid (Mehta et.al.,2005). Most probably the first aid component of their CWTS of University C, were given much emphasis.

The high implementation of taking care of younger children and assisting classmates with disabilities were practiced by University C and F. This measure was mandated by CHED Memorandum Order No.09 series of 2013 section 28.1 and 2. Children and people with disability are considered as vulnerable groups. This is the section of the population exposed to higher risk during disasters. Low implementation may be due to lack of students’ activities and training on safety.

An active role during emergency response among students is being practiced by University C and F. CHED Memorandum Order No.09 series of 2013 section 28 ordered a safe and secured environment for the students. Further, FEMA (2004), explicated that in the event that professional responders are not yet available, learned skills of students may be used during disasters. Thus, a proactive role of students may also save lives. Most likely, lesson integration or activities on safety is seldom done or is absent that the skills training in saving lives did not cascade to the grass root level.

On the whole, HEI’s level of implementation on students’ role in school safety is on the average. It is therefore essential that the school administration should empower the students through giving safety trainings and encouraging them to organize activities on safety. Similarly, the study of NSSC


657

(2007) confirms a positive correlation between school climate and risk prevention.

The level of implementation referring to the responsibilities of various stakeholders is on the average only. Several factors may have contributed to this particularly: limited involvement in planning, no or limited lesson integration, limited personnel, lack of orientation on the use of emergency equipment, non-compliance to CMO 9, series of 2013, lack of administrative support or lack of student empowerment and lack of training on first aid.

FIGURE 2 HERE

School safety is everybody’s concern. Sense of ownership should be practiced by school occupants in order to have a safe working environment. As stipulated in the findings of Lachapelle (2008), a sense of ownership is a critical element in community planning, involvement and development. Gleaned from the figure above, on disaster preparedness, University C, D (private sectarian) and F (private non-sectarian) are better prepared than the rest.

DISASTER RESPONSE

Disaster Response “focuses on actual disaster response operations from needs assessment, search and rescue, relief operations, and early recovery activities. Its main target is to have a successful disaster response operations and its smooth transition towards early and long term recovery work” (NDRRMP, 2011). As stipulated in RA10121, it is the giving of emergency services and public assistance during or right after a disaster. It is usually short term and immediate in nature. In this section, UNISDR (2010) included various sections in safety like: emergency drills and exercise, school fire drill procedure, school earthquake drill procedure and evacuation and assembly.

The data that follows presents the level of implementation of HEI’s on disaster response.

TABLE 3 HERE

On Emergency Drills and Exercises

As identified by UNISDR (2010), emergency drills and exercises include the following: drop, cover

and hold; building evacuation assembly; reading of maps for emergency exits and evacuation routes; putting on life jackets and practicing water safety; moving to higher ground; taking shelter; use of fire extinguisher; stop, drop and roll (when on fire); shelter in place; administering mass casualty triage and first aid; protocols for student release; emergency communications; assisting the disabled during emergencies; public relations, communications and documentation; relief operations; conducting light search and rescue. In this section, university F had a high implementation.

Another measure identified by IFC (2010) strongly emphasized that, at the first sign of ground shaking, the teacher in class should instruct loudly, “Earthquake position: Drop, cover and hold.” Drop - Anybody should be the smallest target of any potential hazard in a quake. Cover - head neck and face should be protected and if available proceed under a sturdy desk or table. Hold on to your cover during earthquake, these fixtures might move in the event of the shaking. As soon as the shaking stops, students should be guided towards the evacuation doors, away from the building.

In this study, University D asserted that they were giving orientation on the earthquake position during their earthquake drills. Their National Service Training Program/Civic Welfare Training Services (NSTP/CWTS) has resulted to another related, more advanced program called Cadre. As narrated by one of the administrators in University D, “Cadre is a special training offered to volunteer graduates of NSTP and is currently enrolled as second year students. It is in this training that we offer special and intensive training on disaster preparedness.”

Building evacuation and evacuation assembly were suggested by UNISDR (2010). Moreover, building evacuations and evacuation assembly were also present on all the universities. University F with its high implementation of the said measure due to a clear and spacious evacuation area in the campus and has complied with the government policies on evacuation. Alternatively, a low implementation may be due to limited evacuation space. As admitted by their administrative personnel, “One of the weaknesses of their disaster preparedness is a limited evacuation area. Nevertheless, we have maximized the sidewalk outside the campus to secure students during evacuation and crisis.” Thus, the specification of the


658

Implementing rules and regulations of the Fire Code of the Philippines series in 2008 (Division 8, Sec 10.2.8.1) as regards the Assembly area were complied.

Signage for school building exits was required by RA 9514 series of 2008 section 10.2.9.3. Properly marked and lighted signage for emergency exits are found in certain universities. This may be due to their compliance with the aforementioned policy.

Life jackets are needed during hydrological calamities. Tropical depression has a sustained wind of 137 kilometers per hour (kp/h), with an organized cloud formation and thunderstorm (FEMA, 2012). With this atmospheric condition, flood is inevitable, thus life jacket was prescribed by UNISDR (2010). Knowledge on putting on life jackets and water safety was taught in University D, while having life jackets for the entire school populace was seen unworkable by some HEI’s. Despite these scores, most respondents negate the use of life jacket in DRR. “It is so impractical to purchase 11,000 life jackets for our entire school population.” Its impracticality explains the low implementation of all HEI’s (2.97). Also noted in this study is University D having life jackets for safety, however it is for training purposes of few students only.

Considered as response measure is the program/training on the use of fire extinguisher and other fire fighting equipment in the school (RA 9514 series of 2008 sec D). In this case, only University F (high implementation) signified strongly the training/orientation on fire extinguishers and other simple fire fighting equipment. Not everyone in university A and B knew how to use fire extinguisher and the likes primarily because they were not given any orientation on the said equipment. As specified in RA 9415 series of 2008, fire fighting equipment should be used even in drills. One of the respondents in University B admitted, “During our drill, we only practiced evacuation”. In this scenario, financial considerations may have been considered by the university in the use of fire extinguishers during drills.

Another skill needed in fire fighting is the stop, drop and roll (when on fire).

“Stop, drop and roll” is the language for a person in fire; anybody caught in fire should stop where

they are, drop to the ground and roll over. If it is another person, push them down cover them with wet blanket or rug or roll them to the ground (IFC, 2010; UNISDR, 2010). Emphasis of the said measure needs to be emphasized during drills.

Shelter in place as defined by RA 9514 s.2008 D.1 “is an area used for general storage, boiler, furnace rooms, fuel storage etc... shall be separated from other parts of the building”.

Specifications for shelter in place for hazardous materials were clearly indicated in Rule 10, Chapter 3, Division 1 Section 10.3.1.2. Hazards of the content of a building may be high, moderate or low. The implementation level of HEI’s is greatly affected by the available space in the campus.

Triage and first aid can save lives and can contribute to a more functional transport of the injured (Ferrara, 1999), thus it is a must to include this in the trainings on safety. However, several HEI’s had a low implementation, probably because of the lack of knowledge on triage and first aid. High implementation was claimed by University F. As stated by one of their administrators, “All first year students were exposed various trainings on life saving through Red Cross, ERUF and Bureau of Fire Protection. Hence, triage and first aid were discussed thoroughly.”

A protocol for student release is a crucial element for safety. In the tertiary level, students were guided towards the exit doors and alternate routes or egress. This practice is similar to what IFC (2010) has been proposing. In addition, the “clear chain of command” which can be accomplished by an incident command system (IFC,2010) or by a DRR team can be broken down into five branches which includes: Incident Commander, Communication Team, Operations (doers), Logistic (supporters), information and planning (documenters and analyzers) and finance administrators. The limitation in the implementation of the protocol on student release may be attributed to absence of a clear chain of command.

Disaster risk-reduction team were claimed to be present in all universities. However it was known in different names such as the Safety and Security office (University C and F), University Risk Reduction Team (University B), Crisis Management Council (University E) and Emergency Response Team (University D). Communication team plays


659

a crucial role in connecting all school administrative offices, local government agencies, parents and the public as directed (IFC,2010). During the interview, all the university respondents have had information officer or safety and security officer, wherein emergencies can be reported. The said office would then make the necessary coordination with outside government agencies for assistance, eventually the planning for students’ release. Implementation level may be influenced by a highly functioning DRR team.

Emergency communications as stipulated in the Fire Code of the Philippines Division 5 Section 10.2.6.4 mandates the following fire detection alarm and communication systems for educational institutions: Occupant notification, pre-signal system to transmit message to the nearest fire station also called as automatic fire department notification and positive alarm sequence, general evacuation alarm signal for occupants.

Emergency communications require portable phones, cellular phones, land-based communication lines and walkie-talkies. The mentioned communication equipment was also proposed by Natural Disaster and Crisis Management, Department of Education –Florida (1997). The fire incident which burned University F in 1999 may have taught them lessons on emergency communications.

Safe access for persons with disability and a mechanism for DRR and management concern shall include persons with disability. The mandate was elicited from CHED Memorandum Order 09 series of 2013, also known as Enhanced policies and guidelines on student affairs and services.

University F provided a ramp/amenity for the persons with disability, in addition to elevator despite that the latter has restricted use. At any rate these ramps can serve as egress and can be used in case of emergency. “Through this egress, persons with disability can be easily assisted” said by one of the faculty respondents in University F. The size of the university may be considered in building a ramp, nevertheless, school buildings should be compliant to the Building Code of the Philippines, more so the Accessibility Law for the people with disability.

The suggestion was implemented highly in University F. It has been a good timing for them to prepare for their accreditation, thus, complete

records were available. Despite the same accreditation preparations of University A, it only had a low implementation. Seldom emergency drills may explain why limited records are available at hand.

IFRC (2000) recommended the development of strategies and protocols in mobilizing and acquiring emergency provision such as relief goods and standard operating procedure for relief operations. One of the Dean respondents confirmed that, “If a community or a province has suffered crisis, our college are accepting relief goods for repacking and distribution.” The respondent reiterated that it is one of the roles of the college to perform this function. Disaster relief operations provide the following services: rescue, health and medical assistance, shelter, and food. These humanitarian supply logistics is the cornerstone of emergency planning and preparedness (Pan American Health Organization, 2001).

Light search and rescue goal is to locate and deliver aid to the victims the soonest possible time, in the pursuit of retrieving survivors of a calamity (Lau, Huang, and Gissanayake, 2005). Light search and rescue is another disaster preparedness measure that could possibly be taught in NSTP-CWTS. As confirmed by administrator in University D, “Our CWTS have given much emphasis on disaster risk reduction and light search and rescue is one of the modular topics.” However, CWTS coverage of other universities focused on several topics. According to the one administrator in University A, “The topics of CWTS are the following: disaster risk reduction, first aid, greening and Philippine laws.” Hence, universities are given academic freedom on the choice of topics for the said subject.

To rundown the possible causes of low implementation of emergency drills and exercises measures, the following may be considered: possibility of CWTS as an arm of DRR; creation of a specialized program on DRR for the students; size of the university, impracticality of life jackets for the whole population of schools, financial considerations in the use of fire fighting equipment during drills, lack of training on triage and first aid, absence of a clear chain of command, and newly organized DRR committee.

On School Fire Drill Procedure


660

Procedure for fire drill was enumerated by UNISDR (2010) as follows: alarm operation, calling the fire brigade, and evacuation and assembly. Only University C,D, E and F have high implementation of the aforesaid measures. Respondents of University C,D, E and F all agree that they should inform the safety and security office first of an emergency crisis, rather than allowing anybody to sound the alarm. The office nearest the alarm call point may only do so upon directives. This is incorporated in the Fire Code of the Philippines 2008 IRR, Division 9 sec. 10.2.9.5 D1 and UCL, 2013. In the same manner the same office shall report the fire to the Fire Department. A clear DRR /safety team may prompt the university on the responsible office in the event of crisis.

As found out by Proulx (2007), most people try to find the reason for the cause of the alarm rather than reporting a fire to authorities. In the case of University C (high implementation), one of the administrators stated that, “each office who encounters fire should report the incident to the safety and security office.” Conversely several office personnel were asked on the protocol on safety and emergencies, however none of them, can specify directives/protocol on what to do in case of accident. As the researcher asked various offices, not every office knew the protocol in calling the Fire/Police Department. However, after asking the NSTP office of University A, they explained that office affected or under fire may either be coordinating to the Security Personnel or directly calling the Bureau of Fire Protection. Following the Chaos theory, “recognize it, when you see it”, oftentimes, people are caught unprepared in facing disaster. Thus the mindset has not conformed to the norms of safety.

During evacuation and assembly, a lead student should direct others on the nearest exit route (IFC, 2010). Moreover, CHED Memo No. 9, series of 2013 gave emphasis to assisting persons with disabilities during evacuation. University F (high implementation) has spacious hallway, wide stairs and ramps on both ends of the building, thus evacuation is easier for students, considering that special arrangements were made on their infrastructure. On the other hand, there is an absence of ramp in University A, further, the displacement due to earthquake made their ground limited, respondents, hence the size of the

university may enable the school to afford a ramp, and nevertheless accessibility law should be implemented regardless of campus size.

In the event of fire, UNISDR (2010) prohibited running to avoid panic and going down by twos (buddy system) is strongly advocated by IFC (2010). Panic is caused by fear, flight or uncoordinated activity. Thus, in the event of fire, everybody should stay calm, and avoid running considering that panic will cause more damage than disaster itself (der Heide, 1989). Therefore, drills and four times different orientations on safety for the students could have caused high implementation of the school fire drill evacuation.

Moreover, Pauls et.al (1988) proposed that elevators should not be used during crisis due to possible power failure. Three out of six universities (C, D and F) had an elevator, and these were used with restrictions. Aptly, these should not be used as an exit route in times of emergency (Fire Code of the Philippines 2008, section 10.2.9.6). However E has no elevator, but the fire exit stairs were used not just during emergency but also for everyday passage.

UNISDR (2010) suggested that upon evacuation, students should proceed to the assembly point. The response measure was highly implemented by University C,D,E and F. As purported by chaos theory, chaos allows relevant systems to explore the entire range of behaviours available to the population. Thus constant drills would lead to familiarization of the academic community to evacuation process, thus reduce chaos.

Conduct of roll call or body count to ascertain that nobody remains in the school premises. Meanwhile, teachers are expected to report to the disaster committee the accounting or if there are missing students (UCL, 2013; FSAC, 2011 and UNISDR, 2010). All of these practices were done by the respondent schools; however, in terms of roll call or body count, only university F had a high implementation. This can be probably due to their frequent drills. This, the drills may give familiarization for the faculty to report to the DRR committee the names of those students/personnel not found in the evacuation site and the last place they were seen. Drills may have proliferated in their campuses; however, body count or roll call may still need more practice and should be given emphasis during drills.


661

School Earthquake Drill Procedure

Earthquake drill procedure was described sequentially by UNISDR (2010), this include: alarm operation, response and evacuation and assembly. As prescribed by UNISDR (2010), upon the onset of a pre-arranged signal (siren or a bell) during shaking, everybody should be in the earthquake position. Students are advised to move away from windows, glass or other movable furnitures to avoid possible risks. Somebody should hold the door open to prevent locking other people inside. Once the shaking stops, students must leave the building by buddies, in calm and orderly manner. As pointed out by IFC (2010), The teacher should indicate the nearest exit route and direct others to the evacuation area(s), while a student monitor should check each room for possible left outs. Students with special disability is given attention during evacuation

Universities were evaluated on their practices during earthquake drills. It was evident in figure 3 that only University D and F have a high implementation.

The alarm of siren or bell during an earthquake should be sounded for at least one-minute (DOST,2005) indicative of ground shaking. University C has a very audible alarm, thus account for a high implementation. On the other hand, personnel in University A said, “only 40-60% fire alarm system is functional in our university...”, hence the perception of implementation is low.

In the event of shaking, students are advised to move away from glass windows and unfastened furnitures (UNISDR,2010) because most injuries during earthquakes can possibly be hit by falling objects going out of the buildings (FEMA,2004). The information was professed to be well known to everybody mainly because of their Light Emission Diode (LED) television in every floor of every building and constant voice-over announcements. While the disarrangement of University A due to earthquake debilitated them for having the signal eventually, this information was perceived low by the school community.

Earthquake position means “duck cover and hold” (UNISDR.2010). The head, neck and torso should be protected during earthquake shaking. In tertiary schools, covering under desk is impossible, as prescribed by PEP (2002) students may sit on the

floor with their back against the wall; raise knees to the chest, elbows on the knees and hands over the head.

It was observed in several universities that there are various forms of media announcements/advertisements in campus which may equip the students on what to do before during and after earthquake.

Another important practice during earthquake drill is to hold the door open during shaking to prevent people from being locked inside. (UNISDR, 2002) Otherwise, a chair or a book may be propped to keep it from swinging. The information may have known by respondents in University F due to extensive drill. As supported by cognitive theory the excellent performance is brought about by scaffolding of skills through mastery in repetition. Thus, small, yet important protocols such as the above-mentioned should be given emphasis during drills.

If outside the building, in an open area students may sit on the ground, raise knees to the chest, elbows on the knees and hands over the head (PEP 2002). University F has a spacious open area, thus respondents felt the information is useful thus, a high implementation.

DOST (2005) and UNISDR (2010) prescribed that after shaking, students must leave the building in single file and in calm and orderly manner. However, information in drills seldom done may not create a mind shift, nor sink in the thoughts of the respondents. This is sustained by cognitive theory which stated that, “repetitive practice leads to perfection”.

The teacher in the classroom must assign a person-in-charge following the DRR team leading to the pre-identified evacuation areas (DOST,2005; UNISDR,2010

Signages showing the pre-determined route to pre-identified evacuation areas were highly implemented by University D and F. The university has identified personnel to serve as marshal during disaster. However, protocol on safety was still oblivious to respondents in certain universities, emergency drill needs more emphasis on pre-determined route to pre-identified evacuation to avoid chaos.


662

Along the evacuation response, buddy system or pairing of a physically fit student with the one with disability should be done (UNISDR,2010; DOST,2005). This practice is also strongly suggested and mandated in CHED Memo no. 9, 2013.

As stipulated in the table below, University F has included this in their emergency drill, consequentially, a high implementation as perceived by the respondents. Conversely, University A probably have not reiterated this practice during a drill, thus, respondents viewed that there is low implementation of this measure. Noted most especially is the condition wherein five out of six universities had an average implementation, tantamount to say that the specific provision of CHED above-stated where not given much attention.

Overtaking of classes or individuals must not be permitted while going down the stairs (UNISDR,2010; DOST,2005) in order to avoid moral panic (Jones and Jones,1999). The drills have helped University F respondents to remember this measure hence, a high implementation.

Lifts/elevators are used to transport people or equipment faster and easier. However, UNISDR (2010) and DOST (2005) strongly suggested that it should not be used during an emergency. As mandated by Fire Code of the Philippines series of 2008 Implementing Rules and Regulations, section 10.2.75, which states that elevators should be equipped with fire fighters emergency operations which shall transfer automatic operation of elevators to manual thus transport elevator to the ground level. Moreover, University F, complied with the standard set by laws on the installation of the elevator further, the community are well aware of this response measure. Conversely, low implementation was evident in Universities A and B because the university has no elevator available; moreover, emphasis of the said measure should be disseminated even in the absence of an elevator for future use.

Potential falling objects should be keenly observed in the course of evacuation, considering that most injuries during earthquakes can possibly be caused by falling objects (FEMA,2004). University D as described in their website, is merely composed of a hundred hectare-land situated on a mountainous

area with abundant greenery and open spaces”. Despite the necessity of being watchful of falling objects, respondents feel a haven of safety in the vast area of open spaces, thus a high implementation. On the contrary smaller space, may lead to stampede due to a limited open space. As related to disaster, the findings of Helbing (2007) stated that, when crowd density goes up, then peoples’ movements are constrained leading to crowd turbulence. Small space is the scenario of certain universities due to dislodgment from earthquake. This could be a perilous scenario in the course of uncontrolled evacuation.

Another component of evacuation is to consider students who are not in class, in the event of the disaster. As advised by UNISDR (2010) and DOST (2005) the student need not go back to the classroom, rather should proceed to the evacuation area. Differences in implementation may be credited to giving emphasis on the said measure during drills.

Teachers or the DRR committee assigned must conduct a roll call or body count to ascertain that nobody remains in the school premises. Meanwhile, teachers are expected to report to the disaster committee the accounting or if there are missing students. Names of those students/personnel not found in the evacuation site and the last place they were seen should be reported to the DRR committee. (UCL, 2013; FSAC, 2011 and UNISDR, 2010). The said practice may also be given weight during drills.

All of these practices were done by the respondent schools. In terms of roll call or body count, only university D has high implementation, on the other hand, B had a low implementation. University D (high implementation) has an intensive training on Fire and Emergency Trainings through their CADRE program. This has been confirmed by their award in the 2014 Barangay Fire Olympics Competition and CWTS modules like Basic Fire Fighting, Light Search and Rescue and First Aid to name a few. Hence, CWTS are geared mainly on disaster risk reduction. Choice of CWTS topics is the academic freedom of the institution. As stated by the administrator in University A, “CWTS has topics which discusses NSTP law, Citizenship, Disaster Preparedness, Self and Drug Awareness and Values and Leadership.” Despite the DRR topic inclusion, hence


663

body count or roll call should be given emphasis during drills or in CWTS if applicable.

Upon gathering in the evacuation area, the roll call or body count should be immediately conducted along with the ubiquitous mental scenario seen along the evacuation. Meanwhile, teachers are expected to report to the disaster committee the accounting or if there are missing students. Names of those students/personnel not found in the evacuation site and the last place they were seen should be reported to the DRR committee. (UCL, 2013; FSAC, 2011 and UNISDR, 2010).

In terms of the above indicated response measures, University D and F obtained a high level implementation. The difference in the score lies in the implementation of disaster response particularly during emergency drills. Further, there were several nursing faculty interviewed in University F, thus the said measure is familiar to them.

As purported in the cognitive theory, excellent performance results from practicing complex tasks and scaffolding skills in order to provide the learners a rich feedback for future performance. Knowing all of these preparedness measures during an earthquake, variations and weaknesses in implementation may be accounted for the following factors: audible alarm system, use of various forms of media for DRR announcements, frequent drills with emphasis on practices during shaking, size of the university and strict compliance to CHED Memorandum Orders.

The six universities have performed emergency drills for fire and earthquake. However, the knowledge and skills embedded in the disaster response were not cascaded and perceived to be learned by the school community on a high level.

The figure below presents the summary data on disaster response of HEI’s.

FIGURE 3 HERE

Disaster responses of the HEI’s sampled were on the average only. The urgency of repeated fire and earthquake drills will enable them to familiarize quick and appropriate responses during the said calamities. The figure below presents the differing levels on emergency response. Lindell (2006) pointed out three discrete yet interconnected meanings firstly, goal for resiliency, stabilization of

the disaster conditions, thirdly, recovery process. These three were supported in the disaster response (UNISDR,2010) presented in this study.

REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY

Rehabilitation and recovery is the ability of the institution to restore order in the school community (UNESCO). Specifically, UNISDR (2010), suggested the following roles of the school/safety committee for rehabilitation and recovery: restoration program in restoring the damaged site/materials; determine priorities for restoration work; develop phased conservation program; cleaning and rehabilitating the disaster site; safety plan improvement; evacuation and shelter areas preparation; utilities and communication restoration; detailed building inspections; conduct of environmental assessments and preparation for the next disaster.

The table below presents the summary of disaster rehabilitation and recovery.

TABLE 4 HERE

As revealed in the table above, University C, D and F has a high implementation. This can be attributed to the strong pool of manpower at the physical plant office in the former university. In one of the visits to the university, it was observed that the office was made of a team of engineers; each has its own designation. As supported by the social organization theory, which states that the capacity of the office to organize resources in order to meet the challenges and opportunities encountered will lead to a better realization of its aims and objectives.

Upon damage of the infrastructure, restoration work preferably with a conservator will ensure accurate and effective restoration efforts. Conservators’ role is for the physical preservation and restoration of the damaged school infrastructure or facility.

Conservation treatment may need the techniques or materials to physically strengthen or chemically stabilize university infrastructure or facility. Its aim is to assure longevity, and continued usage while the minimal alteration or reconstruction is being done (NEDCC). Thus the practice of University F having more qualified engineers in the


664

physical plant may have provided available conservator, rather than having limited personnel just like in University A.

Phased conservation is a process for long term planning to assess the current state of deterioration in order to provide conservative alternatives to short-term actions (Waters, 1998). University C has a high implementation of phased conservation, while University A has a low implementation. Among the several visits of the researcher in University C, it was observed that restoration was conducted on different buildings. As claimed by one of the personnel, “School restoration and improvement was done almost every month in order to maintain the beauty and cleanliness of the school.” However, University A asserted that they have the budget for restoration however it was not yet released from the governments’ coffer.”

Disaster may bring a large amount of debris or wastes that need to be discarded because it may hamper relief operations and the overall recovery process (Brown, 2011). Lindell (2006) considers this as a short-term recovery process called debris management. On both measures, University C strongly advocated for the above-mentioned measures, then again, University A had the lowest implementation on both measures. Probably being a private university does not reprimand the university to undergo a rigorous process of disposing deteriorated items. Moreover, University A being a state university, practices that property disposals shall follow a uniform procedure of government property disposal described in National Budget Circular No. 425, series of 1992. Thus, immediate disposal, despite its necessity cannot be accomplished right away.

Moreover, two of the HEI’s affected by earthquakes is University A and B thus from the most recent experience the experiential learning theory would enable HEI’s a transformative learning, recovery and rehabilitation in the light of experiences.

Damage assessment is another disaster rehabilitation and recovery measure. The study of Lindell (2006) accentuates on the value of environmental assessment after a disaster. It may be categorized as follows: rapid assessment, preliminary damage assessment, site assessment and victim’s needs assessment.

Damage assessment was highly implemented in University C, but implemented the lowest in University A. Probably this can be ascribed to the lack in manpower as previously discussed.

University F has viewed evacuation and sheltering areas with the highest implementation. The size of the campus might have given the concept of prepared evacuation and shelter for the respondents. This explanation is supported by the “Broken window theory” which states that a well-ordered environment may further stop the onset of a more serious crime. As applied in disaster risk management, well organized spaces may create a signal and norm-setting of safety.

The restoration of utilities and communications after a disaster is of primordial significance. University C strongly supported the restoration of utilities and communications after a disaster. Administrative support to safety, as Lindell (2006) pointed out is one of the essentials in the short-term recovery measures. Structural integrity of the school is critical to establish school safety. The structural integrity of school was complied by RA 9514 which states that “administrators shall provide safety construction, protective and warning system...”. Moreover, University A is also knowledgeable about the existing policy, but its full compliance was not met by the university. Hazards are natural, disasters are not (UNISDR, 2010). It may always be present, however as this study purports, preparation is a key to safety.

Preparations of universities for disasters may vary; this could be ascribed to the resources which can be disbursed at the will of the administrators which can be contrasted to the controlled and law-conforming policy in the latter university. Further, the support of the administration in hiring a pool of engineers with various field of specialization paved the way for a better safety preparation.

Environmental assessment may serve as the springboard in seeing the areas for reconstruction or rehabilitation. One administrator of University C stated that, “Our engineers are scheduled to rotate on different campuses and deliver their services.”. Moreover, limitations in this aspect may be due to lack in the engineering personnel. When the researcher asked the engineer about a request for an additional personnel in his office he commented,


665

“There is no available item for an additional personnel in my office”.

The rehabilitation and recovery measures of different HEI’s vary due to the following conditions: Physical plant office lacks manpower, financial constraints on certain constructions, compliance to government policies prevents immediate debris management, moreover, the same policies may hinder fund release, thus delay building constructions, and administrative support in hiring more engineers and in building constructions and repair may also be considered in the lull of rehabilitation and recovery implementation.

The figure below gives a recapitulation of the disaster rehabilitation and recovery of the six HEI’s

FIGURE 4 HERE

The two private sectarian universities (C and D) and one private non-sectarian university F takes the lead in the implementation of the rehabilitation and recovery measures. Most likely, the organizational structure of a private university will only entail their administrators, particularly their president for approval of certain budget. On the other hand, the bureaucracy in the government had its impact to the onset and delays of recovery and rehabilitation of the universities.

School disaster management mirrors the institutions efforts in achieving a safer community. Moreover, reflecting on the Cebu City HEI’s efforts in disaster risk reduction it is commendable that University C and F have done a very good prevention and mitigation and disaster preparation measures. Further, it is worthy to recognize the response preparations done by University D and F. Similarly, noteworthy measures were also imposed by University C, D and F for the school recovery and rehabilitation.

On the whole, the HEI’s have started the disaster risk reduction plan; however there are still gaps in the different areas of disaster management that need to be addressed. The table that follows presents the rehabilitation and recovery measures implemented in the six HEI’s.

The vision of RA 10121 is a safer, adaptive, and disaster-resilient Filipino community toward sustainable development. From the same vision HEI’s were also mandated to cascade safety in their

respective institutions. Preparedness is a key to safety, thus this study gave an assessment on the school safety implementation procedures which will eventually, promote safety, resiliency and sustainability.

The table below presents the summary on the level of implementation of disaster risk reduction of HEI’s along: prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response and rehabilitation and recovery.

TABLE 5 HERE

Disaster risk reduction management is the systematic analysis of all the sum total of measures, activities and programmes which can be implemented before, during or after an emergency with an end purpose of reducing its impact or regain resiliency (Khan,2008).

The safety of students from all types of hazards and risks while in school is probably the utmost desire of parents and school administrators. Moreover, without changing the mindset, “reshaping the personal history” (Moore and Lakha, 2009) and scaffolding emergency skills in disaster risk reduction which will eventually lead to the avoidance of moral panic (Jones and Jones,1999).

The table below gives a graphic representation on the implementation of HEI’s along the four thematic areas.

FIGURE 5 HERE

It can be noted from all the tables that state universities are always on the comparable level of implementation. Sadly, several factors may be attributed to this. More particularly these factors are bureaucracy in the government system, the availability of items for more engineers in the government office, the limitation in manning, the bidding principle “lowest bidder” which delimits quality control, and size of the university. On the other hand, safety behaviours of a private school sectarian or non-sectarian does not follow similar pattern of preparations. Nevertheless they have done more emergency preparation measures than their SUC counterpart. Factors which may contribute to this could be the independent school management; possible hiring of engineers and other needed manpower as deemed needed by the school, resources which can be used with less bureaucracy and bigger university areas.


666

There are three goals of school safety: student and staff protection, educational continuity and a culture of safety (ISDR,2012). Different school administrators are looking forward to a hazard-free environment but practices seem to fall short on some aspects. Disaster risk-reduction plan is not an assurance for safety. As the old adage says,, “failing to plan is planning to fail”. All HEI’s must seriously ponder ways and means to ensuring school safety. Risk-reduction measures are present on all universities; however implementation needs more boost in order to give assurance of safety.

CONCLUSION

The upward trend of incoming disasters, urban growth and the rise in school population suggests that the school and its community are vulnerable to disaster. The possibility of being a victim is lurking among the state universities. Schools have done measures of emergency preparedness however an efficient, comprehensive, concerted and dynamic effort in managing disaster is very much needed. The role of school leaders is deemed necessary to propel school safety.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are hereby proposed:

1. A comprehensive, efficient disaster risk-reduction management plan needs to be crafted by HEI’s to instill a culture of safety. This should be planned, implemented and evaluated and undergo a cyclical process of execution.

2. Involvement of various multi-stakeholder in planning and participation of all the grass root level members of the school community in emergency drills will congregate their support and will hasten information dissemination on the DRR plan.

3. Strict compliance to national and local policies of and HEI are therefore obligatory. Hence, a disaster risk-reduction plan for the school may set the protocol on safety.

4. Manpower of the school may be utilized by involving a wide base participation, equipping the school community through skills and training,

more frequent emergency drills, and orientation on the use of basic fire fighting equipment.

5. Disaster risk-reduction cuts across discipline, hence it is recommended that the college will integrate the risk-reduction concepts to their lessons and in the curriculum.

6. Future researchers are also encouraged to do further researches on each of the four thematic learning for better response to a disaster.

REFERENCES

Books

Jones, M, and E. Jones. (1999). Mass Media. London: Macmillan Press.

Journals

Pauls, Jake, Gatfield, Albert J and Juillet, Edwina. (1988). Elevator use for Egress: The Human-Factors Problems and Prospects. Retrieved: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/3Pauls_R9100732_Elevator_Use_for-Egress.pdf

Matsura, K. (2005) UNESCO stands ready to extend tsunami watch system to Indian Ocean. UNESCO Press Release, No 2005-02. Paris, UNESCO. Available:http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17860&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Online Resources

Association for Childhood Education International. ACEI (2013). School Damage caused by typhoon Haiyan. Available://acei.org/acei-news/school-damage-caused-by-typhoon-haiyan

Department of Education, Victoria (1997). Managing School Emergencies, Minimizing the Impact of Trauma on


667

Staff and Students. Community Information Service, Melbourne, Australia.

Ministry of Home Affairs. (2004). School Safety A Handbook for Administrators, Education, Officers, Emergency officials, School Principals and Teachers.

Ministry of Home Affairs. (2004). School Safety A Handbook for Administrators, Education, Officers, Emergency officials, School Principals and Teachers. Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs, National Disaster Management Division.

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) 2011-2018. Powerpoint Presentation by Bernardo Rafaelito R. Alejandro IV. Regional Director, Office of the Civil Defense. Retrieved: http://www.lga.gov.ph/sites/default/files/knowledgeExchange-pdf/bicol/BRB-M1-National%20DRRM%20Plan.pdf

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) 2011-2028. Retrieved: http://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/resources/DILG-Resources-2012116-420ac59e31.pdf

Republic Act No. 10121. Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010.

UNESCO. 2012. School Safety Action Plan. Plan of Action for Safe School and Educational Buildings in Khyber, Pakhtunkwa. Retrieved: http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Bhutan/Bhutan_National_Action_Plan_School_Earthquake_Safety.pdf

UNISDR Asia and the Pacific. (2010). Guidance Notes School Emergency and Disaster Preparedness. Retrieved:

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unisdr.org%2Ffiles%2F15655_1msshguidenotesprefinal0313101.pdf&ei=ShWtU-7iFIjhkgWPo4H4Bg&usg=AFQjCNEqTxL6VHakTOkdcxjfJ15G1QHBAA&bvm=bv.69837884,d.dGI


668

APPENDIX

Table 1: Level of Implementation of HEI’s on Prevention and Mitigation

I. PREVENTION AND MITIGATION

Univ A

Univ B

Univ C

Univ D

Univ E

Univ F Ave Implementation

1. Provide leadership for the establishment of a school emergency and disaster preparedness committee. 3.37 4.22 4.23 4.29 3.77 3.92 3.97 Average

2. Committee made up of teachers, administrative personnel, parents and students. 3.19 3.4 3.96 3.51 3.44 4.17 3.61 Average

3. Develop, review and implement a school emergency and disaster preparedness plan. 3.03 3.34 3.94 3.72 3.67 4.24 3.66 Average

4. Organize emergency brigades (e.g. fire, first aid, evacuation, etc.) and assign responsibilities to teachers and administrative staff based on individual capacities for each anticipated emergency situation. 3.03 3.46 4.42 3.63 3.95 4.47 3.83 Average

5. Plan, organize and conduct emergency preparedness training and drills for all students and staff, including persons with disabilities. 3.1 3.4 3.88 3.8 3.89 4.42 3.75 Average

6. Put an emergency warning system in place that shall inform the school population of the actual or impending danger. 3.1 3.2 4.71 3.75 3.62 4.5 3.81 Average

7. Coordinate and communicate with local authorities (e.g. police, fire departments, hospitals) and the parents or guardians of students in crisis situations. 3.1 3.51 4.48 3.57 4.17 4.34 3.86 Average

8. Integrate emergency preparedness into the curriculum. 3.03 2.06 3.8 3.34 3.01 3.8 3.17 Average

9. Provide for the procurement, storage, and maintenance or emergency supplies, equipment and program instructional materials. 2.92 2.9 4.2 3.46 3.33 3.83 3.44 Average

10. Provide procedures for regular maintenance 3.14 2.67 4.3 3.44 3.36 4 3.49 Average

AVERAGE 3.1 3.1 4.2 3.65 3.62 4.17 3.64 Average


669

Table 2: Level of Implementation of HEI’s on Disaster Preparedness

II. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

Univ A

Univ B

Univ C

Univ D

Univ E

Univ F Ave

Implementation

Disaster Risk Reduction Plan

1. The plan provides specific directions for immediate action, yet flexible enough to allow for adjustments and changes as unexpected situations develop. 2.96 3.37 4.28 4.44 3.93 3.83 3.80 Average

2. The plan has been reviewed and kept current with the growing school population, Changes in physical plans, Technical and technological advances; and, Changes in rules and policies in the community 2.79 2.99 4.29 4.47 3.44 3.67 3.61 Average

3. The Plan is consist of simple, step-by step procedures that are clear and easy to implement 3.25 3.12 4.52 4.61 3.51 4.35 3.89 Average

4. The plan made use of standard procedure for a particular emergency response. 3.21 3.15 4.17 4.58 3.54 4.43 3.85 Average

5. The Plan has specific instructions for backup, with a clear chain of command.

3.03 3.07 4.5 4.19 3.57 4.22 3.76 Average

3.04 3.14 4.35 4.45 3.59 4.1 3.77 Average

Components of a school Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Plan

1. The school/office has complete contact information, such as office, home and mobile phone numbers and email addresses of all members of the school emergency and disaster preparedness committee. 3.19 3.39 3.79 4.1 3.58 4.12 3.70 Average

2. The school/office provides telephone numbers of emergency and support agencies (e.g. fire departments, hospitals, police, radio and television stations etc.) 3.14 3.1 4.13 4.31 4.02 4.32 3.84 Average

3. Maps and floor plans are posted on designated areas 3.17 3.03 4.46 4.58 4.01 4.59 3.97 Average

A. Maps of the community and school site and school floor plans that provide summaries of the natural and man-made features of the area.

4. Topographic maps and street maps that can be used to assess the vulnerability of the school to hazards such as floods, landslides, forest fires and transportation accidents involving hazardous materials. 2.85 2.41 3.19 3.78 3 3.51 3.12 Average

5. Floor plans and site plans of the school facilities which offer planners a summary of building features in order to: identify shelter areas, Plan evacuation routes, Locate shut-off devices for gas, water and electricity, underground gas lines, and fire 2.91 2.92 4.01 4.15 3.14 4.2 3.56 Average


670

suppression equipment; and Locate chemical storage areas.

6. There is an emergency warning system for informing the school population of the actual or impending danger. Aside from a public address system, new technologies like emails, mobile phones etc. Can be used. 2.91 3.09 4.02 4.52 2.79 4.34 3.61 Average

7. A school evacuation plan and map for specific disasters, showing the location and route inside and outside the school. 2.91 3 4.27 4.52 2.98 4.08 3.63 Average

8. List of school buildings to be used as shelters for evacuees in case of a community disaster. 2.78 2.77 4.22 3.22 2.82 3.59 3.23 Average

9. Emergency Preparedness Plan orientation and drills for all students, teachers and staff. 3.03 3.56 4.42 4.75 3.17 4.69 3.94 Average

10. Procedures for informing parents and guardians during school emergency situations (e.g. local radio, TV, internet, telephone or cellphone) 2.91 2.21 4.55 3.81 3 4.13 3.44 Average

11. A school property inventory may reveal equipment that may pose danger in the event of a disaster or emergency. 3 2.27 4.39 4.04 2.88 4.33 3.49 Average

12. There is a provision of emergency transportation for students and staff 2.85 2.13 4.69 4.12 3.84 3.95 3.60 Average

13. Alternate warning system is provided to alert the entire campus if and when there is a power failure. 2.9 2.93 4.72 3.91 3.15 3.78 3.57 Average

14. The school has a contingency Plan for continuity of student learning (e.g. home study or conduct of classes at alternative locations) in case the school is temporary closed for repairs or used as an evacuation shelter. 2.79 2.2 3.78 3.72 2.17 3.84 3.08 Average

15. Off-site back-up of important school records is provided by the school 3.19 2.47 4.52 3.02 2.53 3.45 3.20 Average

2.96 2.76 4.21 4.03 3.13 4.06 3.53 Average

Emergency Evacuation Plan

1. An evacuation Route Map showing the site and neighbourhood map with identified evacuation routes and locations should be posted in strategic and conspicuous places (preferably in each room with the room marked on the map). 2.62 2.75 3.54 4.04 3.95 3.84 3.46 Average

2. Depending on the hazard, the school has identified safe evacuation areas 2.9 3.09 4.28 4.22 3.76 4.4 3.78 Average

3. Evacuation routes should avoid potentially hazardous conditions and elements. 2.82 2.93 4 4.28 3.17 4.52 3.62 Average

4. Simple rules for building evacuation were made known by everybody 3.1 2.77 4.1 4.37 3.74 4.55 3.77 Average

5. The school has a Site Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment research/report 2.74 1.86 2.88 3.29 2.92 3.76 2.91 Low


671

2.83 2.68 3.76 4.04 3.50 4.21 3.51 Average

Emergency Responsibilities of Stakeholders

Faculty Members

1. Participate in developing the Plan 3.06 2.92 3.54 3.51 2.97 4.14 3.36 Average

2. Participate in in-service emergency preparedness training programs

3.18 2.92 3.83 3.65 2.99 4.49 3.51 Average

3. Receive skills training on how to deal with children and co-workers in an emergency situation 3.03 2.67 3.78 3.47 2.95 4.35 3.38 Average

4. Train in first aid procedures 3.25 2.49 4.13 3.3 2.77 4.15 3.35 Average

5. Provide instructions on emergency preparedness and practice survival techniques appropriate to year level.

3.03 2.62 3.67 3.56 2.99 4.27 3.36 Average

6. Provide continuous leadership training and activities to bolster the confidence and enhance the abilities of students to care for themselves and be of help to others during an emergency, including a period of enforced confinement. 2.94 2.51 3.57 3.47 3.2 4.29 3.33 Average

7. Be prepared to assist students and staff who have disabilities.

3.21 2.56 4.14 3.19 2.45 4.38 3.32 Average

Administrative Staff

1. Report structural defects and safety hazards to the school emergency committee. 3.22 3.4 4.72 3.41 3.85 4.23 3.81 Average

2. Can shut-off valves and switches for gas, oil, water and electricity

3.4 3.16 4.42 3.14 3.42 4.27 3.64 Average

3. Post charts that show location of protective equipment for use by personnel in an emergency. 3.22 2.69 4.13 3.1 3.19 3.97 3.38 Average

4. Can use of fire extinguishers and other emergency equipment.

3.44 3.14 4.54 3.21 3.83 4.51 3.78 Average

5. Maintain an inventory of tools and equipment in their respective offices.

3.1 3.07 4.44 3.45 3.52 4.03 3.60 Average

6. Advise school emergency committee of hazardous and protected areas within the school, available emergency equipment, supplies, and alternate power sources. 3.3 3 4.24 3.3 3.55 4.3 3.62 Average

Students

1. Cooperate during emergency drills and exercises. 3.3 3.16 4.48 4.14 4.25 4.36 3.95 Average

2. Learn to be responsible for themselves and others 3.3 2.85 4.37 4.11 4.12 4.51 3.88 Average

3. Develop awareness among students on various hazards that affect the school. 3.23 2.69 4.3 4.08 3.84 4.51 3.78 Average

4. Organize activities to promote safety awareness. 3.14 2.5 4.12 4.02 3.96 4.58 3.72 Average

5. Prepare a first aid kit and learn first-aid procedures. 3.2 2.29 4.24 3.72 3.43 4.07 3.49 Average


672

6. Take care of younger children and assist classmates with certain disabilities. 3.42 2.2 4.4 3.52 3.84 4.12 3.58 Average

7. Take an active role in school emergency response and assume a variety of tasks when properly trained. 3.09 2.55 4.01 3.97 3.88 4.26 3.63 Average

3.20 2.77 4.15 3.56 3.45 4.29 3.62 Average

Table 3: Level of implementation of HEI’s on Disaster Response

III. DISASTER RESPONSE Univ A

Univ B

Univ C

Univ D

Univ E

Univ F Ave

Implementation

A. Emergency Drills and Exercises

1. Drop, cover and hold (for earthquake) 3.28 4.22 4.51 4.66 4.16 4.61 4.24 High

2. Building evacuation and evacuation assembly (for fire, earthquake) 3.18 3.76 2.85 4.46 4.06 4.63 3.82 Average

3. Reading of maps for emergency exits and evacuation routes 2.93 3.33 3.45 4.3 3.89 4.19 3.68 Average

4. Putting on life jackets and practicing water safety (for flood and tsunami) 2.76 2.89 2.73 3.35 3.23 2.23 2.87 Low

5. Moving to higher ground (for tsunami and flood) 3.11 3.76 2.92 4.12 3.56 2.9 3.40 Average

6. Take shelter (for typhoon, tornado) 3.08 3.91 3.56 4.02 3.82 3.49 3.65 Average

7. Use of the fire extinguisher and can extinguishing small fires 3.36 3.41 3.63 3.71 3.52 4.75 3.73 Average

8. Stop, drop and roll (when on fire) 3.39 3.81 3.47 3.76 3.76 4.43 3.77 Average

9. Shelter in place (for some hazardous materials release and violence) 2.92 3.24 3.4 3.82 3.22 4.11 3.45 Average

10. Administering mass casualty non-medical triage and first aid 3.24 3.27 3.34 3.37 3.12 4.17 3.42 Average

11. Protocols for student release 3.08 3.28 3.5 3.79 3.92 4.4 3.66 Average

12. Emergency communications 3.16 3.57 3.74 3.8 3.89 4.5 3.78 Average

13. Assisting the disabled during emergencies 3.06 3.19 3.59 3.53 3.61 4.48 3.58 Average

14. Public relations, communications and documentation 3.13 3.52 3.85 4.18 3.56 4.38 3.77 Average

15. Relief operations 3.19 3.34 3.79 4.47 3.7 4.34 3.81 Average

16. Conducting light search and rescue 3.12 2.22 3.56 3.81 3.22 3.6 3.26 Average

B. SCHOOL FIRE DRILL PROCEDURE

Alarm Operation


673

1. When fire is discovered, the office nearest it immediately sounds the alarm by operating the nearest fire alarm call point. 2.76 3.51 4.68 4.33 3.69 4.6 3.93 Average

Calling the Fire Brigade

2. Report the fire immediately to the Fire Department. This task could be assigned to the school secretary for telephone availability. 3.35 3.81 4.62 4.43 4.35 4.75 4.22 High

Evacuation and Assembly

3. Upon hearing the fire alarm, pupils must be instructed to leave the building in single file and in calm, orderly manner. 3.08 3.75 4.78 4.3 4.15 4.8 4.62 High

4. The person in-charge of each class must indicate the exit route to be used and everyone must be directed to pre-identified evacuation areas. 3.08 3.75 4.66 4.43 4.35 4.8 4.18

5. Specific arrangements must be made for students with physical or mental disabilities to ensure that they are assisted during evacuation. 3.01 3.4 4.4 4.3 3.83 4.8 4.14 High

6. No running is to be permitted to avoid panic 3.27 3.69 4.8 4.23 4.13 4.59 4.18 High

7. On staircases, everyone must descend in single file. Overtaking of classes or individuals must not be permitted. 2.81 3.7 4.61 4.15 4.14 4.64 3.96 Average

8. Lifts must not be used. 3.03 3.08 4.85 4.38 3.39 4.63 4.12 High

9. Anyone who is not in class when the fire alarm goes off must go immediately to the assembly point. 3.22 3.68 4.57 4.25 3.86 4.57 4.01 High

10. At the assembly point, a roll call or body count must be made to ascertain that no one remains in the school premises. 3.24 3.77 3.1 4.18 4.3 4.57 3.89 Average

11. Each teacher must report whether everybody is accounted for or if there are missing students. 3.22 3.56 2.96 4.29 4.18 4.64 4.03 High

12. No one must be allowed to re-enter the building until told to do so by the authorities. 3.08 3.77 4.64 4.63 4.22 4.74 3.86 Average

C. SCHOOL EARTHQUAKE DRILL PROCEDURE

Alarm Operation

1. A pre-arranged signal such as a siren or bell is set off by a person in-charge, indicating earthquake shaking. 2.94 3.7 4.87 4.76 3.57 4.49 4.06 High

Response

2. While the signal is ongoing, move away from windows, glass and unfastened furniture. 3.21 3.64 4.61 4.78 4.34 4.2 4.06 High


674

3. Everyone should perform “duck, cover and hold” under tables, desks or chairs until the “shaking signal stops. 3.11 3.8 4.58 4.41 4.09 4.45 4.07 High

4. Somebody should hold the door open to prevent it from locking the people inside. 3.17 3.81 3.62 4.04 4.18 4.05 4.13 High

5. If outside, get clear of buildings, power lines, trees, light poles and other dangers, drop down to your knees and cover your head and neck. 3.11 3.72 3.94 4.31 3.89 4.45 4.07 High

Evacuation and Assembly

6. Once the shaking stops, students must be instructed to leave the building in single file and in a calm, orderly manner. 3.14 3.81 3.87 4.88 3.95 4.66 3.90 Average

7. The person in-charge of each class must indicate the pre-determined route to be used and everyone must be directed to pre-identified evacuation areas. 3.1 3.65 3.55 4.43 3.9 4.49 3.85 Average

8. Specific arrangements must be made for pupils with physical or mental disabilities to ensure that they are assisted during evacuation. 3.39 3.68 3.44 3.72 3.68 4.31 4.05 High

9. No running is to be permitted to avoid panic. 3.86 3.63 4.61 3.97 4.59 3.85 Average

10. On staircases, everyone must descend in single file. Overtaking of classes or individuals must not be permitted. 2.99 3.82 3.74 4.35 3.87 4.45 3.70 Average

11. Lifts must not be used. 3.12 3.01 3.85 4.16 3.87 4.56 4.13 High

12. Watch out for potential falling objects. 3.19 3.91 3.62 4.55 4.18 4.5 3.87 Average

13. Anyone who is not in class when the “shaking” signal went off must observe the surroundings for potential hazardous objects. Then proceed immediately to the evacuation point. 3.08 3.83 3.71 4.33 3.8 4.19 3.76 Average

14. At the assembly point, a roll call or body count must be made to ascertain that no one remains in the building. 3 3.66 3.51 4.35 4.12 4.21 3.99 Average

15. Each teacher must report whether everybody is accounted for or if there are missing students. 2.86 3.61 3.31 4.22 3.97 4.58 3.82 Average

Average 3.1 3.63 3.87 4.36 3.86 4.35 3.81 Average


675

Table 4: Level of implementation of HEI’s on Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery

IV. REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY

Univ A

Univ B

Univ C

Univ D

Univ E

Univ F Ave Implementation

The following are the roles of the school/safety committee

1. The disaster committee established a Programme to restore both the disaster site and the damaged materials to a stable and usable condition. 3.34 3.4 4.72 4.41 3.79 3.44 3.85 Average

2. Determine priorities for restoration work and seek the advice of a conservator as to the best methods and options, and obtain cost estimates. 3.36 3.69 4.48 4.51 3.98 4.17 4.03 High

3. Develop a phased conservation programme where large quantities of materials are involved. 3.12 3.4 4.5 4.14 4.02 3.89 3.85 Average

4. Discard items not worth retaining, and replace or re-bind items not justifying special conservation treatment 3.17 3.53 4.46 4.32 3.54 3.82 4.03 High

5. Clean and rehabilitate the disaster site. 3.13 3.44 4.63 4.34 4.11 4.24 3.85 Average

6. Analyze the disaster and improve the plan in the light of experience. 3.22 3.42 4.49 4.32 3.84 4.32 3.81 Average

7. Conduct damage assessment 3.25 3.53 4.82 4.32 3.84 4.49 3.98 Average

8. Prepared evacuation and sheltering areas. 3.08 3.53 4.53 4.44 3.54 4.62 3.94 Average

9. restoration of utilities and communications 3.18 3.53 4.67 4.28 4.02 4.13 4.04 High

10. conduct detailed building inspections 3.3 3.56 4.73 4.441 4.08 4.36 3.96 Average

11. Preparation for the next disaster 3.28 3.29 4.58 4.28 3.57 4 3.97 Average

12. Conduct of environmental assessments 3.4 3.38 4.51 4.2 3.72 4.43 4.08 High

AVERAGE 3.23 3.47 4.59 4.35 3.84 4.16 3.83 Average


676

Table 5: Summary table on the level of implementation of HEI’s along the four thematic areas

Univ A Univ B Univ C Univ D Univ E Univ F Ave Implementation

Prevention and Mitigation 3.1 3.1 4.2 3.65 3.62 4.17 3.64

Average

Disaster Preparedness 3.07 2.77 4.15 3.87 3.37 4.18 3.57

Average

Response 3.1 3.63 3.87 4.19 3.86 4.35 3.83

Average

Rehabilitation and Recovery 3.23 3.47 4.59 4.35 3.84 4.16 3.94

Average

Average 3.12 3.24 4.20 4.01 3.67 4.21 3.75

Average

Figure 1: Summary data on prevention and mitigation

3.1 3.1

4.2

3.65 3.62

4.17

Level of Implementation

Univ A Univ B Univ C Univ D Univ E Univ F


677

Figure 2: Summary data on disaster preparedness

Figure 3: Summary Table on Disaster Response of HEI’s

3.07 2.77

4.15

3.87

3.37

4.18


3.87

3.1

3.633.86

4.194.35

Level of Implementation

Univ A Univ B Univ C Univ D Univ E Univ FVery High 5

High 4

Ave 3

Low 2

Very Low 1


678

Figure 4: Summary data on Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery of HEI’s

Figure 5: Level of Implementation of HEI’s in disaster risk reduction

3.253.47

4.594.35

3.84

4.16


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


Prevention and Mitigation

Disaster Preparedness

Response

Rehabilitation and Recovery

Very High 5 High 4

Ave 3

Low 2

Very Low 1

Documents

Higher Education Institutions’ Risk Reduction ...oaji.net/articles/2015/352-1435945223.pdf · The possibility of being a victim is still lurking among the HEI’s. Having a disaster