disaster risk reduction training and ... exchange...respondents through the questionnaire, as the...

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TRAINING

AND VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT

CAPACITY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE

RESERVE CORPS IN THE PHILIPPINE

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

A Research Project of the

University of Luzon

and the

Local Government Academy

Research Engagement and Advocacy Program

under the auspices of the

Department of Interior and Local Government

Disaster Risk Reduction Training and

Volunteer Management Capacity of the

National Service Reserve Corps in the

Philippine Higher Education Institutions

1 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TRAINING AND VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT CAPACITY OF THE

NATIONAL SERVICE RESERVE CORPS IN THE PHILIPPINE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The UL Resarch Team wish to profess its sincerest thanks and profound gratitude to the Local Government under the directorship of Ms. Marivel Secandoncillo of the Department of Interior and Local Government for the Research Engagement and Advocacy Program Grant. Special mention is extended to Mr. Michael Bensurto and Ms. Myra Gialogo. Grateful appreciation and heartfelt commendation is likewise bestowed upon the officers and members of the Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers, Incorporated; the heads participating higher educational institutions; Dr. Paulita Boado, Dr. Virginia Nisperos, Dr. William Macob and the clerical staff of the UL Graduate School; the volunteers and staff of the UL Center for Integrated Extension Services and NSTP; and the research assistants of the UL Research Center.

The UL Research Team



TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1

ACRONYMS 3

ABSTRACT 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

INTRODUCTION 12

PROBLEM STATEMENT 18

THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 19

METHOD 23

Research Method Used 23

Locale of The Study 24

Instrumentation 29

Data Gathering Procedure 30

Statistical Treatment of Data 31

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 32

Extent of Management Capacity of the Philippine HEIs in the Operation of

NSRC for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support

32

Significant Differences on the Extent of Capacity of the Philippine HEIs in

the Operation NSRC Units for DRR Training and Volunteer

Management

64

Comparison as to Type of Higher Education Institution Difference by

Region

65

Analysis of Variance of the Extent of Management Capacity 68

Enabling and Constraining Factors Identified with the Extent of Capacity of

the NSRC Units in the HEIs of the Philippines to Provide DRRM

Training and Volunteer Support

70

CONCLUSIONS 78

RECOMMENDATIONS 79

REFERENCES 80

APPENDIX 1: UL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT TEAM 84

APPENDIX 2: THE TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE 85

APPENDIX 3: SOURCE TABLES 98

APPENDIX 4: PHOTO DOCUMENTATION 125



ACRONYMS ANOVA Analysis of Variance APDR Asia Pacific Defence Reporter BDC Barangay Disaster Council CBDRM Community-Based Disaster Risk Management CCA Climate Change Adaptation CHED Commission on Higher Education CNBUs Community-Based NSRC Units CRED Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters CSOs Civil Society Organizations CWTS Civic Welfare Training Service DAG Disaster Awareness Game DCC Disaster Coordinating Council DFID Department for Internal Development DM Disaster Management DND Department of National Defense DRM Disaster Risk Management DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction Management ESCAP Economic and Social Commision for Asia and the Pacific FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FGD Focus Group Discussion GAR Global Alert Response GHG Green House Gas Gos Government Organizations HEIs Higher Education Institutions HFA Hyogo Framework of Action IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent

Societies IGP Implementing Guidelines and Procedures IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPs Indigenous People IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations LDRRMOs Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Offices LGU Local Government Unit LTS Literacy Training Service LUCs Local Universities and Colleges NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council NGO Non-Government Organization NSRC National Service Reserve Corps NSTP National Service Training Program OCD Office of the Civil Defense OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN) PDRRM Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management



PHEI Private Higher Education Institution PSNEI Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers,

Incorporated PVA Participatory Vulnerability Analysis RDE Relevant and Responsive Research, Development and

Extension ROTC Reserve Officers‟ Training Corps SBNUs School-Based NSRC Units SUCs State Universities and Colleges TESDA Technical Education for Skills Development Authority UN United Nations UNDAF Developement Assistance Framework UNDESD United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable

Development UNDRO United Nations Disaster Relief Organization UNDP United Nations Development Program UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNICEF United Nations Children‟s Fund UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction VCA Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment



ABSTRACT The study attempted to ascertain the extent of capability of the higher

education institutions (HEIs) as providers of local training and volunteer support

on disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) through the National

Service Reserve Corps (NSRC) under the National Service Training Program

(NSTP) as mandated by Republic Act (RA) No. 9163 (The NSTP Act of 2001)

and RA 10121 (The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

(PDRRM) Framework Act) and consistent with the Local Government Academy

(LGA) Research Engagement and Advocacy Program (REAP) of the Department

of Interior and Local Government (DILG) thrust of determining schemes and

strategies on DRRM and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) across the country.

This nation-wide survey purported to empirically strengths and

weaknesses of the institutions of higher learning in providing baseline data in the

formulation of strategic capacity development plan to upscale the operation of the

HEI-DRRM training organizations in extending volunteer support to local

government units (LGUs). In more specific terms, this investigation sought to

address the fundamental research question: How do the NSRC Units as DRRM

training organizations operate in terms of: DRR prioritization; risk assessment,

monitoring and warning; knowledge and education; underlying risk factors;

preparedness and response; evaluation of local-level government initiatives;

cross-cutting issues; and administrative concerns?

This research endeavored to measure progress in implementing disaster

prevention and mitigation measures consistent with the end in view of

establishing a national framework for school-based disaster management unit to

intensify participation of the higher education institutions (HEIs) through the

National Service Reserve Corps (NSRC).

A total of 94 public and private HEIs from the different regions of the

country were made part of the study. These HEIs are member-institutions of the

Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers, Incorporated (PSNEI),

a national network of NSTP and NSRC implementers in the country.

In summary, the HEIs across the country registered moderate extent

insofar as management capacity along the 7 seven thematic areas are

concerned. Further, when responses are grouped into public or private HEIs,

there is no significant difference on their extent of management capacities when

compared statistically while there is significant difference in the measures when

the HEIs are grouped by region. Various emerging and constraining factors were

identified alongside with the local training and volunteer support capacities of the

two groups of respondents.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TRAINING AND VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT CAPACITY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE RESERVE

CORPS IN THE PHILIPPINE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS Background of the Problem

Higher education institution disaster risk reduction significantly form part of the NSTP as embodied in Republic Act (RA) No. 9163 that provides for the basis of the NSRC activities since 2005. Universities and colleges through NSRC offer the opportunity to develop students a continuous source of volunteers for DRR and other related activities and programs. HEIs are also important areas for capacity development for disaster prevention education and safe institutions of higher learning.

However, the Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers,

Incorporated (PSNEI) (2013), the premier national association for NSTP of more than 150 higher education institions (HEIs), reveals that inclusion of disaster awareness and risk reduction in school programs has been sporadic and perceived as a „burdensome‟ addition to an already charged curriculum, more so, in far operation of NSRC as training organization and local volunteer support. Among other reasons, this may be attributable to ineffective approaches being used and the lack of clear implementation guidelines.

While there are periodic attempts by some educational institutions in

offering DRR training and volunteer support to local government units, there are no common standards upon which these programs are based.

Since the achievement of disaster risk reduction is critical, and can be

achieved through capacity development of HEIs as they play quintessential role in disaster education via educational programs such as NSTP and the operation NSRC in particular, it has given impetus for the conduct of this investigation.This study therefore intends to explore whether the NSRCs has operated in the purview of its mandates per RA 9163 and RA 10121. Statement of the Problem

This purported to empirically ascertain the extent of management capacity of the Philippine higher education institutions (HEIs) in operating their National Service Reserve Corps (NSRC) for local disaster risk reduction (DRR) training and volunteer support providers. Results of the study shall serve as baseline data in formulating strategic directions for the NSRCs of the public and private HEIs towards disaster-resilient and climate-resistant communities.



Specifically, the study attempted to provide answers to the following research questions:

1. What is the extent of management capacity of the Philippine HEIs

in the operation of the NSRC for local DRRM training and volunteer support along the following thematic areas: a. DRR as Internal Priority; b. Risk Assessment and Monitoring; c. Knowledge and Education; d. Underlying Risk Factors; e. Preparedness and Response; f. Local Government Support; and g. Cross-Cutting Issues?

2. How do the extent of management capacity of the HEIs in operating

NSRC for local DRR training and volunteer support differ when categorized according to types of HEI and by region?

3. What enabling and constraining factors are identified in the context of the extent of management capacity of the Philippine HEIs in operating NSRC for local DRR training and volunteer support?

Research Method Used Mixed methods approach was used for this study, where both qualitative and quantitative methods were combined. Mixed methods is defined as a procedure for collecting, analyzing and “mixing” both quantitative and qualitative data at some stage of the research process within a single study to understand a research problem more completely (Mamogale citing Maree, 2012). The researcher deemed it appropriate to use this design as the focus in this endeavor is on coming up with a national baseline study to determine the capacity of NSRC Units in providing training and volunteer support, data of which involved quantitative measure, and further identified success and limiting factors concerning more qualitative responses, the aforementioned method was resorted thereby observing triangulation by instituting multiple data sourcing techniques in establishing the veracity of the results. In a more exact account, the data were mainly elicited from the respondents through the questionnaire, as the chief data-gathering instrument, and complemented by focus group discussion (FGD) and key informant interview with the NSTP-NSRC implementer-participants.



Significant Findings

The salient findings reflected here is manifested following the analysis of the data:

Extent of Capacity of the HEIs in the Operation of NSRC on DRR Training and Volunteer Management

This national study aimed to measure the extent of management

capacity of the higher education institutions across the country in order to provide baseline input for analyzing the operational status of the National Service Reserve Corps in DRR training and volunteer mobilization.

For this study, 43 private HEIs and 51 public institutions representing the 15 regions of the Philippines participated in the study.

The participant-respondents‟ appraisal dealt with 7 thematic areas with 32 indicators in total and were weighed guided by 5-point Likert scale.

In summation, the HEIs scored moderately in all but one area, i.e, underlying risk factors. The two groups having weighted means of 3.18 for private and 3.02 for public rated to a “moderate” extent.

By thematic area, the findings are to wit:

DRR Prioritization

The area is consists of indicators as: frameworks and structures; planning; financial resources; and human resources.

The 4 indicators when combined and weighed, posted “moderate” extent.

Planning as observed to register “high” extent.

Financial resources had the lowest mean.

Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning

Considered are indicators that includes; disaster risk assessment; early warning systems; and risk management systems.

Mean value for this thematic area is 2.84 (moderate extent).

The 3 indicators had descriptive equivalents of “moderate”. Knowledge and Education

The indicators under this theme are: information management exchange (mean=3.21); formal education (training staff) (mean=2.98); and community training (mean=2.67).

The over all mean is 2.95 which is equivalent to “moderate“.



All indicators are rated “moderate extent” as well.

Underlying Risk Factors

This theme accounts for; environmental and natural resource management (mean=3.5); adaptation to climate change (mean=3.50) and protection of facilities (mean=3.36).

The weighted mean for the 3 indicators is 3.45 and is of “high extent”.

Of the thematic areas, underlying factors registered the highest mean.

Preparedness and Response

Accounted in this area are: disaster preparedness (future risks) (mean=3.08); disaster response (mean=3.11); disaster preparedness and response (mean=3.08); disaster response and recovery (mean=2.70); emergency resources (mean=2.71); and coordination and information exchange (mean=2.84).

The extent of capacity of the HEIs in this case is of moderate extent (mean=3.01).

Measures of mean ranged from 2.70 to 3.11.

Local Government Support

Factored in are: governance (mean=3.40); risk assessment monitoring and warning (mean=3.24); knowledge and education (mean=3.21); underlying risk factors (mean=3.07); and preparedness and response (mean=3.30).

All except for governance had ratings belonging to adjectival description “moderate”.

When averaged, the weight of the 5 indicators is 3.24.

Cross-Cutting Issues

Composed of 8 indicators, the area concentrated on: community participation and information (mean=3.38); actual and fair participation (mean=2.71); training activities (mean=3.06); gender (mean=3.21); gender (resources) (mean=2.83); cultural sensitivity (diversity) (mean=2.91); cultural sensitivity (traditional knowledge) (mean=3.01); and cultural sensitivity (languages) (mean=2.90).

The computed mean for the 8 indicators is 3.0 (moderate).

For this thematic area, the weight of 8 indicators is moderate. Differences on the Extent of Capacity of HEIs in the Operation of NSRC on DRR Training and Volunteer Management

When tested statistically, the null hypothesis concerning the difference between public and private higher educations on their extent of capacity in the operation of NSRC on DRR training and volunteer management along the 7 seven thematic themes was accepted at 0.05 significance level. This could be



the reason that both public and private HEIs are guided by the same laws and implementing guidelines, on a general note.

On the other hand, results of application of Analysis of Variance (Analysis of Variance) to ascertain the differences in the extent of management capacity of HEIs as per thematic area by region and indicators reveal that the ratings are significantly different which can be atibuted to factors like geographical location, poverty threshhold level and others.

Enabling and Constraining Factors in the Context of the Extent of Capacity of HEIs in the Operation of NSRC on DRR Training and Volunteer Management

For the 7 thematic areas, the emerging themes in so far as factors that enables the capacity of the HEIs in the operation of NSRC on DRR training and volunteer management are, but not limited to; strong partnership with government, non-government peoples organizations including other agencies that can be tapped for DRR works like Red Cross, Local DRRM Council, etc. Commitment of NSTP/NSRC personnel; Organization of Volunteers for DRR; Awareness of the laws pertinent to DRR and Climate Change adaptation; Alignment of the Extension Thrust of the Institution and Institutional Policies to DRR and proper coordination of all concerned and stakeholders.

Regarded as “building blocks” are the constraining factors that cut across all the DRR training and volunteer management thematic areas are financial limitations, technical difficulties, time constraints, lukewarm attitude of the Administration, the LGUs‟ and the community people, lack of research-based initiatives to support DRR training and volunteer mobilization, lack of measure to sustained DRR efforts, etc. Conclusion Based on the results of the study relative to the extent of management capacity of the higher education institutions in the operation of NSRC for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Management, the test of significant difference and the probing on enabling and constraining factors along the 7 thematic areas, the researcher, motivated to address the present-day situation of mitigation and preparation works in anticipation of disaster risks, deemed it noble to propose for capacity development framework. Capacity development is a key component of strengthening community-level preparedness. All levels of the preparedness and response system require skilled people in disaster management with a clear understanding of their role within that system. This capacity development should not only include community members, but should create dialogue and learning between all actors that form part of the disaster management system.



Griffin in SOPAC Technical Report 349 (2001) drew up a checklist of key competencies and professional development needs for national disaster management authority staff, for National Development Management Committees (NDMC) personnel and for organizations that have a disaster management role. For these he identified eight major areas: risk management, preparedness, community disaster management, response management, recovery management, communication and networking, administration and management and training and development. Hence, the Strategic Capacity Development Porgram Model.



INTRODUCTION Disasters threaten the lives of millions of people around the world. Over the last decade, the world has experienced catastrophic disasters both man-made and natural. In the coming years, vulnerability to disasters is expected to increase as the frequency and intensity of natural hazards rises due to climate change. (Webster, 2008) In the absence of any counter measures, climate change is expected to influence future disaster risks in three ways: first, through the likely increase in weather and climatic hazards such as global warming, sea-level rise, and erratic precipitation patterns; second, through increases in the vulnerability of communities to natural hazards due to ecosystem degradation, reductions in water resources and food availability, and changes in livelihoods; and third, by pushing more people to higher levels of hazard exposure. Although it is extremely difficult to quantify the physical impact of any particular climate change process, there have been some qualitative estimates of future disaster risks and the threats to development (IPCC, 2007). These disasters are pending issues and unresolved problems of development and governance and require an alternative perspective to depart from a response-based approach towards risk reduction and mitigation (Nivaran as cited in the GAR, 2009). Consequently, development can be identified as the cornerstone defining disasters. The character of development over the last decades, which has a strong orientation towards maximizing economic growth has degraded the natural environment, undermined the livelihoods and socio-economic status of large numbers of many poor people, and has expanded levels of risk, exposure and vulnerabilities including capacities. (UNISDR, 2009). Therefore, managing capacities relative to mitigation of and preparation for disaster risks is a growing concern. For reducing vulnerability, it is important to be pro-active, tackling the obstacles directly and exploring a wide range of opportunities. It is also vital to approach these issues on a broad front, integrating disasters and climate change policies and socioeconomic policies aimed at reducing poverty and inequities. This means that reducing disaster risks has become a matter of high importance especially where disaster risks abound, and to the poor and the marginalized who are most affected by disasters. There is a need to make disaster risk reduction (DRR) a primary strategy for sustainable and equitable



socio-economic development, thus, requiring instituitional capacity to manage the multifarious works of preparedness, response and recovery. Specially so that there is now an international recognition that response alone is not sufficient to meet the increasing demand caused by hazard impacts on larger populations. It bears the obligation to share knowledge that can help with identifying hazards and risks, taking action to build safety and resilience, and reducing future hazard impacts. To this end, the global context for disaster risk reduction is shaped by the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) in building the resilience of nations and communities, was adopted by 168 nation-states in 2005 and is envisioned to culminate this year. This ten-year strategy identifies five priority areas for action. This global blueprint for disaster risk reduction efforts by providing specific operational guidance forpromoting disaster risk reduction. It is designed to help guide planning for public awareness and public education efforts, to produce increasingly successful andhigh-impact outcomes. The HFA seeks the outcome of “the substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of communities and countries.” Supported by specific priorities as: (1) ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implemention; (2) identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning; (3) use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels; (4) reduce the underlying risk factors; and (5) strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels, the HFA emphasizes a shift from reactive emergency relief to pro-active disaster risk reduction (DRR) in the pre-disaster stages by strengthening prevention, mitigation and preparedness. Disasters can be substantially reduced if people are well informed and motivated towards a culture of disaster prevention and resilience, which in turn requires the collection, compilation and dissemination of relevant knowledge and information on hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities as spelled out in Priority 3 of five-point framework. (UNISDR, 2005) This was also emphasized in Priority Five (5), the HFA highlighted the essential role that disaster preparedness can play in saving lives and livelihoods particularly when integrated into an overall disaster risk reduction approach. Strengthened preparedness for hazard events is mainly concerned with two objectives: increasing capacity to predict, monitor and be prepared to reduce damage or address potential threats and strengthening preparedness to respond in an emergency and to assist those who have been adversely affected. Both of which can be addressed through the involvement of the different institutions when it comes to DRR training and volunteer support development.



The Framework states that “civil society, including volunteers and community-based organizations, the scientific community and the private sector are vital stakeholders in supporting the implementation of disaster risk reduction at all levels.” The Priorities for Action of the Framework suggest that community participation in disaster risk reduction includes the strategic management of volunteer resources and calls for the development of specific mechanisms to engage active stakeholder participation. Further, it acknowledges that “civil society, including volunteers and community-based organizations are vital stakeholders in supporting the implementation of disaster risk reduction at all levels, including educational institutions.” The Hyogo Framework also called for education and training to “promote community-based training initiatives, considering the role of volunteers, as appropriate, to enhance local capacities to mitigate and cope with disasters, particularly by the educational managers.” It is then important to stress that public awareness and recognition of the role and contribution of volunteers is a critical ingredient to a comprehensive risk reduction management plan. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, the first response, both spontaneous and organized, generally comes from local communities. To take full advantage of community resilience after a disaster, affected communities need to be well prepared. A first step in this direction is the formal recognition of the value of local volunteer efforts. The involvement communities and institutions for disaster risk reduction launched via the Hyogo Framework led to the expression in the objectives of many national and regional projects which is expected to strengthen the sustainability of DRR in school education, both formal and non-formal. Schools (to include higher education institutions) play a versatile role in the communities and hence, the impacts of disasters on schools are pervasive. They are the best venues for forging durable collective values and, therefore, is suitable for building a culture of prevention and disaster resilience. (http://www.irinnews.org/report/96909/philippines-teaching-disaster-preparedness-in-schools as retrieved 02/01/2015) These school-based initiatives can engage and provoke local government. (Schick, 2007) The initiatives increases safety and resilience by educating communities through campaigns, informal education, participatory learning and other educational programs. Education and training of volunteers most especially, are, indeed, the foundations of disaster preparedness and have been recognized as essential elements in sustainable development and disaster risk reduction strategies since it accelerates the progress of societies toward disaster resilience. Needless to say that the management of the educational institutions should



have as internal priority disaster risk reduction. Hence, requiring the development of their capacities. Guided by the HFA and reaffirmed in the Bangkok Action Agenda and reiterated in the Declarations of the Second and Third Ministerial Conferences on Disaster Reduction, the pivotal role of education in reducing disaster risks has been recognized by national policy makers. It is now beyond the discussion stage that integrating DRR into the education system is essential and it should be done from different angles and on different fronts in the different parts of the globe. This was the stimulus for the marked increase of initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region to promote the integration of disaster risk reduction into school education in the light of havocs brought by so many calamities that hit the Region. For this, the Region (APDR, 2010) has had to cope with an unprecedented number of disasters. In all cases, - from Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh, Bhutan and India, Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan Province of China, Viet Nam, Lao Peoples‟ Democratic Republic and Cambodia, the Padang earthquake in Indonesia, the Samoa earthquake and subsequent Pacific tsunami disaster, the heat waves and rampant wildfires in Australia and the Russian Federation, the earthquake in Qinghai Province in China, to the massive floods and landslides in Pakistan, China, India and Bhutan, and of course, Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines - it is the poor and vulnerable that bear the brunt and worst risks and impacts of these disasters. People of the Asia-Pacific region are four times more likely to be affected by natural disasters than those living in Africa, and 25 times more likely than those living in Europe or North America. Ergo, the need to capacitate disaster risk reduction managers. The concept of capacity building became an essential component in development theory and practice in recent years. Specifically, in developing countries like the Philippines, building capacity has been identified as a key concept in achieving sustainability. (Hartwig, et al., 2008) It has been interpreted as ensuring adoption and maintenance of communities and local organizations to cope future challenges while achieving set objectives (Bracht, et al., 1994). Boyd and Juhola, (2009) indicate that capacity building provides an opportunity to understand strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities towards a resilient future through identification of broader issues around sustainable development of a particular program, project or process. Webb and Rogers (2003) indicates that capacity building becomes dominant in disaster management, policy and practice. The necessity of DRR is made more prominent by the need to develop and strengthen local disaster prevention, mitigation, response, and even reconstruction capacities to complement national initiatives and efforts, as stipulated in Republic Act No. (RA) 10121, otherwise known as the Philippine



Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework Act of 2010, in the purview of the country‟s status as one of the world‟s most disaster-prone countries (IFRC, 2009) and consistently among the top five countries with the highest number of reported disaster events (CRED, 2013) considering its geographical location in the Pacific Ring of Fire and along the typhoon belt. While natural disasters cannot be avoided, adopting adequate risk reduction approaches which can be realized by effective and efficient management of DRR capacities, can considerably reduce the scale of damage and protect prior development gains. When woven together, the different core activities combine to make communities safer and more resilient, contributing to the process of sustainable development. (IFRC, 2011) Relative to this, as the Philippine government makes headway in integrating disaster preparedness in the educational institutions, emphasis is placed on managing capacities of institutions of learning in engaging the young people to DRR work. In higher education, in particular, there are certain legal mandates that pursue to promote participation of the youth as in Republic Act (RA) 9163, otherwise known as the National Service Training Program (NSTP) Act of 2001 providing for the basis of the teaching of the 25-hour common modular topics that include concepts of disaster risk reduction and management and climate change adaptation and the creation of the National Service Reserve Corps (NSRC) which shall be composed of the graduates of the non-military program components of NSTP. One of the mandates of the National Service Reserve Corps (NSRC) of the National Service Training Program (NSTP) as stipulated in the RA 10121 as potential training organization for and auxiliary support to local DRRM initiatives, is an innovative approach to DRR that fosters the agency of youth and educational institutions especially colleges and universities, in groups and as individuals, to work towards making lives safer and communities more resilient to disasters. Corollary to the aims of the said law of enhancing civic-consciousness and defense preparedness, the implementing rules and regulations of the RA 10121 lay down clear-cut guidelines in the participation of the youth in building capacities and providing volunteer support to communities for disaster risk reduction through NSRC. School-based disaster risk reduction significantly form part of the NSTP as embodied in Republic Act (RA) No. 9163 that provides for the basis of the NSRC activities since 2005. Universities and colleges through NSRC offer the opportunity to develop students a continuous source of volunteers for DRR and other related activities and programs. This is to stress that HEIs are important areas for management capacity development disaster prevention education and ensuring the safety of these institutions..



Preliminary report, however, of the Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers, Incorporated (PSNEI) (2013), the premier national association for NSTP of more than 150 higher education institions (HEIs), reveals that inclusion of disaster awareness and risk reduction in school programs has been sporadic and perceived as a „burdensome‟ addition to an already charged curriculum, more so, in far operation of NSRC as training organization and local volunteer support. Among other reasons, this may be attributable to ineffective approaches being used and the lack of clear implementation guidelines. In the Congress of NSTP Educators and Implementers held in 2014, it was observed that inspite of the guidelines set, NSRC units are not fully operational on the basis of DRR Training and Volunteer support in the local communities. The NSTP and NSRC heads and staff in attendance consensually agreed that a significant number of HEIs lack management capacity. On the part of the government, it lacks the capacity to provide assistance at the community level, and instead rely on often overburdened traditional structures and civil society organizations resulting in gaps in service delivery, monitoring and evaluation. The NSRC National Directorate Center under the auspices of the Office of the Civil Defense (OCD) activated in June 2012 has held in the full implementation of the NSRC with the activation of NSRC Directorate Offices and the NSRC groups in selected Pilot-Testing of School and Communities followed by other Institutions and LGUs. The NSCR National Training Program (NSRC NTP) as proposed in July 2012 during the OCD budget planning conference has not been realized up to this moment. It is to be noted that the NSRC mandate of development, organization, training, administration, utilization, mobilization, operation, accreditation, protection and funding is one of the DRR priority programs under preparedness for effective response (IGP, RA 10121). While there are periodic attempts by some educational institutions in offering DRR training and volunteer support to local government units, there are no common standards upon which these programs are based. Since the achievement of disaster risk reduction is critical, and can be achieved through capacity development of HEIs as they play quintessential role in disaster education via educational programs such as NSTP and the operation NSRC in particular, it has given impetus for the conduct of this investigation.This study therefore intends to explore whether the NSRCs has operated in the purview of its mandates per RA 9163 and RA 10121.



PROBLEM STATEMENT This purported to empirically ascertain the extent of management capacity of the Philippine higher education institutions (HEIs) in operating their National Service Reserve Corps (NSRC) for local disaster risk reduction (DRR) training and volunteer support providers. Results of the study shall serve as baseline data in formulating strategic directions for the NSRCs of the public and private HEIs towards disaster-resilient and climate-resistant communities. Specifically, the study attempted to provide answers to the following research questions:

1. What is the extent of management capacity of the Philippine HEIs in the operation of the NSRC for local DRRM training and volunteer support along the following thematic areas:

a. DRR as Internal Priority; b. Risk Assessment and Monitoring; c. Knowledge and Education; d. Underlying Risk Factors; e. Preparedness and Response; f. Local Government Support; and g. Cross-Cutting Issues?

2. How do the extent of management capacity of the HEIs in operating

NSRC for local DRR training and volunteer support differ when categorized according to types of HEI and by region?

3. What enabling and constraining factors are identified in the context of the extent of management capacity of the Philippine HEIs in operating NSRC for local DRR training and volunteer support?



THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The study subscribes to the stress-strain theoretical perspective (Haas and Drabek 1973; Drabek and Haas 1974, 1969; Drabek 2000, 1999, 1994, 1990). This perspective complements and augments “emergent norm theory” (e.g., Turner 1964, Perry 1983) and the “bounded rationality” model formulated by Simon (1956, 1957) that has been applied so effectively by Burton et al. (1993). Building on collective stress perspective, Drabek (2003) formulated a model for predicting the relative effectiveness of disaster responses. Local emergency managers were viewed as being nested within state that changed over time reflecting perceptions of threats, government policies, demographic trends, and other such factors). By implementing a series of managerial strategies, various forms of interagency networks are nurtured which spring into action when disaster threatens. Use or misuse of 26 specific coordination strategies predict the shape of the emergent response and its effectiveness. These findings provided the basis of his theory of emergency management that focused on the perceived skills of successful emergency managers include communication and human resource management, organizational astuteness, and the ability to maintain control under stress. In this theory, local emergency or disaster managers were viewed as making choices within the context of highly uncertain and incomplete information bases. Thus, during both disaster responses and non-disaster times, they engage in bargaining actions reflecting their perceptions of community needs and desired courses of action. Through a variety of managerial strategies they seek to nurture interagency structures that represent key resource nodes that can be mobilized when disaster is imminent. And as major threats approach, those most effective in their jobs, will use a series of coordination strategies with which to facilitate the emergence of a multi-organizational network through which appropriate resources can be directed toward the demands generated by a disaster event. Managerial choices and actions (Drabek 1987), like those of tourists confronting the uncertainties of evacuation advisories (e.g., Drabek 1996), can be interpreted and somewhat predicted by unraveling multiple layers of social constraint. The stress/strain perspective suggests that these multiple areas of constraint can thus be used to explain the variation in disaster responses among local emergency managers and the corresponding degrees of effectiveness reflected in such. Many disaster researchers have stressed that it is crucial that emergency managers understand management principles (Drabek, 2007; Lindell et al., 2006; Perry, 1991; Pine, 2006). Additionally, emergency or



disaster managers must also have communications, administrative, and coordination skills to successfully implement a comprehensive emergency management program that the public, emergency responders, and elected and appointed officials can understand. Lindell et al., in reviewing Drabek„s (1987) views, concurred that ―critical skills also include agenda control, constituency support building, budget, and financial analysis expertise, coalition building skills, and innovation and entrepreneurial skills. Essentially, today„s emergency managers must have a broad range of management and administrative skills. With the theoretical perspective as basis for disaster research, many conditions influencing the effectiveness of local disaster managers like those in the operation of NSRC Units in the higher educational institutions are identified in producing community hazard adjustments such as hazard/vulnerability analyses, hazard mitigation, emergency response preparedness and disaster recovery preparedness. The planning process includes preparedness analysis, planning activities, resource development, organizational climate development and strategic choice. In turn, the planning process is determined by five factors, the first of which is community hazard experience and hazard analyses that reveal the likelihood and expected impacts of future disasters. Hazard exposure/vulnerability also has an indirect effect on the planning process via its effects on community support from public officials in both the local as well as national governments and the news media, as well as different demographic, economic and political segments of the local population. This community support draws upon community resources such as staff and budget to yield staffing and organization for disaster management especially along training capacity and local volunteer support on DRRM. In addition, communities draw upon extra-community resources such as professional associations, government agencies, regional organizations and even educational institutions to supplement their own resources. A related approach, consistent with stress-strain theory, that is gaining widespread support is that of disaster risk management (DRM) which combines, through a management perspective, the concept of prevention, mitigation and preparedness with response. The effective implementation of both DRR and DRM systems is contingent on sound institutional capacities by key actors at different levels of government, the private sector and civil society as well as effective coordination between these actors and levels. These challenges were given emphatic recognition by the Hyogo Framework for Action. Substantially, reducing the impact of disasters and to make risk reduction an essential component of development policies and programs was spelled out in the Framework as an urgent call and premised on three



strategic goals: to integrate disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and planning, to develop and strengthen institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards and to systematically incorporate risk reduction approaches into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programs. The Hyogo Framework specifically challenges states to foster a “holistic approach” to disaster risk reduction that will “promote and support dialogue, exchange of information and coordination among early warning, disaster risk reduction, disaster response, development and other relevant agencies and institutions at all levels”. This direction relates to the HFA‟s second strategic goal: “the development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, in particular at the community level, that can systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards.”(Lindell, 2011) For educational institutions, priorities 3 and 5, i.e., use of knowledge innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels; and strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels respectively, are specific guideposts in designing response structures for disasters which is a difficult task, particularly when resources are low. (http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/96/05/over_fn.html#fn1 as retrieved 02/06/2015) In so doing, crafting of disaster plans to address capacity of learning institutions in managing risk reduction to include higher education institutions is anchored on a two-pronged approach:

A significantly strengthened capacity to track, collate, monitor and disseminate information on phenomena and activities known to trigger disaster events. This needs to be supported by institutional emergency preparedness and response capacity.

An increased commitment to prevention and mitigation actions that will reduce the probability and severity of disaster events. These actions should be incorporated into existing and future policies, plans and projects of national, provincial and local government, as well as policies and practices.

La Ford, et al. (2002) stated capacity building can be defined either as a process or outcome activity that improves the ability. He further argued that capacity building can be seen in two extremes where in one extreme resides the increase of knowledge and development of skills of individuals through training programs and the other, in a much broader context which integrates wide range of systems such as policy making, management and finance.



Capacity building has been identified as a key concept in achieving sustainability in developing countries (like the Philippines) whereas absence of knowledge and practice on sustainable concepts is a major challenge visible in various fields. Serageldin (1994) stated that the most important element of sustainability is to get institutions right in the sense of engaging all people to overcome consequences of short and long term impacts of social, economic and environmental aspects (Hayles, 2003). Relative to this, the provisions of RA 10121, otherwise known as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act adopting disaster risk reduction and management approach that is holistic, comprehensive, integrated, and proactive in lessening the socio-economic and environmental impacts of disasters including climate change, and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors and all stakeholders concerned, at all levels, especially the local community, lend support to the operation of NSRC Units as DRR training organization and local volunteer support provider. In particular, the Implementing Guidelines and Procedures (IGP) of RA 10121 provided for the basis the development, organization, training, administration, utilization, mobilization, operation, accreditation, protection and funding of NSRC per Rule 9 of the IRR of RA 10121 and Section 11 of the NSTP Act of 2001 as embodied in RA 9163. Based on the theoretical and conceptual frameworks, this study is premised on the systems approach as illustrated in Figure 1. The paradigm of the study depicts the flow of the study where the input pertains to the extent of capacity of the HEIs in operating their school and community-based NSRC units as providers of training and volunteer support. In addition, operational concerns will also be identified. These was processed via desk literature review and analysis of the input variables. In more specific terms, comparative analysis was resorted in determining the significant difference between and among the HEIs in terms of training and volunteer management capacity. On the basis of the analysis of the variables of the study, an operational model will be formulated to guide school and community based NSRC units in the HEIs in the country. It is also noteworthy to mention that to ensure that the problems as identified in the study are properly addressed with answers, feedback mechanism is in place.



METHOD Research Method Used Consistent with the aims of the study, the mixed research method was employed to ascertain the training and volunteer management capacity of the higher education institutions in the Philippines as per mandate of Republic Act Nos. 9163 and 10121 insofar as operationalization of the National Service Reserve Corps is concerned. Mixed methods approach was used for this study, where both qualitative and quantitative methods were combined. Mixed methods is defined as a procedure for collecting, analyzing and “mixing” both quantitative and qualitative data at some stage of the research process within a single study to understand a research problem more completely (Mamogale citing Maree, 2012). As an extension to the discussion, the author added the definitions provided by Creswell (2003) that can aid in clarifying the three approaches:

A quantitative approach is one in which the investigator primarily uses post positivist claims for developing knowledge, employs strategies of inquiry such as experiments and surveys and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield statistical data.

A qualitative approach is one in which the inquirer often makes knowledge claims based primarily on constructivist perspectives, or advocacy/participatory perspectives. It also uses strategies of inquiry such as narratives, phenomenologies, ethnographies, grounded theory studies, or case studies. The researcher collects open-ended, emerging data with the primary intent of developing themes from data.

Mixed methods approach is one in which the researcher tends to base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds. It employs strategies of inquiry that involve collecting data either simultaneously or sequentially to best understand research problems. The data collection also involves gathering both numeric information for example (on instruments) as well as text information (interviews) so that the final database represents both quantitative and qualitative information.

The researcher deemed it appropriate to use this design as the focus in this endeavor is on coming up with a national baseline study to determine the capacity of NSRC Units in providing training and volunteer support, data of which involved quantitative measure, and further identified success and



limiting factors concerning more qualitative responses, the aforementioned method was resorted thereby observing triangulation by instituting multiple data sourcing techniques in establishing the veracity of the results. In a more exact account, the data were mainly elicited from the respondents through the questionnaire, as the chief data-gathering instrument, and complemented by focus group discussion (FGD) and key informant interview with the NSTP-NSRC implementer-participants. The FGD deepened the understanding of data gathered in the survey with the key informant interviews brought out details that did not emerge from the data-gathering instrument that will be administered. In like manner, validation and analysis workshops, done in informal interview manner, with the respondents were also conducted to ensure that the respondent‟s assessments and experiences were heard throughout the important phases of the study. Finally, as it is called for in aid of the testing the hypothesis advanced in this probe, comparative analysis was, likewise, utilized. It helped the researcher to ascend from the initial level of exploratory studies to a more advanced level of general theoretical models, invariances, such as causality or evolution (http://www2.uiah.fi/projekti/metodi/172.htm as retrieved 02/16/2015). Locale of the Study As this study purports to empirically assess the training capability of the NSRC Units of the HEIs as DRRM Training Organizations as provided for in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10121 with the end in view determining the strengths and weakness of the institutions in providing baseline data in upscaling the operation of the training organizations and for local volunteer support to LGUs, this investigation will be a nation-wide survey. With the HEIs through the NSRC as potential DRRM training organizations in the local levels, the colleges and universities under the auspices of the Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers, Incorporated (PSNEI) across the regions of the country (Figure 1) play a pivotal role insofar as mobilizing volunteers DRRM and CCA are concerned. Hence, gauging the competence of the training organizations is significant in the purview of intensifying the efforts alongside building Climate Change-Proof Philippines via Disaster-Resilient Communities. According to the Global Climate Risk Index 2013, the Philippines ranked fifth, up from 14th place in 2010, in terms of countries most affected



by extreme weather conditions - after Thailand, Cambodia, Pakistan and El Salvador (http://germanwatch.org/en/5696 as retrieved 02/08/2015). The Philippines, located in Southeast Asia (see Figure 2) is one of the world‟s most disaster-prone countries (IFRC, 2009) and consistently among the top five countries with the highest number of reported disaster events (CRED, 2013) considering its geographical location in the Pacific Ring of Fire and along the typhoon belt. (see Figure 3) Many argue that countries like ours are particularly vulnerable to advance impact of climate change due to poverty, weak governance and ecosystem degradation. However, building capacity is becoming a challenge with rapidly changing social, economic and technological drivers, polices and various players involved in disaster management. The Philippines is among the lower middle income countries, according to World Bank‟s country income classification. High risk due to the above hazards can discourage foreign investments in the country and affect long-term economic development. However, the different regions and their component provinces, municipalities and cities that comprise differ in terms of exposure to hazards, risks and vulnerabilities. Some parts of the country are more prone to specific hazards than others; some parts are exposed to more hazards than others. In an analysis of natural disaster hotspots by the Hazard Management Unit of World Bank, the Philippines is among the countries where large percentages of population reside in disaster-prone areas. Many highly populated areas are exposed to multiple hazards; 22.3% of the land area is exposed to three or more hazards and in that area, 36.4% of the population are exposed. Areas where two or more hazards are prevalent comprise 62.2% of the total area where 73.8% of the population are exposed. (World Bank, 2005)



Fig. 1. Map of the Philippines Indicating the Location of the Different Regions



Fig. 2. Map of Southeast Asia Indicating the Location of the Philippines



Fig. 3. Location of the Philippines along the Pacific Ring of Fire



Instrumentation

Data gathered from primary and secondary sources. Primary data was gathered with the aid of questionnaires and interview process. Literature review of relevant sources of information about the research problem and research questions were conducted as secondary data.

The principal data gathering instrument used in this investigation is a survey questionnaire. This instrument was based on a cross-section of materials relating to measuring capability of organizations in managing training programs on DRR.

The data obtained from the respondents were carefully analyzed with the purpose of probing into patterns or trends in so far as training and volunteer support capacity of school and community-based DRRM operation is concerned.

The unavailability and absence of a standardized, field-tested survey instrument have prompted the researcher to construct a questionnaire-checklist as the main instrument in data gathering following extensive review of literature particularly that of OCHA‟s report 2012.

The OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific supports its partners by providing analysis to increase the partner‟s capacity to coordinate and implement humanitarian action. In order to fulfill these commitments, the OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific commissioned this analysis of disaster response training.

Derived primarily from the questionnaire used in a study by OCHA, the researcher identified seven (7) thematic areas and a total of thirty-two (32) indicators (also referred to as items), to wit: DRR as Internal Priority (4 indicators); Risk Assessment and Monitoring (3 indicators); Knowledge and Education (3 indicators); Underlying Risk Factors (3 indicators); Preparedness and Response (6 indicators); Local Government Support (5 indicators); and Cross-Cutting Issues (8 indicators)

To ensure that data collected was valid and reliable, a pilot study was conducted ensuring that questionnaire and interview instruments were tested.

According to Maree (2003), validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. Reliability is the extent to which a measuring instrument is repeatable and consistent. In qualitative research, validity and reliability are usually referring to research that is credible and trustworthy, where observation, interviews and document analysis lead to trustworthiness as reported by Maree (2010) as reflected in paper of Mamogale (2012). Ensuring the validity and reliability of data collected, the following measures were employed: internal validity was employed where research questionnaires and interview guidelines were assessed and reviewed by experts consisting of the national board members



of the Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers, Inc. representing the different regions in the country and senior staff members of the National NSRC Directorate under the auspices of the Office of the Civil Defense for approval before issued for respondents. It was also ensured that data collected were valid and reliable by ensuring that the questionnaires and interview instruments were tested in the pilot phase held in first quarter of 2014, which consisted of the following 15 NSTP directors/coordinators, the regional directors of PSNEI, 2 CHED Regional education supervisors, 3 program managers of organizations involved in disaster risk reduction and 4 heads of institutions.

To determine the reliability of the instrument, the items were pre-tested to select NSTP directors and coordinators who were not included in the study. Improvements in the questionnaire were also validated. The average rating of the evaluators was 4.9, hence the questionnaire was deemed valid. The suggestions given by the evaluators served as bases for the finalization of the instrument.

Data Gathering Procedure

Before the conduct of the study, a request letter was sent to the Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers, Incorporated to float the questionnaire to the PSNEI member-institutions.

Ethical issues were considered to ensure the safety of the research participants, during the process of research. According to Creswell in the work of Mamogale (2012), the participants have the right to participate voluntarily and the right to withdraw at any time, so that individuals are not being coerced into participation. The participants also have the right to know the purpose of the study, so that they understand the nature of the research and its likely impact on them. These aspects were observed before data collection from the respondents.

The questionnaires were administered in the national gathering of NSTP educators and implementers facilitated by the regional coordinators of the organization.The accomplished survey form were immediately retrieved.

For validation purposes the following techniques were employed after the retrieval of the survey forms:

1. Field Visit – Ocular visit of select NSRC Units were conducted. 2. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) – FGDs were carried out after the

administration and retrieval of the questionnaire from the respondents.

3. Desk Literature Review – An extensive survey of related literature on programs of educational institutions and capacity building for effective and efficient disaster risk reductionwas made.



Statistical Treatment of Data

The accomplished questionnaires will be collected and the responses will be counted and recorded. The data gathered will be arranged, tabulated, and analyzed in accordance with the stated sub-problems of the study.

For Sub-Problem 1 As to the extent of capacity of the HEIs along training and volunteer support in the operation of their NSRC Units, the 5-point scale was devised and instituted with the following range of meansand their corresponding adjectival descriptions that will serve as frame of reference in the assessment to be made by the respondents:

Arbitrary Values Statistical Limits Descriptive Equivalent 5 4.20-5.00 Very High 4 3.40-4.19 High 3 2.60-3.39 Moderate 2 1.80-2.59 Low 1 1.00-1.79 Very Low

Descriptive statistical treatment was observed to allow analysis and interpretation in this regard. Measure of central tendency using mean was utilized. For Sub-Problem 2 In order to ascertain the significant difference on the extent of training and volunteer capacity of HEIs were determined by using the t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). On-line calculation was resorted to in order to facilitate fast and accurate results. These results were presented in statistical tables with narrative explanations. To understand qualitative data collected in the study, a descriptive analysis was used which narrated the responses of participants. FGD and informal interviews were used where the interviewer had an opportunity to ask participants questions, and clarify where there was no clarity. The aim of qualitative interviews is to see the world through the eyes of the participants, as they are valuable sources of information, provided they are used correctly and also provide rich descriptive data that will help the researcher to understand the participants‟ construction of knowledge and social reality. Triangulation method was used to analyze data collected through secondary data (literature review) and primary data (interviews and questionnaires) in order to compare results to determine whether they corroborate, are similar or differ. According to Maree (2010), triangulation is a strategy for improving the validity and reliability of research or evaluation of findings. Maree further states that triangulation is used extensively in quantitative studies for the confirmation and generalization of research findings.



PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This part of the research report brings to focus answers, arranged in sequence, to the specific research problems propounded in this investigation. The quantitative data gathered were presented employing descriptive and inferential statistics with corresponding analysis reflected in textual interpretations. Qualitative data were presented part of the findings to enhance the discussions. Extent of Management Capacity of the Philippine HEIs in the Operation of NSRC for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support In order to support these objectives of the National Service Reserve Corps, this empirical investigation tries to ensure that the internal systems and structures of the higher education institutions reflect an awareness of its disaster risk reduction and management functions based on the IGP of RA 10121 consistent with the provisions of the HFA, and aim to strengthen their capacities. This includes technical issues, among others, such as policies, planning, budgets, monitoring and evaluation systems, performance management, and the recruitment, training, and gender balance of staff; political issues such as decision making, opportunities to influence policy, and space for organizing; and cultural issues relating to organizational culture, staff attitudes, and systems for learning. DRR as Internal Priority As one of basic requisites of managing DRR Training and Volunteer organization, making DRR a priority is and should be a fundamental concern by HEIs in operating their NSRC Units. Fundamental to institutionalizing disaster risk reduction and management system in the higher education institutions like any other organizations is ensuring that DRR work, part of their functions, is a top priority. Included in this area of concern are the following: frameworks and structures; planning; financial resources; and human resources. In summary, this area intended to measure how the HEIs has been able to make DRR an internal priority.

Frameworks and Structures DRR is defined as both the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts concerned with managing intensive, extensive, and emerging disaster risks which are now highly observable in the face of a changing climate, where weather-related hazards have become more frequent and/or intense. Unmethodical approach would result to more loss of lives and properties. Ergo, disaster risk analysis and planning now



imperatively needs to examine how climate change is affecting hazard trends, as well as other perceived or likely changes.

Planning

According to Ozmen (2006) in the work of Mamogale (2012), after

spending millions on repairing schools after a disaster, many states require

specific disaster preparedness activities in the school systems. He further

points out that this is much needed from school officials to plan for disasters,

to mitigate risk, to protect the safety of students and educators, and to ensure

that schools recover quickly.

Financial Resources Recognizing the vital of HEIs in operating their NSRCs as DRR training organization needs to be translated into provision of adequate financial and human resources and the integration of effective volunteer management practices into disaster management programs. This idea is supported by UN/UNISDR (2008) that having adequate funding and resources available for both planning and operations is fundamental to a well-functioning disaster management system. Legal frameworks should include a national budget allocation and institutionalized funding mechanism for risk management and disaster management. This should not be limited to emergency funds that are accessible during times of disasters but should be permanent and applicable to preparedness, recovery and rehabilitation activities as well. In view of the foregoing ratiocination, fundamental to the operation of NSRCs is fund allocation in implementing the DRR program, projects and activities.There must then be clear-cut guidelines relative to sourcing and utilization of funds such that the stipulations clearly state how relief funds allocated will be replenished and where additional funds can be drawn from in case of an emergency than anticipated disaster.

Human Resources

FEMA (2005) based on the account of Mamogale (2012) teaching students to take immediate positive action can help them and those around them come through the disaster safely. The promotion of knowledge, attitude and skills of teachers will not only help students academically, but may one day save their lives. The author also quoted Ozmen (2006) stressing that school should be the place where the students can really gain the awareness and knowledge of protecting themselves and others from disasters which supports the findings of Shaw and Shiwaku (2007) that self-education underscores that students learn or study disaster or disaster management by



themselves through books, TV, or various media or materials. School education consists of education of each learner and talking about disaster management with teachers or friends in class hours. Reflected in Table 2 is the combined weight of the extent of management capacity along DRR as Internal Priority which reveals that of the four (4) indicators planning with a mean equivalent 3.86 having descriptive equivalent of “high extent” and is noteworthy to mention that both the public and private higher education institutions agree to give highest regard to the inclusion of DRR mitigation and preparedness general measures in the institutions development policy and planning. This is indicative of the HEIs‟ compliance to the mandate of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) per its strategic Plan for 2011-2016 in support of the strategic direction relevant to relevant and responsive research, development and extension (RDE) in reducing disaster devastation in the alleviation of poverty.

The lowest rank on one hand is in terms of financial resources with an adjectival description of “moderate extent” ( x =2.78) though the perception of the public differ from private as regards ranking. It can be inferred that the higher education institution much as they comply with the guidelines of CHED have been encountering difficulty in allocating financial resources for the inclusion of DRR in development and relief work part of their extension program much so with the operations of NSRC for training and reservist volunteer management in addressing local-disaster risks.

It is not surprising to note further that human resource concerns comes in close with the indicator receiving the lowest mean that is financial allocation by institution with a weighted average of 2.87. With allocation of funds for DRR purpose‟s found wanting, provision of training and technical resources to NSTP trainers. NSRC reservists and the wider community has also been identified as one of the more challenging tasks in pursuit of disaster risk reduction due to limited budget particularly for the public higher education institutions with this indicator given the least mean value of 2.87 receiving a descriptive equivalent of “low extent”. In fact, it is only item with such measure of extent for the area on DRR as Internal Priority based on the assessment made by the public and private HEIs.

Overall, DRR as Internal Priority for an aspect of training and volunteer management for local disaster risk reduction works had registered a pooled mean ( x =3.17) corresponding to “moderate” extent suggesting that HEIs have not fully or highly placed DRR for the aim of NSRC appurtenant to the provisions of RA 10121 and RA 9163 as top priority. Perhaps, this can be explained in the purview of multifarious concerns of public and private educational institutions in addition to extension services such as instruction and research based on their trifocal functions. These three (3) functions, for



the State universities and colleges (SUCs) and local universities and colleges (LUCs) are complemented by their productivity of roles.

Table No. 2 Extent of Management Capacity of Public and Private HEIs in

Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along DRR as Internal Priority

n = 94

Indicators x of HEI

x DE Rank

Private n=43

Public n=51

(Frameworks and Structures) Inclusion of DRR in the NSTP/NSRC in the Relief and Development Policies and Planning of the Institution

3.36 3.02 3.18 M 2

(Planning) Inclusion of DRR mitigation and preparedness general measures in the Institution‟s development policy and planning

3.62 4.06 3.86 H 1

(Financial Resources) Allocation of Financial Resources for the inclusion of DRR in the development and relief work of the Institution

3.02 2.58 2.78 M 4

(Human Resources) Provision of Training on DRRM and Technical Resources to NSTP trainers, NSTP Reservists and the wider community

3.58 2.26 2.87 M 3

Overall Mean 3.4 2.97 3.17 M

Legend:

Scale Statistical Limits Descriptive Equivalent (DE)

5 4.20 – 5.00 Very High (VH) 4 3.40 – 4.19 High (H) 3 2.60 – 3.39 Moderate (M) 2 1.80 – 2.59 Low (L) 1 1.00 – 1.79 Very Low (VL)

With this premise, between the 2 types of HEIs, the public education sector had a lower mean ( x =2.97) equivalent to “moderate” extent while the private universities and colleges rated “high” extent on the basis of the weighted mean of 3.40. This can also be attributed to the fact that the former, as they are subsidized by the local or national governments, charging



relatively lower tuition fee, compared with private institutions especially for NSTP where by provisions of the NSTP Act of 2001 students enrolled in the program are assessed only fifty percent (50%) of the rate of matriculation, thereby NSTP tuition fee proceeds, generally, is higher in the private HEIs. The difference can be translated in so far as NSTP fund is concerned may spell the distribution as to capacity of the institutions to implement DRR works and operationalize NSRC units. Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning As for the second area on ascertaining the extent of capacity, it dwelt on determining effectiveness of the institutions in raising the level of awareness and sharing of information on disaster risk reduction and management among NSTP stakeholders particularly the student-trainees, the trainers, the officials and most specially the NSRC reservists with emphasis to disaster risk assessments, early warning systems and risk management systems. UNDP further states that preparedness involves the development and regular testing of warning systems (linked to forecasting systems), and plans for evacuation or other measures to be taken during a disaster alert period to minimize potential loss of life and physical damage. Disaster Risk Assessments Vulnerability assessment involves identifying of geographic areas or communities that are predictably under threat from disasters. Vulnerability assessments also serve as the starting point for determining the types of plans that should be developed as part of a disaster preparedness strategy of any organization. It is therefore substantial that educational institutions as DRR training organizations have disaster preparedness plans. There is a need to have plans in place that are agreed upon, that are implementable and for which commitment and resources are relatively assured. It is therefore recommended that the Office of the Civil Defense and other concerned agencies like the Commission on Higher Education stimulate and guarantee the establishment of the institutional framework which involves the higher education institutions in the operation of NSRCs, be it school or community-based, for the provision of DRR training and volunteer support.

Early Warning System

Disaster preparedness as defined by ISDR (2002) are activities and measures taken in advance to ensure effective response to the impact of disasters, including the issuance of timely and effective early warnings and the temporary removal of people and property from a threatened location.



Early warning, as defined by UN/UNISDR (2008), refers to the systematic collection and analysis of information for the purpose of anticipating and identifying emerging, deteriorating, or reoccurring crises. Early warning allows the public and emergency responders to take pre-emptive and protective action to avoid harm. Early warning should trigger action by designated agencies or community members to prepare for a hazard event and/or assist the evacuation in an area at risk.

Risk Management Systems

Standard warning formats and elements should be prepared in advance, and appropriate means or systems for issuing the warning should be determined, based on the nature of the imminent hazard event. These systems should be consistent for all hazards.

Early warning systems should be based on thorough hazard/risk assessments, and vulnerability and capacity assessments (VCA) at all levels (especially at the community level). Community disaster preparedness and response organizations should be capable of acting on … mobilizing communities for action. (Twigg as cited by UN/UNISDR, 2008)

It is imperative that preparedness and warning systems are designed to reach the entire population, including seasonal populations and remote locations. These communication systems should be two-way and interactive to allow for verification that warnings have been received, and to be able to monitor the impact of an event. Warning alerts and messages should be geographically specific so that warnings are targeted to those at risk only. Based on the foregoing discussions, it can be gleaned from Table 3 that with a pooled mean of 2.84 equivalent to “moderate” extent, the area on risk assessment, monitoring and warning yielded values ranging from low to moderate for the 3 indicators involving disaster risk assessments, early warning systems and risk management structures. To discuss further, the private and public HEIs scored a mean( x

=3.09) or “moderate” extent in terms of adjectival description. This indicator pertains to the capacity of the institution to possess adequate skills to carry participatory risk assessments on potential hazards and vulnerabilities within disaster-prone communities. The aim of participatory assessment of disaster risks process is to increase people‟s understanding of their vulnerabilities and capacities. It uses five „categories of analysis‟ as economic, natural, constructed, individual and social assets that can be used to improve well-being. These categories recognize that hazards affect different aspects of life. (http://brownschool.wustl.edu/sites/DevPractice/Disaster%20Relief%20Reports/Introduction%20to%20Participatory%20Assessment%20of%20%20%20Disaster%%20Risk.pdf as retrieved 02/25/2015)




Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along Risk Assessment,

Monitoring and Warning n = 94

Indicators

x of HEI

x DE

Rank

Private n=43

Public n=51

(Disaster Risk Assessments) The institution possesses adequate skills to carry out participatory risk assessments on potential hazards and vulnerabilities within disaster-prone communities.

3.05 3.12 3.09 M 1

(Early Warning Systems) The institution has provisions for access to early warning system for the communities it serves (including the school itself) in high risk areas.

2.75 2.46 2.59 L 3

(Risk Management Systems) The institution has the capacity to monitor standards, share information on potential risks and have an emergency plan of action.

2.98 2.73 2.84 M 2


Legend:



It can be surmised that the HEIs are not fully adept and well verse in this DRR requisite. Same is true with the capacity of the institution to monitor standards, share information on potential risks and emergency plan of action where extent is a mean ( x =2.84) categorized under “moderate”. Moreso, with a combined rating of 2.59 for mean or “low” extent is the item on the provision for access to early warning system for the communities served by the institution, including the HEI itself, in high risk area.



Specifically for the public universities and colleges, the “low” rating on early warning systems presents an issue it being a major element of disaster risk reduction. To be effective, the said systems as pointed out by Wiltshire (2006) need to actively involve the communities-at-risk, facilitate public education and awareness of risks, effectively disseminate messages and warnings and ensure there is constraint state of preparedness. It is for this reason that instituting an effective system for early warning shall increase management capacity of HEIs in the conduct of training and mobilization of volunteers for DRR purposes in the light of NSRC operation. The HEIs for them to provide complete and effective mechanism shall ensure not only prediction of catastrophic environment events but support four (4) main functions i.e. risk analysis; monitoring; and warning; dissemination and communication. Spanning a knowledge of the risks faced through to preparedness to act on early warning. (Basher, 2006) Knowledge and Education In so far the area on knowledge and education is concerned, concentration is placed on information management and exchange, formal education for training staff and community training. In a nutshell, here, the HEIs are seized up on their effectiveness in sharing knowledge and education with key stakeholders in building the latter‟s capacity to respond to hazards. Mamogale (2012) referred to the work of Khan (2008) quoting that education and awareness are prerequisites for preparedness, and that disaster preparedness education should be provided through formal and non-formal means by both governments and NGO programs. Formal education in disaster preparedness is provided at the primary school level, where the topics focus mainly on general awareness about different types of disasters and at the post graduate level where degrees, certificate, diploma and master in disaster management are offered to prepare professionals for this task.

Information Management and Exchange

The communication of accurate, timely, and useful information and instructions to the public is necessary throughout a disaster, not only during the early-warning period. In addition, it is essential that a disaster preparedness capability continually collects and analyzes information for its own use, so that it can make sure that needs are met and can learn from its experiences. (UN/UNISDR, 2008)

According to Wisner (2006) and IFRCRCS (2005) in UNISDR (2006) as reflected in the dissertation of Mamogale (2012), formal and informal knowledge are part of the system that guides understanding and action: data; knowledge; information; wisdom and action. He added that in view of the conceptual framework adopted by the International Federation of Red Cross



and Red Crescent Societies (IFRCRCS) in World Disaster Report 2005, “data” are viewed as the building blocks that create “information” which becomes “knowledge” when it is put into a context that gives it meaning, and some relevance to action or inaction.


Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along Knowledge and Education

n = 94

Indicators x of HEI

x DE Rank Private n=43

Public n=51

(Information Management and Exchange) Availability of key information on DRR for NSTP Students, NSRC Reservist, other stakeholders and high-risk beneficiaries.

3.07 3.32 3.21 M 1

(Formal Education – Training of Staff) Availability of DRR training and training materials for NSTP/NSRC trainers

2.95 3.01 2.98 M 2

(Community Training) Inclusion of DRR knowledge and practice in community training initiatives in high-risk areas particularly for women and vulnerable groups.

2.59 2.73 2.67 M 3


Legend:



Therefore, information management should be a routine activity and should begin in the preparedness phase and continue through the early recovery period. Where possible data is collected, it should also be made publicly accessible.

This data will be essential in the evaluation of preparedness systems after a hazard event, and in promoting ongoing learning to enhance systems to develop.



Formal Education (Training of Staff)

Khan (2008) was mentioned by Mamogale (2012) who maintains that education and awareness are prerequisites for preparedness, and that disaster preparedness education should be provided through non-formal and formal means. The integration of formal and informal education through schools is the one way to ensure that these messages reach every home and community, and that learning is sustained into future generations.

Preparedness planning improves the response to the effects of a disaster by organizing the delivery of timely an effective rescue, relief and assistance. It also involves the education and training of officials and the population at risk, the training of intervention teams, and the establishments of policies, standards, organizational arrangements and operational plans to be applied following a disaster (UNDP, 1994).

Community Training

According to UNISDR (2006) as advocated by Mamogale (2010), disaster can be substantially reduced if people are well informed and motivated towards a culture of disaster prevention and resilience, which in turn requires the collection, compilation and dissemination of relevant knowledge and information on hazards vulnerabilities and capacities. As shown in Table 4, in terms of knowledge and education aspect of DRR Training and volunteer management, the indicators covering: (1) Availability of key information on DRR for NSTP Students, NSRC reservists, other stakeholders and high-risk beneficiaries; (2) Availability of training and training materials for NSTP/NSRC trainers; and (3) Inclusion of DRR Knowledge and practice in community training initiatives in high-risk areas particularly for women and vulnerable groups, had an over-all rating of x =2.95 which when matched with the table of equivalents revealed that the capacity of HEIs in the 3 items yielding results ranging from x =2.67 to 3.21 and, this, fall within the scale limits of “moderate” extent. This connotes that public as well as private institutions are not satisfactorily equipped with the capacity to disseminate information on DRR, provide DRR Training/training materials and conduct DRR training initiatives among vulnerable groups including knowledge and practice in the institution‟s partner or adopted communities. Of the three aforementioned indicators, community training registered the lowest mean of x =2.59 and x =2.73 for private and public HEIs, respectively.

Similarly, for formal education or training of staff and information management and exchange, the perceptions of the NSTP Coordinators and implementers charged with responsibility of operating NSRC units rated higher means as 3.01 and 3.32 against 2.95 and 3.07, in that order. This



implies that the public educational institutions performed more effectively than the private in sharing knowledge and education with the key stakeholders to build the capability to respond to hazards. Underlying Risk Factors Aimed at quantifying effectiveness of the NSRC Units of the institutions in terms of underlying risk factors, environmental and natural resource management, adaptation to climate change and protection of facilities were given focus in this section. This is so in order to generate data to analyze the capacity of the HEIs in promoting awareness of and adaptation to changing environmental conditions.

Environmental and Natural Resource Management Environmental risk education, as an element of DRR on the basis of

the assertion of Mamogale, can provide students with knowledge, skills and opportunities to practice participating in public environmental risk management decisions. Furthermore, it can empower the youth to make decisions such that their own and others‟ human and environmental health risks are minimized. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1989) cited in Zint (2001) stressed in the aforementioned study, argues that society has a duty to prepare the youth for environmental risk decisions so that they have greater control of their future and their communities.

Adaptation to Climate Change

According to Anderson (2010) based on the report of Mamogale, the education sector offers an opportunity to combat climate change through contributing to mitigation efforts, and enhancing the adaptive capacity of education systems and learners, thereby reducing vulnerabilities and building resilient societies. To explicate this, the author cited Anderson (2010) stating that teaching and learning can integrate environmental stewardship, which encompasses environmental education, climate change and scientific literacy, as well as disaster risk reduction and preparedness through formal, co-curricular and informal curricula. This is to reduce their vulnerability to disaster through education and training in early warning systems including education on rain gauges, disaster simulation and drills as well as carrying out risk mapping and learning first aid, swimming and water safety. With climate change increasing the frequency, intensity, and unpredictability of extreme weather events, vulnerable populations are experiencing more and more disasters, leading to increased loss of life, injury, mass population displacements, and economic crises. (Ciampi, 2011)




Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along Underlying Risk Factors

n = 94

Indicators x of HEI


Public n=51

(Environmental and Natural Resource Management)

Observance of effective environmental policies and practices by the institution.

3.40 3.61 3.50 H 1.5

(Adaptation to Climate Change) Extension of supporting by the institutions to communities to cope with climate change and to adapt to future conditions.

3.48 3.51 3.50 H 1.5

(Protection of Facilities) Protection and strengthening of the Institution‟s office buildings and facilities to cope with known hazards in the area of operation.

3.58 3.18 3.36 M 3

Overall Mean 3.48 3.43 3.45 H

Legend:



Protection of Facilities The 2006-2007 World Campaign on Disaster Reduction entitled

“Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School” states that various initiatives have been taken worldwide to make school buildings safer, and have disaster risk reduction taught in schools (ISDR, 2006- 2007).

To characterize the extent of capacity re this area, as depicted in Table

5, the HEI‟s are assessed how effectively they encourage awareness of, and adaptation to, changing environmental conditions. Here, the respondents favorably responded to the items that include: observance of effective environmental policies and practices by the institution; extension of support by the institutions to communities to cope with climate change and to adapt future conditions; ad protection and strengthening of the institution‟s buildings



and facilities to cope with known hazards in the area of operation. With computed mean of 3.45, the area on underlying risk factors resulted to “high” extent with 2 indicators sharing on top.

In general, the items on (1) environmental and natural resource

management and (2) adaptation to climate change, with the same mean at 3.50, rated “high” while protection of facilities was measured to be “moderate” extent with a mean vaue of 3.36.

However, when compared by type of HEI, the private HEI‟s had higher

weighted mean. In fact, collectively, they posted in all the indicators rating corresponding to “high” extent which manifests, more or less, their commitment to one of the thrusts of CHED which is complementary to the efforts of the NSRC units, that is, integrity of the environment as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Whereas, public institutions, through registering “high” extent over-all,

had one of the three indicators “moderate” extent at 3.18 for protection of

office buildings and facilities as a way to cope with known hazards in the local

community. Actually, it is the item with least value. This, for the private HEI,

on one hand, yielded the opposite result. The said item ranked first where

mean has a calculated value of 3.58 corresponding to “high”.

This can be attributed to the fact that since private HEI‟s invest on their buildings and properties, they give premium to ensuring that their properties and secure from indemnities and disasters thereby making their infrastructures risk-free. This way, it augurs well on operation of school-based NSRC units considering that the institution can conduct preparedness and response activities that could also benefit the communities they serve through community-based NSRC and/or extension services. Preparedness and Response

Another aspect of DRRM capacity has to do with the interventions effected by the institutions in preparing communities to respond and proactively initiate actions in case of disaster and/or emergency. To this end, this section takes into account disaster preparedness, disaster response, disaster preparedness and response, disaster response and recovery, emergency resources and coordination plus information exchange.

Strengthened preparedness for response in disasters in a UN/UNISDR

document (2008) is concerned mainly with two objectives: 1) increasing the capacity to predict, monitor and reduce or avoid possible damage or addressing potential threats and 2) strengthening preparedness for response to a disaster or assist those who have been adversely affected.



Disaster Preparedness (Future Risk) Disaster preparedness refers to activities and measures taken in

advance to ensure effective response to the impact of disasters, including the issuance of timely and effective early warnings and the temporary removal of people and property from a threatened location. (ISDR, 2002 as cited in Mamogale, 2011)

Natural and man-made disasters cannot be prevented, but at least

communities can plan for them through disaster management involving preparedness and mitigation measures as indicated by UNESCO (2010) as pointed out further by Mamogale. It was cited, additionally, that according to Ozmen (2006), to prevent the huge destructions and to become a disaster resistant society, schools (like higher education institutions) can play a pivotal role.

For disaster preparedness to be achieved in educational institutions,

the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework Act promotes disaster management capacity building, training and education throughout the country, including higher education institutions, thereby enabling earlier legislated law that provides for the basis of the implementation of the National Service Training Program or NSTP and the creation of the National Service Reserve Corps or NSRC that place premium to disaster education and training, among other concerns. It is significant to note that for NSTP, disaster preparedness is included part and parcel of the common modular topics for the three Program components – both the military (Reserve Officers‟ Training Corps) and the non-military components as Civic Welfare Training Service and Literacy Training Service while per guidelines of NSRC, one main thrust is on disaster risk reduction and management.

This is in realization of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015:

Priority 3 Under The Theme “Use Knowledge, Innovation and Education to Build a Culture of Safety and Resilience at all Levels”, states that disasters can be substantially reduced if people are well informed and motivated towards a culture of disaster prevention and resilience. With the theme of “Let Our Children Teach Us”, the UNISDR (2007) states that children (including those in the post basic education system) taught about disasters, can pass on to their parents what they have learnt about hazards and risk reduction.

Disaster Response Based on agreed upon roles and responsibilities, it is important for

NSRC in the disaster planning process to define response objectives and strategies in more details.While the institutional arrangements outlined and spelled out in the Implementing of Guidelines and Procedures of RA 10121 overarching common objectives and strategies for response, the contingency



planning process will provide more detail on how they will meet their responsibilities according to UN/UNSDR (2008).

Particularly in high-risk areas, every effort should be made prior to a

likely hazard event to strengthen communities own response capacities in advance. In areas where communities have been involved in disaster preparedness activities, they will have already been able to map vulnerable areas and populations, will be aware of early warning and evacuation procedures, and often will be able to begin response activities without external intervention.

Community members and organizations can also be supported to

develop relevant skills for disaster preparedness and response (e.g. hazard-risk-vulnerability assessment, community DRM planning, search and rescue, first aid, management of emergency shelters, needs assessment, relief distribution, fire-fighting). Such interventions are not only usually quicker than external responses; they are also more cost effective and sustainable over the longer term.

Disaster Preparedness and Response UNISDR (2006) maintains that in the current education, teaching

learners about hazards is not enough to promote risk awareness or action on the part of children and youth. Teaching about academic earth and climate science is good, but should be taught as part of a comprehensive package with disaster prevention and preparedness. Where possible some of the teaching should focus on locally relevant hazards.

As reported by UNISDR (2010) in a separate document, Disaster Risk

Reduction (DRR) education requires schools to implement safety, emergency and disaster preparedness plans to prepare learners and educators to know what to do during and after a disaster has occurred.

Mamogale went further to consider the collective assertions of Twig

(2004) that highlighted the main aims of disaster preparedness ss to help people to avoid impending disaster threats, and to put plans, resources and mechanisms in place to ensure that those who are affected receive adequate assistance and scholars such as Briton (1986), Pijawka and Radwan (1985), Bogand (1989), Welchselgartner (2001) and McEntire (2005) who consensually agree that the purpose of mitigation and preparedness is to reduce human vulnerability to disasters through hazard assessments, improved engineering, wiser land use management, emergency exercises, public education and more.




Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along Preparedness and Response

n = 94

Indicators x of HEI


Public n=51

(Disaster Preparedness – Future Risks) Capacity of the partner (adopted) communities and area of operation to carry out emergency measures and recovery programs in case of disasters

3.26 2.93 3.08 M 3.5

(Disaster Response) Possession by members of the Institution the necessary range of response skills needed in disaster situations such as first aid such as first aid, search and rescue, water rescue, wireless and radio communication, fire suppression, water purification and similar skills

3.35 2.90 3.11 M 2

(Disaster Preparedness and Response) Existence of plan of action by the Institution for emergencies

3.25 2.93 3.08 M 3.5

(Disaster Response and Recovery) Conduct of post-disaster reviews (for Institution that experienced a disaster/ involving the affected communities so that learning gained and strengthen future responses.

2.80 2.61 2.70 M 7

(Emergency Resources) Access to financial provisions and/or contingency funds by and of the Institution that can be made available quickly to support a rapid response to disasters

2.83 2.60 2.71 M 6

(Coordination and Information Exchange) Coordination of the Institution‟s work with local/national government‟s disaster management plans

3.58 2.21 2.84 M 1


Legend:



Discussions should begin well in advance of a hazard event about how

quickly „emergency‟ projects to provide basic services such as food, healthcare and education will give way to more transitional, or developmental interventions. Having these discussions early on can potentially lead to more sustainable and effective interventions and can minimize the use of temporary emergency supplies. Activities more compatible with longer-term recovery



(such as cash for relief projects in the immediate aftermath of a disaster) may also want to be considered during the response phase to enable populations to retain their assets and livelihoods as far as possible in the wake of a hazard event. (UN/UNISDR, 2008)

Disaster Response and Recovery DRR training organizations providing volunteer support to local

communities that has been involved in responding to previous disasters, as well as those who have worked on recovery should be involved in the contingency planning process. (UN/UNISDR, 2008) Representatives of disaster-impacted populations should be involved in developing and/or reviewing the plan. Ensuring that staff with administrative and logistics functions, as well as from financing bodies, or donors also participating can be important in facilitating effective resource flows during an emergency. Apparently, this is one challenge in the operation of NSRC in view of the lack of provisions for programs like capacitation training and volunteer management for local DRR.

In agreement with Afedzie and McEntire (2010), Mamogale (2012)

pointed out that the state of knowledge regarding preparedness, response and recovery issues should be inculcated, and also view preparedness as the activities of formulating, testing and exercising disaster plans; and communicating with public and others about disasters, and what to do to reduce them. These authors further examined preparedness in the context of the household, organizations, communities, states and the nation. Mamogale also elaborated that based on the study of Fothergill and Peek (2002) preparedness behavior includes a variety of actions taken by families, households and communities to get ready for disasters. Preparedness activities may include devising disaster plans, gathering emergency supplies, training response teams, and educating residents about potential disaster.

Emergency Resources Building capacity requires investment in both human and financial

resources. Volunteerism is cost effective but not cost free even if the costs are far outweighed by the benefits. Investments in VIOs have traditionally been limited to the disaster response phase. To ensure sustainability, investment is also needed in capacity building of NSRCs for risk reduction activities in the local communities. There is significant evidence of strong linkages between the quality of emergency responses and the existence of sound management systems. Investment is also needed to provide training for volunteers like the NSRC Reservists in public awareness, disaster preparedness and emergency response and to ensure they have appropriate tools to perform their duties.



Effective emergency stand-by capacity is a critical component of a preparedness system. Stand-by capacity should include monitoring systems as well as human, physical and logistics resources.Governments should invest in ensuring that appropriate structures like NSRC and V2V Pipelog Program of the Department of Interior and Local Government are in place for volunteer management both during emergencies and in non-emergency periods.

Coordination and Information Exchange The DRR plan of the HEIs must have an information network such as

an early warning and monitoring system to facilitate disaster prediction, warning and evacuation communication. The NSRCs then are expected to include a resource base when implementing school disaster preparedness plans, and the requirements should meet disaster needs depending upon the types of disasters the plan anticipates. Such requirements should be made explicit, and should cover all aspects of disaster relief and recovery implementation.Skillful coordination among the wide range of potential stakeholders that may provide assistance during a disaster is critical to avoid confusion and to facilitate an effective response. (UN/UNISDR, 2008)

Summing up the assessments of the HEIs relative to the foregoing

explications, of the six (6) indicators under preparedness and response, as can be gleaned from Table 6, the lowest in terms of rank are the items on disaster response and recovery ( x =2.70) and emergency resources ( x =2.71) while coordination and information exchange is the highest ( x =3.38) when the assessments of the public and the private higher education and institutions are combined.

For disaster response and recovery, HEIs are ascertained in terms of

extent of capacity to operate NSCRs for DRR training and volunteer management along conduct of post-disaster reviews, for Institutions that experienced disaster, involving the affected communities so that learning gained can strengthen future responses. Meanwhile, as regards emergency resources, concentration is on access to financial provisions and contingency funds by and of the institution that can be made available quickly to support a rapid response to disasters.The low ratings of these two items reflect the weak nature of capacity of the public and private institutions in monitoring and evaluation of response and recovery operations as well as in sourcing of funds for emergency response and contingency purposes.

The weakness noted can be attributed to the constraints professed by

the respondents as regards the seemingly technical skills in post-disaster review exercises which implies the necessity of capacitating the implementers of the DRR training and volunteer mobilization consistent with the mandates



of the NSRCs in abating the effects of hazards and reducing the vulnerabilities of their area of operation in managing disasters risks.

Along the same line of thought, it could be extrapolated on the basis of the data that financial resources are somewhat restricted, thus, limiting the level of preparedness and response undertaken to include other items in this are requiring funds such as increasing the capacity of partner or adopted communities in the area of operation in carrying out disaster recovery programs and provision of skills and specialization training in building capabilities of the members of the institution and the communities they serve in empowering them to respond to any disaster situation like first aid, search and rescue, water rescue, wireless and radio communication, fire suppression, water purification and others.

Aimed at fulfilling these, it is of the paramount essence to set in place plan of action to guide the operation of NSRCs in the preview of disaster preparedness, response and recovery programs to include emergency measures of the HEIs. This plan should include, among others, provisions for access to first aid, personal contact information family reunification and tracing services.

Seemingly, the weighted capacity extent on preparedness and

response of the HEIs in all indicators equivalent to “moderate” suggests that efforts translating disaster risk reduction plan fall short of the expected outputs and outcomes in DRR training and volunteer management of the private and public institutions. It is noted further that between the 2 groups. The public had lower over-all mean of 2.86 in contrast to the 3.18 of the private for execution of plans in anticipating and exacting for risks associated with disasters and emergencies.

Local-Level Government Initiatives (Local Government Support)

As coordination is essential in carrying out a program, measuring the extent of capacity of HEIs on DRRM training and volunteer support through the school and community-based NSRCs would require administration of the institution in partnership with the local governments are taking into disaster risk reduction along governance: risk assessment monitoring and warning; knowledge and education; and underlying risk factors.

Governance Local government units also play a critical role in responding to and

mitigating such disasters. Appropriate enabling frameworks for DRR training organizations such as NSRCs to function well in such situations should be taken into account at both at the local levels of governance.



Local governments need to work with DRR training organizations and other stakeholders to address issues disaster response. Moreover, it is essential to highlight the role of the different sectors in the community.

Risk Assessment Monitoring and Warning The higher education institutions in the operation of their school and/or

community based NSRC shall include in its disaster management information systems. The plan must have an information network such as an early warning and monitoring system to facilitate disaster prediction, warning and evacuation communication. It is therefore recommended that HEIs include a resource base when implementing disaster management plans through NSRCs, and the requirements should meet disaster needs depending upon the types of disasters the plan anticipates. Such requirements should be made explicit, and should cover all aspects of disaster relief and recovery implementation.

Knowledge and Education According to UNICEF (2009) all governments should commit to

teacher training to support large-scale teaching of disaster risk reduction. The UNICEF document „Think Children!‟ which surveyed five Pacific

countries including the Philippines is more specific:

“Government disaster management plans currently do not reflect the crucial actions identified by the Core Commitments for Children framework….there being a focus on infrastructure and systems and not acknowledging the vulnerability of children and youth,” ….and goes on to recommend the amendment of disaster legislation to reflect fundamental humanitarian principles.

The need for professional development for disaster managers is stressed in one of the findings of the said survey, to wit:

“Training and capacity development in disaster risk management remains an important concern … for key actors (like teachers). In addition there is need for access to Leadership and Management skills training programs.”


The HEIs, in operating school and/or community-based as DRR organization tasked with disaster management, are placed to lead, or coordinate a national contingency planning process although all key stakeholders should be included. Before developing a contingency plan, an analysis of existing emergency plans and procedures, resource and equipment inventories, training records and reviews of past disaster



experiences and lessons learned in research studies and reports should be undertaken. (UN/UNISDR, 2008)

Table No. 7 Extent of Management Capacity of Public and Private HEIs

in Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along Evaluation of

Local-Level Government Initiatives n = 94

Indicators x of HEI

x DE Rank Private (n=43)

Public (n=51)

(Governance)

Prioritization of DRR within the institution and local government

3.50 3.31 3.40 H 1

(Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning)

Monitoring of risk and provision of DRR information to local communities by authorities of the Institution other than the NSTP and NSRC Unit personnel

3.16 3.31 3.24 M 3

(Knowledge and Education) Use of knowledge and education by the institution and local government to ensure key stakeholders are well informed to build their capacities to respond to hazards.

3.33 3.10 3.21 M 4

(Underlying Risk Factors) Initiated changes in social economic, environemental conditions and land use at the local level to reduce disaster risks

3.24 2.92 3.07 M 5

(Preparedness and Response) Strengthening of disaster preparedness by the Institution and government for effective response (in terms of capacity and resources) of local authorities, communities and individuals.

3.33 3.27 3.30 M 2


Legend:





In matters involving evaluation of local-level government initiatives, HEIs were appraised of their management capacity (see Table 7) in connection with the operation off NSRCs based on how much the administration of the universities and colleges in partnership with local governments are taking disasters risk reduction into account.

The perceptions of the respondents affirms the commitment of the HEIs to disaster risk reduction as revealed in the mean rating of 3.40, following the 5-point Likert scale, which is the “high” extent. This means that the institution, give priority to DRR and partner with local government units (LGUs) having parallel programs. Quantitatively, the extent accounts for rank 1. All other items ranging from 3.07 to 3.30 for means rated “moderate”.

Items classified as having moderate extent are: monitoring of risk cum

provision of DRR information to local communities by the institution not limited NSRC personnel and volunteer-reservists ( x =3.24) strengthening of of alliance between the HEI and LGU to spur effective response in terms of capacity and resources of local authorities, communities and individuals through disaster preparedness ( x =3.30), use of knowledge and education by the institution and local government for the key stakeholders to be well-informed in building their capacities to respond to hazards, ( x =3.21) and effective changes in social, economic, environment conditions and land use at the local level to reduce disaster risks ( x =3.07).

Between the public and private institutions,the latter rated higher with

3.30 (moderate) in comparison with 3.18 of the former.

In an attempt to elucidate, it is essential to give focus on how the 2 groups of HEIs fared in each of the indicators. An examination of the entries in the statistical table would bring to the fore the realization that the private HEIs had the only item, that is governance, with scale value corresponding to “high extent”. The respondents from private institutions concurred too, that pre-item on risk assessment, monitoring and warning is given the least value which would collaborate the results in the previous discussion that management capacity wise, HEIs lack expertise in anticipating and monitoring disaster risks.

The public HEIs, howbeit, had average scores equivalent to “moderate” in all items placing risk monitoring and info disseminations on the top post with prioritization of DRR within the institution and local government, both at 3.31. It was acknowledged, moreover, that the indicator relative to underlying risk factors is the lowest of the 5 items. This is also true where means of the groups are averaged ( x =3.07) for the aforementioned indicators.



Cross-Cutting Issues In addition to the aforementioned areas, other issues cut across the implementation of disaster risk reduction and management program of the higher education institution that may impact overall DRR strategies undertaken. For this, the capacity of HEIs and NSRCs ought to also thresh issues such as community participation and information; actual and fair participation; training activities; gender parity cum resources; and cultural sensitivity with emphasis to diversity, traditional knowledge, and languages.

Community Participation and Information To raise risk awareness, more applicable information should be

transferred to students and teachers should give students time to think about disaster risk reduction by themselves as well as give information through lectures. Community or student‟s family should be involved in school disaster education and students should take measures with them or do activities with them.

Community involvement should be encouraged and supported in

providing disaster preparedness education. Newport and Jawahar (2003) as mentioned by Mamogale argue that disaster preparedness will not be effective without the participation of the vulnerable communities. They further state that to make community participation more practical, there has to be a need for a concentrated effort in education, trainings and awareness development within the vulnerable groups as well as with related departments and the general public.Hence, local community must be involved in disaster education in school.

Actual and Fair Participation

Local communities play a major role in terms of providing support, encouraging participation in training and education programs, and raising overall awareness of proper preparedness protocol and procedures. Participation of communities in developing a disaster preparedness and mitigation system can be helpful in determining a community‟s resources, capabilities, coping mechanisms and facilities as reported by Newport and Jawahar (2003) in FEMA (2010) per citation of Mamogale (2012). It is therefore important that whole communities become involved in terms of preparing citizens for potential disasters, and creating a sense of security among all individuals.

Training Activities A considerable amount of training in disaster response and its related

activities has been undertaken across the regions but their activities have not been systematically tracked.



Table No. 8

Extent of Management Capacity of Public and Private HEIs in Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer

Support along Cross-Cutting Issues n = 94

Indicators x of HEI

x DE Private Public

(Community Participation and Information) Availability of detailed information to all local stakeholders about the Institutions (such as aims, program objectives and contact details)

3.48 3.29 3.38 M

(Actual and Fair Participation) Participation of local community members (including vulnerable group) to participate in decision-making, planning and program activities within your institution.

2.64 2.76 2.71 M

(Training Activities) Possession by the staff of necessary knowledge and participation and good performance

3.04 3.08 3.06 M

(Gender) Appointment of women to leadership position within the institution‟s development and disaster related programs.

3.26 3.17 3.21 M

(Gender – Resources) Accessibility of training and resources to community groups, particularly women‟s groups

2.97 2.71 2.83 M

(Cultural Sensitivity – Diversity) Accounting for culture livelihoods and population structure of vulnerable communities in gathering disaster risk information

2.92 2.90 2.91 M

(Cultural Sensitivity – Traditional Knowledge) Consideration of traditional practices and local customs (such as indigenous knowledge and traditional leaders when developing DRR activities

3.1 2.93 3.01 M

(Cultural Sensitivity – Languages) Use of indigenous and minority languages used in publications and training courses for DRR at local level

3.12 2.71 2.90 M

Weighted Mean 3.10 2.93 3 M

Legend:



Risk reduction management is beyond the capacity of governments

alone. Multi-stakeholder participation is most effective. The 2004 UNDP global report on reducing disaster risks states that the goal should be a strong civil society and a strong State working in partnership with a socially



committed private sector. Participation of local communities is crucial both to understanding local needs and empowering people to address those needs as well as to send a message to local communities that their voice is valued. This strengthens the motivation to get involved.

Gender (Resources)

As per account of Ciampi, et al. (2011) understanding how gender relations shape women‟s and men‟s lives is critical to disaster risk reduction (DRR). This is because women‟s and men‟s different roles, responsibilities, and access to resources influence how each will be affected by different hazards, and how they will cope with and recover from disaster. Unequal power relations between women and men mean that, despite the incredible resilience and capacity for survival that women often exhibit in the face of disaster, they also experience a range of gender-specific vulnerabilities.

It is noteworthy to mention that gender mainstreaming is as important

to advocacy work on DRR. The educational institutions are responsible for DRR need to demonstrate accountability to women as specified in HFA. Critical to the success of this work, according to Ciampi, is actively engaging with men to acknowledge the role they play in either reinforcing or alleviating women‟s subordination, and securing their support to ensure that DRR initiatives uphold women‟s rights and strengthen gender equality.

Understanding the way in which gender relations shape a HEIs

experience of and response to the impacts of disaster is critical to ensure effective program planning.

It is also important that women are empowered by this process, rather

than further disadvantaged. Cultural Sensitivity (diversity, traditional knowledge, and languages)

Pointed out in Mamogale‟s investigation is Cleveraux (2010) who

maintains that irrespective of location or dominance of ethnicity, school curricula as in the case of the NSTP which provides for the creation of NSRC tend to be universal throughout a jurisdiction, the promotion of disaster awareness within schools. Curricula also provide the opportunity for the transfer of risk information to migrant parents via their children. Cleveraux (2010) further states that disaster managers in multicultural societies must tailor information to the needs of all people irrespective of language or ethnicity. Children from multicultural societies should be made aware of disasters by use the Disaster Awareness Game (DAG) designed to evaluate and promote disaster awareness. The DAG is therefore a tool and measure of disaster awareness among children in multicultural environments as means of informing interventions for disaster education; use young people as conduits



for the education of adults about disaster management issues that are relevant to their environment.

Integrating early recovery into contingency planning can help

strengthen community resilience to hazard events. This should include measures to reduce immediate risk, for example by locating shelters for displaced populations outside of flood-zones or in areas at lower risk from future hazards. It should also include actions to reduce threats to livelihoods and assets that will strongly impact a community‟s ability to recover after a disaster.

Summing up, in the 8-indicator area on cross-cutting issues, means of

ratings for the public and private HEIs reflected in Table 8 are equivalent to moderate extent ( x =3.0), with very close margin in favor of the latter, relative to availability of detailed information to all local stakeholders of the aims, programs, objectives and contact details of the institutions ( x =3.38), appointment of women to leadership position with the institutions development and disaster-related programs ( x =3.24), possession by the DRR training and volunteer mobilization staff knowledge and participation for good performance ( x =3.06), consideration of traditional practices and local customs such as indigenous knowledge and traditional leaders when developing DRR activities ( x =3.01), accounting for culture livelihoods and population structure of vulnerable communities in gathering disaster risk information ( x =2.91), use of indigenous and minority languages used in publications and training course for DRR at local level ( x =2.90), accessibility of training and resources to community groups, particularly women‟s groups ( x =2.83) and participation of local community members, including vulnerable groups, to participate in decision-making, planning and program activities within the institution ( x =2.71) in that order.

A closer look at the tabular presentation would highlight that the two (2) groups of respondents registered almost the same ranking in the items specifically for rank 1- community participation and information, rank 2- gender and rank 4-cultural sensitivity (traditional knowledge).

In like manner, differences were weighed in. Apparently, the public and

private have dissenting opinions as to how they rank the indicators in so far as extent of management capacity to provide DRR training and volunteer support is concerned along cultural sensitivity (languages), diversity in terms of cultural sensitivity, training activities, actual and fair participation and gender (resources).

Specifically, the private group claimed that the capacity extent is high

( x =3.48) in making available, to all concerned information about the institution while the other item were valuated moderately. For the public group, with values ranging from 3.29 to 2.71, all the indicators were assessed



to lower weighted averages that appeal to the descriptive equivalent “moderate”.

Taken altogether and collectively, the extent of management capacity of the HEIs in the operation of NSRC units for DRR training and mobilization of volunteer-reservists was measured along the seven (7) areas: (1) DRR as Internal Priority, (2) risk assessment; monitoring and warning; (3) knowledge and education; (4) underlying risk factors; (5) preparedness and response; (6) evaluation of local-level government initiatives; ad (7) cross-cutting issues. The over-all computed mean is 3.09 or “moderate” extent. (refer to Table 9)

To elucidate only one of the seven areas rated “high”, i.e. underlying

risk factor while the rest “moderate”. Values of mean ranged from 3.45 to 2.84

where the lowest mean is identified with items on disaster risk assessments,

early warning systems and risk management systems where were part of

ascertaining how effectively the institution raises awareness and shares

information on DRR among NSTP trainees, NSRC reservist-volunteers and

often stakeholders.

The results indicate that activities and practices relative to DRR

training and volunteer mobilization in NSRC across the archipelago

necessitate significant scope of improvements. This inference is arrived at for

the reason that based on the assessed statistical value on the level capacity

is not satisfactory. In fact, results of the study of Vidal (2008) lend support to

the foregoing concerns as it was found out that, since 2007, one of the

problems of the NSTP-implementing institutions is the lack of provision for the

training of reservists. Up to this moment, nothing much has changed in the

sense that not many HEIs have fully operationalized their NSRC units.

The capacity extent of the HEIs can be regarded as not sustainable

and ineffective measures. The extent “moderate” could be assumed as more

or less a “safe” answer or that which suggest uncertainty. This applies to all

but few indicators rated “high” mostly belonging underlying risk factors

covering items that relates to environmental and natural resource

management, adaptation to climate change and protection of facilities.

Between public and private HEIs, the latter had higher grand mean ( x =3.18) compared with the former with 3.02. The means are with the range equal to moderate extent.

To detail the values given by the respondents from the private HEIs,

only two out of seven areas are measured to be a high extent – underlying risk factors ( x =3.48) and DRR as Internal Priority ( x =3.40). The other five



were all rated as “moderate” extent where the areas on knowledge and education had, by far, the meanest value at 2.87.

For the public institutions, all but one of the areas of measure had

means that appeal to moderate extent. The area considered to be satisfactory with some limitations in capacities and resources in the underlying risk factors while items under risk assessment, monitoring and warning was completed to yield a result ( x =2.77).

Table No. 9 Summary on the Extent of Management Capacity of Philippine HEIs in

Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support

n = 94

Indicators x of HEI

x DE Private Public

DRR as Internal Priority 3.4 2.97 3.17 M


2.93 2.77 2.84 M

Knowledge and Education 2.87 3.02 2.95 M

Underlying Risk Factors 3.48 3.43 3.45 H

Preparedness and Response 3.18 2.86 3.0 M

Evaluation of local-level government initiatives

3.30 3.18 3.24 M

Cross-cutting issues 3.10 2.93 3.00 M Overall Mean 3.18 3.02 3.09 M

Legend:



Based on regions, of the 15 regions that are represented in the study,

a total of 11 regions have participation from the 43 Private Higher Education Institutions consisting of Ilocos (I), Cagayan Valley (2), Central Luzon (III), Calabarzon (IV-A ), Bicol (V), Western Visayas (VI), Central Visayas (VII), Northern Mindanao (X), Davao/Southern Mindanao (XI), Socccksargen/Central Mindanao (XII), and the National Capital Region (NCR). Meanwhile, the 51 public HEIs that were includeed came from 13 regions, to wit: I, II, III, IV-A, Mimaropa (IV-B), V, VI, Eastern Visayas (VIII),



Zamboanga/Western Mindanao (IX), CARAGA (XIII), NCR and the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR).

In can be figured out that the extent of management capacity of private

HEIs, in operating NSRC for DRR training and volunteer mobilization is lowest in Region I with a mean 1.80 which measures low extent. Region II aso registered "low" extent ( x =2.50). Majority of the regions with means varying form 2.75 to 3.37 had rating equal to "moderate". Four (40) regions composed of Region X, Region II, Region XI, and Region VI having means of 4.15, 4.14, 3.88 and 3.52, respectively, were said to have posted "high" extent.

Among public HEIs, NCR (x=3.49) and Region XI ( x =3.55) are the only 2 regions with a weight corresponding to high extent. There are also 2 regions with descriptive equivalent of low extent- Region VI ( x =2.48), and Region XII ( x =2.17), All the rest, 9 of them, rated moderately. These regions are: Cagayan Valley ( x =3.35), Ilocos ( x =3.26), Bicol ( x =3.25), Central Luzon ( x =3.15), Calabarzon (Cavite, Laguna,Batangas, and Quezon) ( x =3.09), Mimaropa (Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon and Palawan) ( x =3.07), Visayas ( x =2.97) Soccsksargen (South Cotabato, Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sarangani and General Santos) ( x =2.81), CAR ( x =2.74).

Further, for purposes of giving premise testing the significant difference between and among regions, the following analysis of the results categorized by type of HEI along the 7 areas of management capacity with a total of 32 indicators distributed as follows: Area I (DRR Priorization)- (1)Frameworks and Structures, (2) Planning, (3) Financial Resources and (4) Human Resources; Area II (Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning )- (5) Disaster Risk Assessment, (6) Early Warning Systems and (7) Risk Management Systems; Area III (Knowledge and Education)- (8) Information Management and Exchange, (9) Formal Education (Training of Staff), (13) Protection of Facilities; Area V (Preparedness and Response)- (14) Disaster Preparedness (Future Risks), (15) Disaster Response, (16) Disaster Preparedness and Response;(17) Disaster Response and Recovery, (18) Emergency Resources and (19) Coordination and Information Exchange;Area VI (Evaluation of Local-Level Government Initiatives), (20) Governance, (21) Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning, (22) Knowledge and Education, (23) Underlying Risk Factors, ad (24) Preparedness and Response; as Area VII (Cross-Cutting Issues)- (25) Community Participation and Information, (26) Actual and Fair Participation, (27) Training Activities, (28) Gender, (29) Gender (Resources), (30) Cultural Sensitivity (Diversity), (31) Cultural Sensitivity (Traditional Knowledge) and (32) Cultural Sensitivity (languages).



Table No. 12

Extent of Management Capacity of Public and Private HEIs in Operating NSRCs for Local DRR Training and Volunteer

Support in terms of Areas and Indicators

Indicators

x of HEI x DE Rank

Private (n=43)

DE Public (n=51)

DE

Thematic Area 1: DRR as Internal Priority

Frameworks and Structures 3.36 M 3.02 M 3.18 M 12

Planning 3.62 H 4.06 H 3.86 H 1

Financial Resources 3.02 M 2.58 L 2.78 M 27

Human Resources 3.58 H 2.26 L 2.87 M 32

Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning

Disaster Risk Assessments 3.05 M 3.12 M 3.09 M 14

Early Warning Systems 2.75 M 2.46 L 2.59 L 32

Risk Management Systems 2.98 M 2.73 M 2.84 M 24.5

Thematic Area 3: Along Knowledge and Education

Information Management and Exchange 3.07 M 3.32 M 3.21 M 10

Formal Education – Training of Staff 2.95 M 3.01 M 2.98 M 20

Community Training 2.59 L 2.73 M 2.67 M 31

Thematic Area 4: Along Underlying Risk Factors

Environmental and Natural Resource Management

3.40 H 3.61 H 3.50 H 2.5

Adaptation to Climate Change 3.48 H 3.51 H 3.50 H 2.5

Protection of Facilities 3.58 H 3.18 M 3.36 M 6

Thematic Area 5: Along Preparedness and Response

Disaster Preparedness – Future Risks 3.26 M 2.93 M 3.08 M 15.5

Disaster Response 3.35 M 2.90 M 3.11 M 13

Disaster Preparedness and Response 3.25 M 2.93 M 3.08 M 15.5

Disaster Response and Recovery 2.80 M 2.61 M 2.70 M 30

Emergency Resources 2.83 M 2.60 M 2.71 M 28.5

Coordination and Information Exchange 3.58 H 2.21 L 2.84 M 24.5

Thematic Area 6: Along Evaluation of Local-Level Government Initiatives

Governance 3.50 H 3.31 M 3.40 H 4

Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning 3.16 M 3.31 M 3.24 M 8

Knowledge and Education 3.33 M 3.10 M 3.21 M 10

Underlying Risk Factors 3.24 M 2.92 M 3.07 M 17

Preparedness and Response 3.33 M 3.27 M 3.30 M 7

Thematic Area 7: Along Cross-Cutting Issues

Community Participation and Information 3.48 H 3.29 M 3.38 M 5

Actual and Fair Participation 2.64 M 2.76 M 2.71 M 28.5

Training Activities 3.04 M 3.08 M 3.06 M 18

Gender 3.26 M 3.17 M 3.21 M 10

Gender – Resources 2.97 M 2.71 M 2.83 M 26

Cultural Sensitivity – Diversity 2.92 M 2.90 M 2.91 M 21

Cultural Sensitivity – Traditional Knowledge 3.1 M 2.93 M 3.01 M 19

Cultural Sensitivity – Languages 3.12 M 2.71 M 2.90 M 22

Legend:



Of the 32 indicators falling under the 7 thematic areas, planning ranked

first in the public as well as private HEIs with mean values corresponding to “high” extent. Rank 32, the lowest is early warning signs under the area in



Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning having a descriptive equivalent of “low.”

This is also true in the case of private schools but differs with that of

the public type were the indicator receiving the lowest rank is along Thematic Area 5: Preparedness and Response, that is, coordination and information exchange.

Four out of the 32 indicators- planning (DRR as Internal Priority),

Environmental and Natural Resource Management (Underlying Risk Factors), adaptation to climate change (Underlying Risk Factors) and governance (Local Government Support)- were computed to have means equal to “high”.

Only one indicator early warning systems along Risk Assessment,

Monitoring and Warning is “low”. The remaining indicators, accounting to 27, had varying means

equivalent to moderate extent. Based on the foregoing, it can be inferred that since the HEIs have

“moderate” ratings in most of the indicators, the operation of their NSRC for DRR training and volunteer management do not fully meet the standards set in connection with the disaster risk reduction efforts in the universities and colleges consistent with the requirements of NSTP mandating the creation of group that shall organize and mobilize alumni of the non-military program components as CWTS and LTS who will be called reservists. These reservists, in their volunteer capacity, may be mobilized for DRR per provisions of RA 10121.

It is quite apparent that HEIs have not optimally developed the

potentials of the NSRC reservists in responding to the clarion call for disaster

responders in the local level. This can be due to constraints associated with

financial resources, technical limitations, back trained personnel and the like.

Significant Differences on the Extent of Capacity of the Philippine HEIs

in the Operation NSRC Units for DRR Training and Volunteer

Management

In summary, based on the 7 thematic areas and 32 indicators, the higher education institutions in both public and private types from 15 regions in the country were valued to yield a general rating of moderate extent as to capacity of the institution to carry its function in operating its National Service Reserve Corps Units for training and volunteer management to complement disaster risk reduction efforts in the local levels. A closer look, however, would reveal difference in the overall means derived from the public and private.



Aimed at quantifying the variance resulting from the margin between and among means per result of employing descriptive statistics particularly using measures of central tendency specifically mean, the succeeding discussions present the outcomes in a more advanced probe of determining whether there exist significant difference in the extent of capacity aided by inferential statistics. Comparison as to Type of Higher Education Institution

Table No. 13 reflects the results of the test of hypothesis anent the difference on the extent of capacity between Public and Private HEIs in the Operation of NSRC for DRR Training and Volunteer Management. Per findings, the groups of respondents, belonging to 2 types of institutions of higher learning, had the same assessment in the evidence by the thematic areas by the statistical values as follows: DRR as internal priority (0.18921); risk assessment, monitoring and warning (0.26576); knowledge and education (0.26969); underlying risk (0.36593); preparedness and response (0.00902); local government support (0.10546); and cross-cutting issues (0.15563), the computed t values call for the acceptance of the null hypothesis at 0.05 significance level. Hence, the extent of capacity of the public and private higher education institutions in the 15 regions of the country do not significantly differ.

The results serving as the basis for the acceptance of the null hypothesis is an affirmation that inspite of the variance noted in the computed mean values, the difference between means having the same descriptive equivalents is negligible and insignificant. This affirms the finding of Vidal (2008) that the higher education institutions implementing the National Service Training Program (NSTP) of which is the basis for the creation of NSRCs have not posted significant difference in the extent of implementation of and level of seriousness of the problems they encountered in the non-military program components of NSTP across regions in the country.



Table No. 13 Difference of Means on the Extent of Management Capacity of the Philippine HEIs in the Operation

of NSRC for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support

Areas Type of

HEI n x SD T(p.) Sig

1. DRR as Internal Priority

Public 4 2.97 0.78452 0.18921 Accept

Private 4 3.40 0.27489

2. Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning

Public 3 2.77 0.33089 0.26575 Accept

Private 3 2.93 0.15695

3. Knowledge and Education

Public 3 3.02 0.29513 0.26969 Accept

Private 3 2.87 0.2498

4. Underlying Risk Public 3 3.43 0.22502

0.36593 Accept Private 3 3.48 0.09018

5. Preparedness and Response

Public 6 2.86 0.28423 0.00902 Accept

Private 6 2.18 0.30564

6. Evaluation of Local-level Government Initiatives

Public 5 3.18 0.1702 0.10546 Accept

Private 5 3.30 0.1275

7. Cross-cutting issues Public 8 2.94 0.2007

0.15563 Accept Private 8 3.10 0.2493

*Tcrit at 0.05 significance level with df 92 is 1.714

Difference by Region

Cross-sectional wise, the succeeding explication endeavors to account for the extent of management capacity of the public and private HEIs engaged in local disaster preparedness, response and recovery efforts via the training and mobilization of volunteer-reservists of the NSRC when the respondents are grouped according to region along the 7 thematic areas.

The region having the highest mean of 4.15 (high) is Region X

(Northern Mindanao) while the lowest registering at 2.28 (low) is Region XII

(SOCCKSARGEN), the only of such descriptive equivalent, then referred to

as Central Mindanao. The weighted mean with a rating equivalent of

“moderate” extent is 3.12.

This implies that, across the archipelago, the capacity level in

operating NSRC in response to guidelines set relative to RA10121 and

RA9163 is between “high” and “low” which can be regarded as neither

satisfactory nor unsatisfactory. Conceivably, this can imputed to the absence



of regulatory measures by agencies of the government such as the

Commission on Higher Education to promulgate impositions to strictly enforce

the laws pertinent to this effect.

Table No. 14 Extent of Management Capacity of the Philippine HEIs in

the Operation of NSRC for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along the

Thematic Areas by Region

Region Thematic Area Means

x DE Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I (n=6) 2.71 2.61 2.85 3.61 2.83 3.2 3.18 3.01 M 8

II (n=10) 3.85 3.47 3.6 4.17 3.53 3.88 3.78 3.75 H 3

III (n=4) 2.87 3 3.33 3.42 3.04 3.5 2.94 3.12 M 6

IV-A (n=18) 2.84 3.02 3 3.54 2.81 3.05 2.88 2.97 M 9.5

IV-B (n=6) 2.84 2.95 3.06 3.44 2.78 3.35 3.15 3.07 M 7

V (n=12) 3.23 2.7 2.75 3.31 2.97 2.92 2.82 2.94 M 11

VI (n=6) 2.75 2.39 2.95 3.06 2.69 2.93 2.92 2.82 M 13

VII (n=3) 3.5 2.78 3.45 2.67 3 2.75 2.5 2.89 M 12

VIII (n=4) 3.5 2.67 2.08 2.75 2.88 2.65 3.5 2.97 M 9.5

IX (n=3) 3.5 2.78 3.78 3.78 3.72 3.8 3.04 3.55 H 4

X (n=1) 4.5 3.67 3.33 4.33 4.17 4.2 4.33 4.15 H 1

XI (n=1) 3.75 4.33 2 4.33 3.67 4.2 4.25 3.88 H 2

XII (n=3) 2.17 1.67 2.33 2.78 2.28 2.8 2.04 2.28 L 16

XIII (n=2) 2.88 2.5 2.83 4 2.42 3.3 2.44 2.81 M 14

CAR (n=2) 2.38 2.67 2.67 3.33 2.75 2.9 2.63 2.74 M 15

NCR (n=13)

3.67 3.03 3.24 3.64 3.45 3.22 3.38 3.38 M 5

Overall x 3.06 2.91 3.03 3.57 3.03 3.36 3.09 3.12 M

Rank 4 7 5.5 1 5.5 2 3

The “moderate” level of management capacity was also noted in 11

regions with means measuring from 2.74 (Cordillera Administrative Region) to 3.38 of the National Capital Region. The other regions which had means categorized as “moderate” consist of Region III (Central Luzon): x =3.12, Region IV-B (MIMAROPA): x =3.12, Region IV-A (CALABARZON): x =2.97, Region V (Bicol): x =2.94, Region VII (Central Visayas): x =2.89, Region VI (Western Visayas): x =2.82 and Region XIII (CARAGA): x =2.81.

Across the thematic areas, as pointed out in the previous discussion, theme 4 or “underlying risk Factors” posted the highest mean where Regions X and XI had rated “very high” in terms of the extent in management capacity at 4.33. This “very high” rating may be due to existence of local DRR policies and Government and non-government organization support.



The lowest mean of the 7 themes, however, is “risk assessment, monitoring and warning” with a computed value of x =2.91. Region XII, of the 16 regions, posted the lowest rating of x =1.67 or very low extent. This suggest that the requisites identified in this thematic area as hazard mapping, risk assessment, early warning schemes and the like are somewhat difficult to implement. Reasons given by the respondents and the interviewees when asked why they rated such vary from lack of qualified and trained personnel to perform the said DRR activities, time constraints, lack of facilities, limited financial resources and non-utilization of research-based resources in addressing the requirements in this area. Analysis of Variance of the Extent of Management Capacity

Following the employment of descriptive statistics to treat the data relative to the extent of management capacity of the HEIs about their NSRC, a further examination was made to inferentially test significant differences when responses are grouped into type of HEI (private or public), thematic areas (DRR as an internal priority; risk assessment, monitoring and waiting; knowledge and education; underlying risk factors, preparedness and response; local government support/ initiatives; and cross-cutting issues) in the 16 regions of the country and the 32 indicators along the 6 themes.

Relative to the aforementioned, the hypotheses advanced were

statistically treated employing t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The data derived in the statistical treatment with the corresponding analysis and interpretations are reflected in appropriate tables in the succeeding pages.

ANOVA by Region

Not withstanding the acceptance of the null hypothesis to test the difference between the measure of extent as ascertained by the public and private higher education institution, the probe went on further to appraise the variance cited alongside the rating given as categorized by region along the 7 thematic areas.

As can be gleaned from the Table 15, the difference on the extent of

management capacity of HEIs as appraised by the public and private types of institutions is reflected indicating the observed F value equal to 9.457 which is relatively higher than the critical value of 1.75 at 0.05 significance level warranting the reversal of the null hypothesis into its alternative form.

The rejection of the null hypothesis may serve as basis for inference

that there is significance difference in the responses of the NSRC heads as to the extent of management capacity of the HEIs, along the 7 themes on Local



DRR training and volunteer support of the NSRC reservists identified in this study, by region.

Table No. 15

Analysis of Variance on the Extent of Management Capacity of the Philippine HEIs in the Operation of the NSRC for

Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along the 7 Thematic Areas in the 15 Region

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares df Mean

Squares F Sig.

Between 21.93 15 1.462 9.457 Reject

Among 14.84 96 0.1546

Total 36.77 111

Fcrit0.05 Significance Level (df:15,96) = 2.79

The difference can be attributed to the variabilities noted such as local

resources, frequency of natural and man-made disasters, support of the local government units, regional and development thrusts mission and goals of the higher education institutions.

This findings run parallel to the report of ADPC and UNDP (2011) that

while there is progress in the inclusion of DRR in the educational programs and the curriculum in general, the degree of success and intensity of activities varies. Further, it was noted that the core competencies required to effectively carry out DRR activities are manifold and multifaceted. Lacking standards, like in the case of NSRC operation, many organizations and institutions have developed “core competencies” engendering their management capacity that they consider to be essential.

Moreover, as it appears, regions in the far North and South, register

lower extent which could be due to vulnerabilities brought about by the types terrains and other geographical barriers. ANOVA of the 32 Indicators Premised on the significant difference between and among the 16 regions along the 7 thematic areas, statistical testing was also resorted to pertaining difference in the extent of management capacity in the 32 indicators along the 7 thematic areas. This is done in order to cite any significance in the margins on means as shown in the previous tables. To this end, the indicators are organized by thematic area and aided

by ANOVA, Table 16 presents the data indicative of the results of the test that

yielded F value corresponding to 2.668 and when matched with the critical



value based on F ratio at 0.05 significance level set at 2.49 calling for the

rejection of the null form of the hypothesis of the study.

Table No. 16 Analysis of Variance on the Extent of Management Capacity of

the Philippine HEIs in the Operation of the NSRC for Local DRR Training and Volunteer Support along

the 32 Indicators

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares

df Mean

Squares F Sig.

Between 1.006 6 0.1677 2.6668 Reject

Among 1.572 25 6.2865

Total 2.578 31

Fcrit0.05 Significance Level (df:6,25) = 2.49 Therefore, there is significant difference in the extent of management capacity of HEIs as rated by the public and private institutions relative to Local DRR training and volunteer operations of the NSRC.

As hazards and vulnerabilities vary from region to region, the actions taken in consonance with the different indicators of the thematic areas are also wide-ranged. It was observed that since concerns are multifarious, extent of management capacity is significantly differentiated in the various indicators along the seven thematic areas.

There is no single theme where the HEIs posted same measure of

extent as the different requirements are regarded as more or less technical concerns requiring specializations which can not all be found in any single higher education instititutions and this affirmed by the respondents in the course of exacting from them challenges and obstacles they encounter along their function of ensuring the operation of their respective NSRC.

This can be corroborated by the report of World Bank (2005) that some

parts of the country are more prone to specific hazard than others, some parts are exposed to more hazard than others. Reducing the risks of disasters require widespread and sustained commitment across a wide range of fields and concerns.

Enabling and Constraining Factors Identified with the Extent of Capacity of the NSRC Units in the HEIs of the Philippines to Provide DRRM Training and Volunteer Support From the interviews conducted to validate the response of and additional inputs given by NSRC focal persons from the public and private higher education institutions in the different regions in the country, factors that



enabled the HEIs in their orderly and systematic operations relative to the disaster risk reduction training and volunteer management were determined. In like manner, certain elements considered limiting their implementation of local DRR training and volunteer management activities were identified. Enabling Factors As there differences in the extent of management capacity by region along the 7 thematic areas and the 32 indicators, critical success factors were identified to enable HEIs in the operation of their respective NSRCs through community of sharing of good practices. On a general note, the capacity and commitment of key actors in the higher education institutions particularly the members of the administration and the NSTP/NSRC personnel. Sustained support of the local non-government organizations (NGO), government organizations (GOs), people‟s organization (POs) and other groups and the development of social networks Hancock (2011) argues that level of commitment engagement with the communities.

The enhancement of social networks in the community enabled the NSRC to include more participants and to help a larger number of people. Strong leaders with good social networks are an important enabling factor for community-based disaster risk management. Organization of volunteers was also viewed by the respondents to promote DRR programs.

Participation and ownership of procedures and early warning systems

including other DRR mechanisms by the community is also an important enabling factor per the perspectives of the key actors in the operation of NSRCs. Another enabling factor is the integration of disaster risk management into strategies that address institutional priorities. By thematic area, the following factors were cited:

DRR as an Internal Priority Identified herein are factors regarded by the representatives of the

HEIs in the study comprised both of the respondent and the interviewee groups in connection with the first thematic area.

Accordingly, and apparently the most common response, partnership

and/or collaboration with various organizations-government organization (GOs), non-government organizations (NGOs), humanitarian groups like Philippine Red Cross and other socio-civic circles into DRR- spelled the success of many HEIs when it comes to planning and organizing for disaster and volunteer management in NSRC. This factor speaks of complementation



and alliance building in view of scare organizational resources particularly the educational institutions in the post-secondary level.

It is, as well, significant to mention that coordination with various

entities by the HEIs facilitated the conduct of drills (earthquake, fire, etc.) workshops, fund raising, and climate change-related action like greening program.

Commitment of the NSTP trainees, NSRC reservists and other

stakeholders of the institution and the communities serve to enable the realization of requisites such as frameworks and structures, human resources and financial requirements in providing training and volunteer support for local DRR initiatives. To promote such, disaster training are offered to NSTP students before they graduate from the Program.

Not so many though have taken the advantages of organizing

volunteers for disaster response in the local communities. Finally, it was stressed in the course of eliciting data that DRR can be

well-entrenched in the vision, mission and goals of the HEIs, particularly that of the extension services thrusts of the institution.

Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning As to raising of awareness and sharing of information on DRR to all

concerned, success of practices and programs relates to commitment of those charged with the operation of NSTP to include the administration, availability of manual operation (but not in most), support of the institutions and the existence of standardized programs of instruction for NSTP consistent with 25-hour common module and networking/linkaging.

Moreover, inclusion of DRR activities in the program implementation of

NSTP was also indentified as promoting this area of concern. Knowledge and Education In keeping with the theme on sharing of knowledge and education with

key stakeholders for disaster preparedness, and focal persons in the operation of NSRC, attributed success in undertaking he requirements along this area to commitment of the key players in the HEIs and the wider communities, community support, availability of trained personnel, development of DRR modules and proper coordination in carrying out the tasks of training the staff, information management and community capacity building.



It is interesting to note that one HEI has exposed its NSRC training team and volunteers to the use of gadgets in assessing hazards and vulnerabilities. In like manners, another institution highlighted the significance of systematic dissemination of hazard information to the community.

Underlying Risk Factors In pursuit of reducing underlying risk in DRR operations, critical

success factors include sharing of practices, conduct of research studies for baseline data, placement of DRR by the Institution to internal priority, conduct of appropriate trainings, use of technology in climate change adaptation and disaster management, allocation of funds and community involvement.

For HEIs not receiving allotment from the Institutions General and/or

NSTP Trust Fund, one pro-active move is the conduct of income generation activities.

Preparedness and Response So as to prepare the local communities to anticipate the reduce to

minimum the risks brought about the disasters, disaster preparedness, response and recovery including emergency resources and coordination and information exchange were carried out to ensured by the following enabling factors: assistance extended by alumni (graduates of NSTP), readiness of the community partners and strong linkages with organizations.

Some respondents went to the extent of sharing their experiences in

liking with the Philippine Red Cross with its programs like Project 143, a community-based approach to organizing a disaster response unit comprised of 44 members – 1 leader and 43 members, each playing distinctive role in abating the risks in the local area of operation.

Local Government Support/Initiative Keys to succesful HEI-LGU collaboration as identified by the NSRC

point persons include: alignement of the DRR program to the Extension Services thrust of the institution, awareness-raising and advocacy on DRR among stakeholders, building of networks of volunteers and commitment of the local officials and the administration of both public and private universities and colleges.

The partnership between the higher education institution and the local

government has resulted to initiatives like the establishment of rescue and disaster response teams.



Cross-Cutting Issues Dealing with community training, gender issues and cultural sensitivity

concerns, active involvement of Indigenous people (IPs) in planning, decision-making and programming of DRR activities to address traditional language, diversity plus minority languages used in training courses was observed to enable capacity development of not only the community people but the NSRC personnel as well.

In like manner, integration of gender and development plans of actions

were enacted to address political issues of women and even empowerment. Constraining Factors

In search for answers to the lingering question as to why the extent of management capacit is to a “moderate” level only, factors that are perceived to constrain and/or challenge the HEI in the operation of DRR training and volunteer mobilization are diagnosed per thematic area.

Several recurrent issues and concerns emerged in the course of

exacting the extent of capacity of the HEIs alongside NSRC operation for DRR initiatives.

A range of constraining factors limited the success of the DRR

initiatives under the NSRC. These mostly pertain to culture, religion, politics, governance, capacity, and resource availability. In some cases, different religious and political views and affiliations hampered the execution disaster management plans collectives and the wider community and local government actors.

DRR as Internal Priority Limiting factors that constrained the HEIs in the operation of NSRC

with reference to DRR in thematic area 1 are, to wit: financial constraints, insufficiency of NSTP Fund to cover up expenses relative to NSRC; no provision manual of operation to guide the conduct the DRR activities and reservist mobilization; lack of support of LGUs; limited time for training of volunteers as well as trainers; low level of awareness on NSTP/NSRC and the other pertinent laws and regulations of the administration; lack of training provision and materials; and inexistence of development plan and policies to sustain DRR Program.

There were also some behavior-related constraining factors such as

lukewarm attitude of students and reservists to drills asn other related activities, non-support of management/manifestation of non-interest of the



other members of the academic community to DRR works, non-supportive nature of some members of the community served and the like.

In addition, cited as challenges, too, are: Lack of relevant training for

both the trainers and the reservists, limited training opportunities, high cost of trainings in DRR, lack of sustainability of the DRR initiatives due to failure of the administration to place DRR as an internal priority.

Topping these, is the common concern among HEIs, that is, non-

activation of the NSRC units in any part of the country. Since 2003, there has been no substantial account for operation of accredited NSRC according to PSNEI (2014). This could be due to the absence of guidelines for the accreditation of NSRC Units and training of reservists. Add to this, the issuance of serial numbers for the graduates of non-military program has been a matter of concern for many.

Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning Of the weaknesses observed by the respondents, emphasis was

placed on the lack of political will on the part of the administration of the HEIs to operate NSRC for disaster mitigation and preparedness, thus, other problems and concerns surfaced along this area.

The HEIs are faced with the following constraints: limited facilities,

financial limitations, absence of monitoring schemes, lack of manpower resources and with provision of warning system and others.

Furthermore, seemingly the high incidence of calamities like typhoons

and inept attitude of the people in the service area of the HEIs aggravate the situation.

All these would lead to lack of sustainability of the program for DRR

Training and Volunteer Management. Knowledge and Education Constraining factors were also noted along knowledge and education

that affect the capacity of the HEI in managing DRR training and volunteer support of the NSRC to imparting disaster education to key stakeholder in the area of operations for them to ably and proactively respond to hazard and risks.

Topping the list is passive nature of the community people appurtenant

to community training initiatives. The reactive perspective could possibly increase the risks when faced with disasters. Other concerns include lack of



provision for training in the community level and lack of trained personnel to be handle volunteer-reservists mobilization and community training.

The later could be so in view of the lack of time to implement the said

action plans lack of policy support, lack of financial resources, lack of awareness of the administration on the requirements of the laws governing DRR and NSRC, lack of opportunities for benchmarking and sharing of good practices and non-existence of framework for operation of NSRC program.

Underlying Risk Factors Attuned to thematic area 4, constraining factors are identified in this

section: The most common factors that mainstreamed are: lack for resources, lack of capacity of the NSRC personnel and reservists, lack of clear-cut guidelines in the implementation of DRR training and volunteer support mobilization and lack of relevant trainings.

This manifestations of concerns could possibly be linked to be inability

of the HEIs to be placed for internal priority disaster risk reduction training and volunteer management as part of their strategic directions.

Preparedness and Response Given highlight in this discussion are the limitations indentified with the

operation of NSRC on DRR training and volunteer support as perceived by the respondents and the interviewees comprised of NSTP/NSRC heads and staff.

Stemming on the non-prioritization of DRR as a program by the

institutions and lack of program standard, the following constraints were enumerated: lack of continuity of DRR programs, lack of capability of the HEI and the communities in terms of disaster preparedness, response and recovery including adaptation of initiatives on climate change and lack of transportation provisions for operation and mobilization purposes.

Inaccessibility of the service area or area operation, apathetic nature of the people in the partner (adopted) communities and weak coordination by the HEIs to GOs, NGOs, and other organizations.

Local Government Support/Initiatives Primary concern that impedes the administration of the HEI and the

local government is the lack of material time to address the multifarious requisites in connection with the thematic area.

It was also pointed out by the respondents that, for some HEIs, they

are unable to link or coordinate with the LGUs. This can due to the fact that



the local government have, in addition to DRR and Climate Change, so many other programs, projects and activities to tend with.

Lastly, conflicting schedules and priorities serves as another

constraints why management extent of the higher education institutions in the operation of NSRC for DRR is only to a “moderate” level.

Cross-Cutting Issues Relative to the constraints under the theme “Cross-Cutting Issues”,

gender and gender resources aspects of this area have not been much of a limiting factor. The advocacy of gender and development in the country and in the higher education institutions has resulted to greater women participation in governance and more opportunities for them to realize their potentials as productive members of the society.

The primary concern, however, is on promoting the role of indigenous

people in the works concerning DRR.

The findings of the study can be cross-referenced with the analysis of disaster response training in the Pacific Island Region by OCHA (2012) that most countries in region lack the resources for ongoing coordination of disaster preparedness and response. This is partly due to multiple demands on under-resourced national disaster management authorities, including the coordination of disaster management, risk reduction, and increased focus on climate change adaptation initiatives; as well as the varied geographical and thematic focus of development organizations working in these areas. As a result, national level inter-agency coordination on these issues that is inclusive of all relevant partners is often weak. Governments frequently lack the capacity to provide assistance at the community level just like in the case of NSRCs needing capacity development to, in turn, provide training and volunteer support to local government units, and instead rely on often overburdened traditional structures and civil society organizations resulting in gaps in service delivery, monitoring and evaluation. National disaster management authority officials have repeatedly emphasized their lack of capacity to put in place systems for effective disaster preparedness, management, response and recovery. These gaps have been echoed by post-disaster evaluations, reviews, disaster management forums and lessons learned exercises.



CONCLUSIONS Anchored on the salient findings of this probe, the following conclusions are generated: Premised on the acceptance of the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship on the extent of capacity in the operation of National Service Reserve Corps for training and volunteer management for local disaster risk reduction along DRR as internal priority; risk assessment, monitoring and warning; knowledge and education; underlying risk factors; preparedness and response; local-level government initiatives; and cross cutting issues between public and private higher education institutions and among the 15 regions in the country, it can be generalized that the “moderate” extent of management capacity reflects that the role and potentials of the HEIs through their NSRCs have not been optimally realized. In explication, testing of hypothesis concerning differences as to thematic area by region and indicators that warranted the rejection of the null hypothesis gave valuable insights as variances in specific areas and requirements of DRR. It is therefore generalized that while performance between the types of HEIs is almost generally the same, premium can be placed on elements that affect differences by region and when group by thematic area and indicators, thus, serving as basis for the formulation of capacity development program to enhance NSRC operation. This indicative of certain constraints that far outweighs the enabling factors, thus, limiting the execution of plans, and policies governing the fulfillment and attainment of the DRR thrusts in transforming vulnerable communities towards disaster and climate-proof future.



RECOMMENDATIONS Drawing from the findings and conditions, the recommendations are hereby advanced: 1. Formulate strategic capacity development model to serve as an impetus in

making NSRCs and HEIs functional and relevant DRR organizations.

2. Widest dissemination of the results of the investigation through the Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers, Incorporated the Commission on Higher Education and other organizations be made to serve as frame of reference for the higher education institutions and NSTP-NSRC implementers especially in the purview of the “vacuum” brought about by K-12 implementation.

3. Sharing of the findings of the study to the Local Government Academy under the auspices of the Department of Interior and Local Governments and other concerned agencies in aid of legislation for more efficient and productive DRR programs.

4. Conduct of further and parallel studies to bring about more empirical-based inputs and baseline data in the better understanding light of the growing complexities brought about by disasters and climate change.



REFERENCES Ciampi, M., et al. "Gender and Disaster Risk Reduction: A Training Pack". Oxfam House: Oxford, United Kingdom, 2011. FEMA, "Guidebook for Developing a School Earthquake Safety Program". FEMA, 1989. IFRC, "International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. A Framework for Community Safety and Resilience in the Face of Disaster Risk". IFRC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. IFRCRCS, "Public Awareness and Public Education for Disaster Risk Reduction". International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, School Seismic Safety,"Disaster Prevention for Schools Guidance for Education Sector Decision-Makers Consultation". International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, School Seismic Safety, Vancouver, B.C., 2008. UNESCO, "The Guidebook for Planning Education in Emergencies and Reconstruction". International Institute for Educational Planning (HEP), Paris, France. 2006. UNISDR, "United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Terminology of Disaster Risk Reduction". UNISDR, 2004. UNISDR, "United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (HFA)". UNISDR, Kobe, Japan, 2005. UNISDR and UNOCHA, "Disaster Preparedness for Effective Response Guidance and Indicator Package for Implementing Priority Five of the Hyogo Framework. UNISDR and UNOCHA, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. Wiltshire, A., "Developing Early Warning Systems: A Checklist. Proceedings of te 3rd International Conference on Early Warning EWC III, Bourn, Germany, 2006. Action Aid, “Building Community Resilience to Disasters.” (Published Thesis), DIPECHO-AAIN, 2007. ADPC, “Tools on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction, RCC Program on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Development Policy, Planning and Implementation in Asia.” (Published Material), Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Bangkok, Thailand, 2006.



ADPC, “16th Community Based Disaster Risk Management Course, Module 6: Community Disaster Risk Reduction Implementation, Session 7: Childhood Focused Disaster Risk Reduction.” (Published Material), Asian Disaster Preparedness Center Bangkok, Thailand, 2007. ADRC,“Education for Disaster Preparedness in Primary School: Project Brief.” (Published Material), Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Kobe, Japan, 2007. Basher, R., “Global Early Warning Systems For Natural Hazards: Systematic And People Centered.” (Published Material), Philosophical Trasactions of the Royal Society, 2006. CRED, “Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters.” (Published Material), CRED Crunch #12, Brussels, Belgium, 2008. Das, S., “International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development 2015: 8-11 Community Based Disaster Risk Management: Managing Disaster In Small Steps.” (Published Material), IJMRD, 2014. Drabek, T.E, “Theories Relevant to Emergency Management Versus a Theory of Emergency Management.” (Unpublished Material), Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, 2004 ESCAP, “Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action for Action in Asia and Pacific: Follow-up to the Outcome of the Third Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction – From the Regional to the Global Platform.” (Published Material), ESCAP, Bangkok, Thailand, 2009. Kapucu, N., “Developing Competency-Based Emergency Management Degree Programs in Public Affairs and Administration.” (Published Thesis), University of Central Florida. Mamogale, H.M, “Assessing Disaster Preparedness of Learners and Educators in Soshaguve North Schools.” (Unpublished Master‟s Thesis) University of the Free State, Africa, 2012. Mileti, D., et al., “Public Hazards Communication and Education: The State of the Art.” (Published Thesis), Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, 2004. Petal, M., “Disaster Risk Reduction Education: Material Development, Organization and Evaluation in Kelman, I ed.” (Unpublished Material) Regional Development Dialogue Journal, Kobe, Japan, 2007.



Petal, M.,“Disaster Risk Reduction Educa ion in Shaw, R and Krishnamurty, R eds, Disaster Management: Global Challenges and Local Solutions.” (Unpublished Material), Universities Press India, 2008. Pitt, M.,“The Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods and Independent Reviews by Sir Michael Pitt.” (Published Thesis), Crown Publications, London, 2007. Schick, O.,“Disaster Risk Education and Safer Schools.” (Published Material), Association Française pour la Préventiondes Catastrophes Naturelles (AFPCN) and Prevention 2000, 2007. SEEDS, “Ahmedabad Action Agenda for School Safety, International School Disaster Risk Reduction Conference.” (Published Material), SEEDS, Delhi, India, 2007. Tran, H.P,“Regional Analysis on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Education in the Asia Pacific Region: In the Context of Priority of Action 3 of the Hyogo Framework for Action.” (Published Material), UNISDR, Bangkok, Thailand, 2009. UNISDR,“Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Community Disasters.” (Published Material), United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. UNISDR, “Words in Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework.” (Published Material), United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Kobe, Japan, 2007. UNISDR, “Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction – Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate.” (Published Material), UN, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. UNISDR, UNESCO, “Towards a Culture of Prevention: Disaster Risk Reduction begins at School – Good Practices and Lessons Learned.” (Published Material), United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2007. Vidal, CJ E.,“National Implementation of the Non-Military Program Components of NSTP in the HEIs: Basis for an Implementer‟s Guide.” (Unpublished Dissertation), University of Luzon, Dagupan City, 2008. Webster, et. al,“The Humanitarian Costs Of Climate Change.” (Published Material) Feinstein International Center, 2008.



Wisner, B.,“Let Our Children Teach Us! A Review of the Role of Education and Knowledge in Disaster Risk Reduction.” (Published Material), UNISDR, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. Wisner, B., et. al, “School Seismic Safety: Falling Between the Cracks?” (Published Material) Radix, 2006. IGP of RA 10121 IRR of RA 9163 IRR of RA 10121 Republic Act No. 9163 Republic Act No. 10121 UN (2005). UN Millennium Development Goals Report, New York. UN General Assembly Resolution 64/76



APPENDIX 1: UL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT TEAM Project Coordinator : Dr. Carmelo John E. Vidal

Consultants : Dr. Azucena F. Elegado (Dean, Graduate School)

Dr. Efren F. Abulencia (Director, Research Center)

Dr. Imelda E. Cuartel (University Statistician)

Advisors : Dr. Mac Arthur M. Samson (University President)

Dr. Aurora S. Reyna (VP for Academic Affairs)



APPENDIX 2 : THE TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE

Institution:_____________________ Address:________________ Region:_____ Respondent:__________________________ Designation:___________________ Email Address:________________________ Contact No.:___________________

This survey is the first attempt to involve stakeholders from NSTP and NSRC-implementing higher education institutions in measuring progress towards implementing disaster prevention measures consistent with the provisions of R.A. 10121 (Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act). The project is being implemented in several countries at the global level. By 2014, the survey results will be disseminated through the launch of an accreditation framework for the training of NSRC training organizations and local volunteer support. Your assessment is extremely valuable to us. For the first time, NSRC implementing higher education institutions are given a chance to make their voices heard and to share

their insights on the increasingly important issues of natural and man-made disasters. Below, you will find a simple questionnaire, which includes a set of key questions to help you assess the progress made toward training of NSRC reservists on disaster risk reduction in institution in the local level. We hope you will be able to find time to help us in this important work, because it is only with your help that our research can be successful. The information obtained will be treated with the strictest confidentiality. We will not release information about the specific responses of any individual who takes part in this survey, unless clearly agreed with them.

Many thanks for your participation,

The Philippine Society of NSTP Educators and Implementers, Inc.



RESPONDENT: Higher Education Institution/ Technical-Vocational School Each institution should use their own point of view when completing the questions.

DRR prioritization

In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to assess how much your institution has been able to make disaster risk reduction (DRR) an internal priority.

PLEASE USE THESE SCORES TO RESPOND 1 = No, not at all 2 = To a very limited extent 3 = Some activity but significant scope for improvements 4 = Yes, but with some limitations in capacities and resources 5 = Yes, with satisfactory, sustainable and effective measures in place

(Very Low) (Low) (Moderate) (High) (Very High)

Frameworks and structures

Question A.1

GENERAL QUESTION: Had your institution through NSTP/NSRC included disaster risk reduction in their relief and development policies and planning?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Planning Question A.2

Had your institution included disaster risk reduction in its relief and development policy and planning?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify, if any, good practice re Question A.2

Financial resources Question A.3

Does your Institution set aside specific financial resources for including disaster risk reduction in its development and relief work?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify, if so, estimated amount and its budgetary requirements

Human resources Question A.4

Does your institution provide training on disaster risk reduction& management and technical resources to NSTP trainees and NSRC reservists?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify, if any, the training related to Question A.4 that you specialize in

OPEN QUESTIONS Question A.5

Please provide some examples of challenges and /or constraints in this area

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Question A.6 Please provide some recommendations as to how these challenges can be overcome in the future ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question A.7 Please provide examples of key success factors and good practices (if available) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to assess how effectively your institution raises awareness and shares information on disaster risk reduction among NSTP trainees, NSRC Reservists and other stakeholders.



Disaster risk assessments

Question B.1

Does your institution have adequate skills to carry out participatory risk assessments on potential hazards and vulnerabilities within disaster-prone communities?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify good practice re Question B.1, if any

Early Warning Systems

Question B.2 Does your institution has provisions for the communities it serves (including the school itself) in high-risk areas have access to an early warning system?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)


Risk Management Systems

Question B.3

Does your institution has the capacity to monitor hazards, share information on potential risks and have an emergency plan of action?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)




OPEN QUESTIONS Question B.4 Please provide some examples of challenges and /or constraints in this area

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question B.5 Please provide some recommendations as to how these challenges can be overcome in the future ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question B.6 Please provide examples of key success factors and good practices (if available) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Knowledge & Education

In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to assess how effectively your institution has shared knowledge and education with key stakeholders to build their capacity to respond to hazards.



Information management & exchange

Question C.1 Is key information on disaster risk reduction readily available to NSTP students, NSRC Reservists, other stakeholders and high-risk beneficiaries?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify, if any, what information are readily available re Question C.1

Formal education (training of staff)

Question C.2 Is disaster risk reductiontraining and training materials made available to NSTP/NSRC trainers?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify, if any, what training package are made available re Question C.2



Community training Question C.3 Do community training initiatives in high risk areas (particularly for women and vulnerable groups) include disaster risk reduction knowledge and practice in your partner (adopted) communities?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify, if any, what community training initiatives are extended re Question C.3

OPEN QUESTIONS Question C.4 Please provide some examples of challenges and /orconstraints in this area ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question C.5

Please provide some recommendations as to how these challenges can be overcome in the future ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question C.6

Please provide examples of key success factors and good practices (if available) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to assess how effectively your institution encourages awareness of, and adaptation to, changing environmental conditions



Environmental and natural resource management

Question D.1

Does your institution have effective and sustainable environmental policies and practices?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify practices re Question D.1, if any



Adaptation to climate change

Question D.2

Does your institution support communities to cope with climate change and to adapt to future conditions?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify support re Question D.2, if any

Protection of facilities Question D.3

Are your office buildings and facilities protected and strengthened to cope with known hazards in your area?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify nature of protection (e.g. insurance, etc) re Question D.2, if any

OPEN QUESTIONS Question D.4 Please provide some examples of challenges and /orconstraints in this area ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question D.5

Please provide some recommendations as to how these challenges can be overcome in the future ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question D.6

Please provide examples of key success factors and good practices (if available) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to assess the general situation in your institution and area of operation. How well prepared are local communities to respond and take action in case of disaster?





Disaster preparedness (future risks)

Question E.1 Do partner (adopted) communities and area of operation have the capacity to carry out emergency measures and recovery programs in case of disaster?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify type of capacity (e.g. access to evacuation centers, provision for relief and rescue, etc.) that is likely to be carried out re Question E.1, if any

Disaster response Question E.2

Do members of your organization have the necessary range of response skills needed in disaster situations such as first aid, search and rescue, water rescue, wireless and radio communications, fire suppression, water purification, and similar skills?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify, in particular, what response skills that your institution SPECIALIZE in re Question E.2, if any

Disaster preparedness and response

Question E.3

Does your institution have a plan of action for emergencies (such as access to first aid, personal contact information, family reunification/tracing services)?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify, specifically, the plan of action your institution is good, if not best, at doing re Question E.2, if any

Disaster response and recovery

Question E.4

If you have experienced a disaster, have post-disaster reviews involved the affected communities so that learning gained can strengthen future responses?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify the disaster (including year) and the nature of post-disaster review(s) initiated by your institution re Question E.4, if any

Emergency resources Question E.5

Does your institution have access to financial provisions and / or contingency funds that can be made available quickly to support a rapid response to disasters?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If there is any re Question E.5, identify nature of financial provisions and/or contingency funds

Coordination and information exchange

Question E.6 Does yourinstitution work in coordination with local/national government’s disaster management plans?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify nature and extent of participation re Question E.5



OPEN QUESTIONS Question E.7 Please provide some examples of challenges and / or constraints in this area

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question E.8 Please provide some recommendations as to how these challenges can be overcome in the future __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question E.9

Please provide examples of key success factors and good practices (if available) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation of local-level government initiatives

In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to provide an assessment of how much the administration of your institution and local government are taking disaster risk reduction into account.



Governance Question F.1

Has disaster risk reduction been a priority within your institution and local government?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify nature and extent of prioritization re Question F.1

Risk assessment, Monitoring and Warning

Question F.2 Does school authorities (other than the NSTP and NSRC Unit) and local government monitor risks and provide disaster risk reduction information to local communities?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)



If so, identify nature and extent of monitoring and provisions for informationre Question F.2

Knowledge and Education

Question F.3 Does your institution and local government use knowledge and education to ensure key stakeholders are well informed to build their capacity to respond to hazards?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify nature and extent of utilization of knowledge as in research outputs re Question F.3


Question F.4

Has your school and the local government changed social, economic, environmental conditions and land use at the local level to reduce disaster risks?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify perceived changes re Question F.4


Question F.5

Has your institution and the government strengthened disaster preparedness for effective response (in terms of capacity and resources) of local authorities, communities and individuals?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify perceived improvementsre Question F.5

OPEN QUESTIONS Question F.6

Please provide some examples of challenges and/ orconstraints in this area

Question F.7

Please provide some recommendations as to how these challenges can be overcome in the future __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question F.8 Please provide examples of key success factors and good practices (if available) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Cross-cutting issues

In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to assess how effectively your institution has included cross-cutting issues (such as gender and culture) which may impact on overall disaster risk reduction strategies.



Community participation and information

Question G.1

Is detailed information about your institution (such as aims, program objectives and contact details) available to all local stakeholders?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify stakeholders (e.g. community residents, trainees, trainers, etc.) who have access re Question G.1

Actual and fair participation

Question G.2

Do local community members (including vulnerable groups) participate in decision-making, planning and program activities within your institution?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify stakeholders (e.g. community residents, trainees, trainers, etc.) and their extent of participation re Question G.2

Training activities Question G.3

Does your staff have the necessary knowledge and skills in participatory approaches to ensure open participation and good performance?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify knowledge and skills re Question G.1

Gender Question G.4

Are women appointed to leadership positions within your institution’s development and disaster-related program?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify leadership position and role re Question G.4

Gender (resources) Question G.5

Are training and resources accessible to community groups, particularly women’s groups?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

Identify training and resources accessible re Question G.5



Cultural sensitivity (diversity)

Question G.6 Does the gathering of disaster risk information take into account the culture, livelihoods and population structure of vulnerable communities?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify strategies in so doing re Question G.6

Cultural sensitivity (traditional knowledge)

Question G.7 Does your institution consider traditional practices and local customs (such as indigenous knowledge and traditional leaders) when developing disaster risk reduction activities?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify practices and local customs in so doing re Question G.6

Cultural sensitivity (languages)

Question G.8 Are indigenous and minority languages used in publications and training courses for disaster risk reduction at local level?

Score: _____ (1 to 5)

If so, identify strategies in so doing re Question G.8

OPEN QUESTIONS Question G.9

Please provide some examples of challenges and/ orconstraints in this area __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question G.10

Please provide some recommendations as to how these challenges can be overcome in the future __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question G.11 Please provide examples of key success factors and good practices (if available) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Supplementary Information 1. Identify the type of your institution ___ Technical-Vocational Education Institutions ___ State University or College ___ Local College or University ___ Private Higher Education Institution 2. Average No. Of NSTP Non-ROTC (CWTS and LTS)

Graduates Each School Year (estimates only): _______ CWTS _________LTS 3. Do you regularly and promptly receive NSRC serial numbers for the NSTP Non-

ROTC graduates? _______ yes ________ no 4. If the answer in item #3 is no, identify the reason(s) why? 5. Average Number of NSTP Non-ROTC Trainers Each Semester (estimates

only):________ 6. Have you formally organized your NSRC? _____ yes _______ no 7. If your answer in item #6 is no, why is your NSRC not organized? 8. What constraints are encountered why the NSRC is not yet formally organized in

the institution? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. If your answer in item #4 is yes, is your NSRC accredited? _____ yes _____ no 10. When was your NSRC accredited_________ 11. For institutions with accredited NSRC, have you trained NSRC Trainers?

___ yes ___ no 12. Number of NSTP Non-ROTC Trainers who specialize in DRRM: ________

Please identify specializations ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

13. No. of NSTP Non-ROTC Trainers who specialize in Civic Welfare Activities other than DRRM: _______ Please identify specializations __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. No. of NSTP Non-ROTC Trainers who specialize in Literacy Activities other than DRRM: ___________ Please identify specializations ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15. No. of NSTP Non-ROTC Trainers who specialize in Environmental Protection/Rehab: ___________ Please identify specializations ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16. No. of NSTP Non-ROTC Trainers who specialize in responding to emergencies/ crises: _______ Please identify specializations ________________________________________

17. Does your institution has in place system of training, organizing and mobilizing of the Graduates of the NSTP Non-ROTC Program Components? ___ Yes ___ No



18. If yes is the answer to item #17, identify the nature of the system of training, organizing and mobilizing____________________________________________

19. Does your institutional has operational NSRC Unit? ______ Yes ________ No /Year(s) of NSRC Operation: _______

20. If yes is the answer to item #19, what organization trained and organized the reservist? ________________________________________________________

21. Does your institution have any plan of training your NSRC trainers? ___ Yes ___ No

22. If yes is the answer to item #21, what type of training? 23. If no is the answer to item #21, why?

________________________________________________________________ 24. How do you measure your institution‟s extent of knowledge on the provisions of

RA 10121, its IRR and implementing Guidelines and Procedures on NSRC? ______ High ______Moderate ______Low ______No Knowledge

25. How do you measure the extent of your institution‟s competency in the organization and operation on NSRC? ______ High ______Moderate ______Low ______Not Competent

26. How do you measure the extent of your institution‟s capacity in the training of NSRC trainors ______High ______Moderate ______Low ______Not Capacitated

27. How do you measure the extent of your institution‟s capacity in the training and mobilizing NSRC reservists? ______High ______Moderate ______Low ______NO Capacity

28. How do you measure the extent of your institution‟s financial capacity in training and mobilizing NSRC reservist? ______High ______Moderate ______Low ______No Capacity

29. Have you had the experience of deploying NSRC members in DRRM-related activities and others? _____ Yes _____ No

30. If the answer is yes in item #29, what specific activities the NSRC members were deployed in? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your time. Your opinion will help to build a better knowledge of the disaster prevention and disaster response–preparednesssituation in the higher education institutions in the country providing baseline data for the training NSRC reservists and accreditation of NSRC trainees. This information will be used to inform all concerned organizations and will result in the involvement of higher education institutions in the training, organization and mobilization for NSRC. We will keep you informed about any other activities and campaigns on this matter.



APPENDIX 3: SOURCE TABLES

Extent of Management Capacity of Private HEIs in Operating NSRCs

for DRR Training and Volunteer Support

along DRR as Internal Priority

n = 43

Indicators Extent of Capacity

x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Frameworks and Structures) Inclusion of DRR in the NSTP/NSRC in the Relief and Development Policies and Planning of the Institution

8(40) 11(44) 16(48) 6(12) 2(2) 3.36 M

(Planning)

Inclusion of DRR mitigation and preparedness general measures in the Institution‟s development policy and planning

9(45) 16(64) 9(27) 8(16) 0(0) 3.62 H


7(35) 9(36) 9(27) 9(18) 9(9) 3.02 M


9(45) 13(52) 9(27) 4(8) 5(5) 3.58 H

Overall Mean 3.40 H

Legend:


5 4.20 – 5.00 Very High (VH) 4 3.40 – 4.19 High (H) 3 2.60 – 3.39 Moderate (M) 2 1.80 – 2.59 Low (L) 1 1.00 – 1.79 Very Low (LW)





along Risk Assessment, Monitoring

and Warning

n = 43


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Disaster Risk Assessments) The institution possesses adequate skillsgg to carry out participatory risk assessments on potential hazards and vulnerabilities within disaster-prone communities.

5(25) 10(40) 11(33) 13(26) 3(3) 3.05 M


4(20) 11(44) 16(48) 3(6) 8(8) 2.75 M


3(15) 12(42) 14(16) 8(16) 6(6) 2.98 M

Overall Mean 2.93 M

Legend:







along Knowledge and Education

n = 43


x DE 5 4 3 2 1


2(10) 19(76) 12(36) 5(10) 4(4) 3.07 M


5(25) 17(68) 8(24) 6(12) 6(6) 2.95 M

(Community Training)

Inclusion of DRR knowledge and practice in community training initiatives in high-risk areas particularly for women and vulnerable groups.

2(10) 8(32) 13(39) 13(26) 6(6) 2.59 M

Overall Mean 2.87 M

Legend:







along Underlying Risk Factors

n = 43


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Environmental and Natural Resource Management) Observance of effective environmental policies and practices by the institution.

9(45) 14(56) 15(45) 4(8) 3(3) 3.40 M

(Adaptation to Climate Change)

Extension of supporting by the institutions to communities to cope with climate change and to adapt to future conditions.

11(55) 11(44) 14(42) 5(10) 4(4) 3.48 H


6(30) 19(76) 12(36) 3(6 ) 5(5) 3.58 H

Overall Mean 3.48 H

Legend:







along Preparedness and Response

n = 43


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Disaster Preparedness – Future Risks)

Capacity of the partner (adopted) communities and area of operation to carry out emergency measures and recovery programs in case of disasters

4 (20)

11 (44)

16 (48)

6 (12)

5 (5)

3.26 M


6 (30)

14 (56)

13 (39)

7 (14)

2 (2)

3.35 M


7 (35)

15 (60)

11 (33)

2 (4)

6 (6)

3.25 M


5 (25)

9 (36)

14 (42)

6 (12)

8 (8)

2.80 M


5 (25)

9 (36)

11 (33)

10 (20)

7(7) 2.83 M

(Coordination and Information Exchange)

Coordination of the Institution‟s work with local/national government‟s disaster management plans

9 (45)

15 (60)

11 (33)

2 (4)

5 (5)

3.58 H

Overall Mean 3.18 M

Legend:







along Evaluation of Local-Level

Government Initiatives

n = 43


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Governance) Prioritization of DRR within the institution and local government

9(45) 12(45) 10(30) 8(16) 3(3) 3.50 H



7(35) 9(36) 13(39) 7(14) 6(6) 3.16 M

(Knowledge and Education)

Use of knowledge and education by the institution and local government to ensure key stakeholders are well informed to build their capacities to respond to hazards.

7(35) 11(56) 10(30) 9(18) 2(2) 3.33 M

(Underlying Risk Factors) Initiated changes in social economic, environemental conditions and land use at the local level to reduce disaster risks

5(25) 9(36) 15(45) 7(14) 5(5) 3.24 M

(Preparedness and Response) Strengthening of disaster preparedness by the Institution and government for effective response (in terms of capacity and resources) of local authorities, communities and individuals.

8(40) 9(36) 12(36) 4(8) 5(5) 3.33 M

Overall Mean 3.30 M

Legend:







along Cross-Cutting Issues

n = 43


x DE 5 4 3 2 1


9 (45)

10 (40)

13 (39)

2 (4)

6 (6)

3.48 H


3 (15)

11 (44)

10 (30)

6 (12)

9 (9)

2.64 M


5 (25)

13 (52)

16 (48)

5 (10)

3 (3)

3.04 M


10 (50)

8 (32)

10 (30)

8 (16)

5 (5)

3.26 M


29 (10)

11 (44)

14 (42)

6 (12)

7 (7)

2.97 M


5 (25)

14 (56)

9 (27)

8 (16)

6 (6)

2.92 M


7 (35)

10 (40)

11 (33)

6 (12)

7 (7)

3.1 M


4 (20)

12 (48)

12 (36)

4 (8)

7 (7)

3.12 M

Overall Mean 3.10 M

Legend:





Extent of Management Capacity of Public HEIs in Operating NSRCs


along DRR as Internal Priority

n = 51


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Frameworks and Structures)

Inclusion of DRR in the NSTP/NSRC in the Relief and Development Policies and Planning of the Institution

6(30) 12(8) 15(5) 10(0) 6(6) 3.02 M

(Planning) Inclusion of DRR mitigation and preparedness general measures in the Institution‟s development policy and planning

7(35) 9(36) 17(15) 13(26) 3(3) 4.06 H


5(25) 5(20) 16(48) 13(26) 9(9) 2.58 M


10(50) 8(32) 13(39) 10(20) 5(5) 2.26 L

Overall Mean 2.97 M

Legend:







along Risk Assessment, Monitoring

and Warning

n = 51


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Disaster Risk Assessments) The institution possesses adequate skills to carry out participatory risk assessments on potential hazards and vulnerabilities within disaster-prone communities.

6 (30)

12 (48)

18 (54)

13 (26)

1(1) 3.12 M


3 (15)

8 (32)

12 (36)

19 (38)

8(8) 2.46 L


3 (15)

13 (52)

10 (30)

20 (40)

4(4) 2.75 M

Overall Mean 2.77 M

Legend:







along Knowledge and Education

n = 51


x DE 5 4 3 2 1


7 (35)

15 (60)

16 (48)

10 (20)

2(2) 3.32 M


5 (25)

10 (40)

17 (51)

12 (24)

6(6) 3.01 M

(Community Training) Inclusion of DRR knowledge and practice in community training initiatives in high-risk areas particularly for women and vulnerable groups.

5 (25)

5 (20)

19 (57)

11 (22)

7(7) 2.73 M

Overall Mean 3.02 M

Legend:







along Underlying Risk Factors

n = 51


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Environmental and Natural Resource Management) Observance of effective environmental policies and practices by the institution.

8 (40)

21 (84)

11 (33)

5 (10)

0(0) 3.61 H

(Adaptation to Climate Change) Extension of supporting by the institutions to communities to cope with climate change and to adapt to future conditions.

12 (60)

15 (60)

9 (27)

8 (16)

1(1) 3.51 H


6 (30)

16 (64)

13 (39)

8 (16)

2(2) 3.13 M

Overall Mean 3.43 H

Legend:







along Preparedness and Response

n = 51


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Disaster Preparedness – Future Risks)

Capacity of the partner (adopted) communities and area of operation to carry out emergency measures and recovery programs in case of disasters

2 (10)

15 (60)

15 (45)

14 (28)

4 (4)

2.93 M


4 (20)

10 (40)

18 (54)

15 (30)

3 (3)

2.90 M


4 (20)

13 (52)

17 (51)

11 (22)

5 (5)

2.93 M


4 (20)

6 (24)

16 (48)

11 (22)

9 (9)

2.61 M


4 (20)

9 (36)

12 (36)

14 (28)

11 (11)

2.60 M

(Coordination and Information Exchange)

Coordination of the Institution‟s work with local/national government‟s disaster management plans

5 (25)

17 (68)

16 (48)

8 (16)

3 (3)

2.21 L

Overall Mean 2.86 M

Legend:







along Evaluation of Local-Level

Government Initiatives

n = 51


x DE 5 4 3 2 1

(Governance) Prioritization of DRR within the institution and local government

3 (15)

22 (88)

13 (39)

9 (18)

3 (3)

3.31 M



5 (25)

23 (94)

9 (27)

11 (22)

2 (2)

3.31 M

(Knowledge and Education) Use of knowledge and education by the institution and local government to ensure key stakeholders are well informed to build their capacities to respond to hazards.

3 (15)

20 (80)

13 (39)

8 (16)

6 (6)

3.10 M

(Underlying Risk Factors)

Initiated changes in social economic, environemental conditions and land use at the local level to reduce disaster risks

5 (25)

16 (64)

16 (48)

8 (16)

8 (8)

2.92 M

(Preparedness and Response)

Strengthening of disaster preparedness by the Institution and government for effective response (in terms of capacity and resources) of local authorities, communities and individuals.

5( 25)

16 (64)

17 (51)

11 (22)

2 (2)

3.27 M

Overall Mean 3.18 M

Legend:







along Cross-Cutting Issues

n = 51


x DE 5 4 3 2 1


6 (30)

18 (72)

10 (30)

10 (20)

4 (4)

3.29 M


3 (15)

13 (52)

12 (36)

12 (24)

8 (8)

2.76 M


4 (20)

14 (56)

19 (57)

7 (14)

5 (5)

3.08 M


7 (35)

14 (56)

14 (42)

8 (16)

7 (7)

3.17 M


5 (25)

12 (48)

11 (33)

13 (26)

8 (8)

2.71 M


3 (15)

9 (36)

10 (30)

13 (26)

4 (4)

2.90 M


4 (20)

10 (40)

18 (54)

12 (24)

5 (5)

2.93 M


5 (25)

13 (52)

18 (54)

13 (26)

8 (8)

2.71 M

Overall Mean 2.94 M

Legend:





List of Participating Schools by Region and Type of HEI

REGION SCHOOLS

1

University of Eastern Pangasinan

ISPSC

Pangasinan State University-Alaminos

Pangasinan State University- Lingayen

DMMMSU-MLUC

Divine College of Laoag

CAR Benguet State University-Main

Benguet State University-Burguias

2

St. Mary‟s University

Isabela State University

ISU-Roxas, Isabela

Isabela State University-Echague

University of Cagayan Valley

St. Ferdinand College

Nueva Vizcaya State University

St. Paul University

3

First City Provincial College

PUP Cabiao Campus

Bulacan State University-Malolos/Main Campus

Aurora State College of Technology

4-A

Cavite State University-Imus Campus

EARIST-Cavite

De La Salle

Malayan College

Harris Memorial College

LCBA

City College of Tagaytay

St. Bridget College

Cavite State University-Indang

Batangas University

Letran-Calamba

MSUEF-Lucena City

LCBA

PUP Lopez Branch

University of Rizal System

Cavite State University-Tanza

Cavite State University-Main

Rogationist College

Southern Bicol Colleges

4-B

Marinduque State University

Palawan State University-Puerto Princesa

Western Philippine University

Palawan State University-PSU El Nido

Palawan State University- PPC, Palawan

5 Naga College Foundation



Central Bicol State University-Cam Sur

Catanduanes State University

University of Nueva Caures

Baao Community College

Calabanga Community College

Bicol University

Sta. Elena College Inc.

Mabini Colleges

BU- Gubat Campus

Cams. Norte State College

6

Capiz State University-Pilar Capiz

St. Paul University

UP Visayas

Northern Iloilo Polytechnic College

St. Paul University-Iloilo

La Consolacion College

7

Saint Theresa‟s College

University of Cebu-Banilad

University of Cebu

8

Naval State University

Leyte Normal University

UEP-PRM Catubig

ECSU

9 Zamboanga City State Polytechnic College- ZCSPC

Zamboanga City State Polytechnic College- MMSU

10 Xavier University

11 Assumption College Of Davao

12

USM. Kab. CA

USM

RMMC

13 CSU

Caraga State University

NCR

University of the East

De La Salle University

University of Makati

TUP-Taguig

Rescue 117 Training Center

Our Lady of Perpetual Succor College

Angelicum College, QC

San Beda College

De La Salle Araneta University

PLMAR/WCC

Far Eastern University

PUP

TUP



Result of Evaluation of the Content Validity of the Questionnaire for the Respondents

n = 5

Indicators of Content Validity Scale Rating

x 1 2 3 4 5

The indicators in each thematic area are stated clearly

4 5 5 4 5 4.6

The indicators are sufficiently inclusive

5 5 5 4 5 4.8

The indicators correspond to the thematic areas and the variable of the study

4 4 5 5 5 4.6

The indicators show an allowable and reasonable range of variation

5 5 5 5 5 4.6

The indicators are appropriate and accurate

5 5 5 5 5 5.0

The indicators are specific 5 5 5 5 5 5.0

The indicators could have specific application to the thematic areas and the variable of the study

5 5 5 5 5 5.0

The indicators are reflective of actual situations / reality

5 5 5 5 5 5.0

Overall x 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.8 5.0 4.9

Scale Descriptive Equivalent Extent of Content Validity

1 Not Valid At least 20% of the items are appropriate and

relevant

2 Slightly Valid At least 40% of the items are appropriate and

relevant

3 Moderately Valid At least 60% of the items are appropriate and

relevant

4 Highly Valid At least 80% of the items are appropriate and

relevant

5 Very Highly Valid At least 100% of the items are appropriate and

relevant



Excerpts of Interview on Enabling and Constraining Factors

A. Enabling

Region Public Private

I GO-NGO Partnership

II Involvement of LGU and Alumni Innovative Fund Raising Regular Conduct of Clean and

Green Program Awareness Campaign/ Signing of

Covenant

III

IV-A Partnership

IV-B Involvement of Philippine Redcross and the Local DRRM Council including other Agencies

V Awareness on Environmental Laws Strong Linkages/ Partnership with Gos, NGOs and other Organization for DRR

Regular Conduct of Drills in Coordination with the Philippine Redcross, Student organization and other stakeholders.

Forging of Partnership/ Alliance Building to Complement Limited Funds in the Implementation of DRR activities

Maintenance of DRRMC office in the campus

VI

Commiment of NSTP/NSRC Personnel to DRR works

Conduct of DRR workshops

VII Proper Communication

VIII

X

XI Benchmarking

XII Venue of National Earth-quake Drill

XIII Organization of Volunteers for Disaster Response

CAR Partnership with Local/ National Organizations

NCR Provision of disaster management training to students before the immersion of the student-volunteers in the communities

Alignment of the DRR program with te Institution‟s VMG and core values

Active involvement of student-volunteers in civic-related activities

Extension of Services as form of support to partner communities/ organizations under the banner of organizational development and community outreach



A. Constraining Region Public Private

I Financial Constraints Lack of Existing Multi-Sectoral Advisory

Council (MSAC)

II NSTP Fund being controlled by the Administration

NSTP Students lukewarm attitude towards drills and other related activities

III

IV-A Limited Resources/ Lack of Funds Non-Support of LGUs Non-priority to DRR due the urgent nature of

K-12 implementation Abscense of DRR plans other the initiatives in

NSTP

Lack of Resources/Budget Lack of Support of Management Relatively new institution Time Constratints in the Conduct of

Disaster Training Limited exposure and awareness

IV-B No budget provision for NSRC operation specifically in terms of DRR

No Manual of Operation to Guide Activities/ Practices

Regarding NSRC Time Constraints on the part of the Students

(Reservists) and Trainers/Facilitators to Undergo Training of Trainors or Specialization Trainings on DRR

V No financial resources available for utilization in DDR

Unstrategic location of the Institution, thus limiting the conduct of trainings on DRR due to...

Lack of Proper Training amonng student-trainees

Lack of Training Materials

Budget constraint

VI DRR not an interval priority of the institution Lack of Financial Resources Lack of Interest of the Academic Community

on DRR

Limited Conduct of DRR-related Training like Fire/Earthquake Drills, First Aid

Lack of Financial Resources

VII Lack of Financial Resources Lack of Sustainability of Projects

VIII Less Priority Given to DRR by the Administration

Lack of Financial Resources No organized school-based NSRC

IX Lack of Medium-Term Development Plan on DRR

Lack of Financial Resources

XI Lack of Financial Resources Lack of Support of Admin

XII Lack of Policy to support DRR

XIII Lack of Facilities

CAR Lack of Coordination Lack of support of Administration in mobilizing

student-volunteers

NCR Low evel of awareness of the Administration to NSTP/NSRC

Limited involvement of the student populace Lack of training resources Lukewarm attitude of the community Lack of financial resources



B. Enabling


I Cooperation and commitment of concerned

Conduct of Informative Drive Linkages is Essential Requisite

for Capability Building

III IV-A

IV-B V Availability of Emergency

Manual of Operation Pro-active participation of the

Administration

VI Conduct of Risk Assessments in the Communities as in the are of operation

Inclusion of DRR activities in NSTP

VII

VIII XI Inclusion of DRR activities in

the implementation of NSTP

XIII Collaboration with local disaster management councils

CAR Standard NSTP Syllabus

NCR Coordinated efforts among all concerned



B. Constraining


I Limited Facilities

II Financila Constraints Lack of Awareness of NSTP students and NSRC Reservists on DRR

III

IV-A Hazard map not available Lack of Qualified and trained

personnel Lack of Coordination between

and among stakeholders

Time constraints Too many trainings and

seminars to complete Lack of monitoring as mandate

guidelines Lack of Facilities needed

IV-B

V High Frequency of Typhoons Lack of funds

Lack of support of School Administration

VI Limited Number of Personnel Trained to conduct disaster assessment, monitoring and warning

Lack of Funds Lack of Functional Linkage with

LGUs and other organizations for DRR Workers

Lack of Financial Resources Time Constraints Due to Wide

Array of Curricular and Co-Curricular plus extra-curricular activities in the institution

VII Lack of Manpower Resources Lack of Financial Resources

VIII No early warning system in the campus

XI Lack of organized group XII Leadership crisis in the

University Inept Attitude of the community

folks

XIII Non-utilization of Researches on DRR

Lack of Awareness among NSTP Graduates on NSRC

CAR Lack of Political will to execute plans

NCR Lack of sustainability mechanisms for the program



C. Enabling


I

II Commitment Teamwork

Commitment of NSTP/NSRC Facilitators

III

IV-A Capable of NSTP-NSRC IV-B

V Availability of Funds for DRR purposes

Community Support Presence of Skilled Trainers to

Handle DRR Trainings and Volunteer Management

LGUs support to DRR Program

VI Conduct of DRR Training in NSTP

VII Information and Education Campaign with stakeholders (as most LGUs do not initiate DRR Programs)

VIII

CAR Skilled NSTP/NSRC Members in the using hazard gadgets

Systematized dissemination of hazard information

NCR Development of Modules Partnership with local

government units, agencies of the government ad community-based People‟s organization



C. Constraining


I

II Passive/reactive Nature of Community People

Lukewarm attitude of Community people

III

IV-A Limited Resources/ Financial Constraints

Lack of specialization Trainings

IV-B

V Lack of trained Personnel to Handle Volunteer-Reservists Mobilization

VI Lack of Awareness of the Authorities of the HEI on NSTP Implementation and NSRC Operation

Lack of Opportunities in sharing Good DRR Practices

Limited Numbers of Personnel Trained to Provide Technical Know-How to the Communities

Limited Time for DRR works Lack of Financial Resources

VII No DRR initiated in the adopted communities

Lack of policy support to the institutionalize DRR

Lack of Financial Resources Low awareness level of Admin.

In terms of Mandates of NSTP/NSRC

VIII Lack of Financial Resources Lack of Training Provisions to

Adopted Communities

XII No Structure for NSRC CAR Lack of Awareness of the

Admin or non-support of the Admin to Program

NCR Lukewarm Attitude of the People in the community



D. Enabling


I II Conduct of Research-Based

Endeavors Sharing of Good Practices on

waste segregation Income Generation for Climate

Change Initiatives

Technologies Re: Climate Change

III

IV-A Availability of Insurance Fee for Students

IV-B Sustained Greening Program

V Prioritization of Climate Change Adapatation and DRR by the Institution

LGU Support Existence of Local policies that

support DRR Programs

VI PO-NGO-GO Partnership Solid Waste Management Awareness of the Administration

VII

VIII

XI Community Partnership XII Conduct of Trainings

CAR Availability of Funds

D. Constraining


I

II Financial Constraints Lack of Hazard Training/

Environmental Awareness

Financial Constraints

III

IV-A Lack of Resources IV-B

V

VI Lack of Clear-cut Policies Concerning Climate Change Adaptation

Dependent to external Funding Support for DRR

VII Lack of Budget

XII Lack of Financial Resources

CAR Lack of Capacity of NSRC Members



E. Enabling


I

II Prompt Delivery Services Chain of Command

Prompt Service Support of Alumni

III

IV-A

IV-B

V Strong linkage with the LGUs and other agencies in line with CCA and DRR

VI Involvement of Students and Alumni in Partnership with organizations

VII Community Support

VIII

XI Linkage with various organization

XII Strong linkage

CAR

NCR Readiness of the partners and/or the institution to cope with the demands of the program

E. Constraining


I

II Time Constraints Lack of Involvement of Agencies

Lack of Program Standards Time Constraints

III

IV-A Lack of Continuity of Trainings Conducted Among Qualified Personnel

DRR not a priority concern by the institution

IV-B

V Inaccessibility of the area of operation Lack of provision for transportation for

operation/ mobilization purposes

VI Lukewarm attitude in the community Lack of capability in terms of

Preparedness and Response including Climate Change Adapatation

Limited Personnel Qualified to Handle Disaster Response

Time constraints Lack of Financial Resources Lack of Support of the Administration

VII

VIII Lack of Collaboration between and among NGOs, Gos, etc.

XII Relief Distribution as Dole Out

CAR Lack of Trainings

NCR Financial Concerns



F. Enabling


I

II Volunteerism in Extension Services

Build Networks Establish Rescue/ DRR Team

Volunteerism in Extension Services

III

IV-A IV-B Lack of Coordination Among all

concerned

V VI

VII Commitment VIII

XII Support of the Institution and the LGU to DRR

Partnership with LGUs

NCR Awareness of stakeholders

F. Constraining


I

II Time Constraints Lack of Opportunities for

Capability Building

Conflict of Schedule Time Constraints

III

IV-A IV-B

V VI Inability to link with the LGUs Lack of Equipment for Safety,

First Aid, etc.

VII Lack of Commitment VIII Partnership with LGUs

XI XII



G. Enabling


I

II Tapping of Ips Implementation at all levels

Active participation of Indigenous People

III

IV-A IV-B Continuing training and

development (GAD)

V VI

VII Proper Communication XI Empowerment of Women

CAR

G. Constraining


I II IPs not included (Nueva

Viscaya) Lack of Information Drive

IPs not organized

III IV-A

IV-B V

VI VII Lack of stakeholder support

XII Involvement of IPs CAR Absence of Commitee to

take charge in these concerns



APPENDIX 4: PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

(September 2014)

(July 2014)

Series of Discussion and Consultation with the PSNEI Officers



Presentation of the Research Proposals with PSNEI

Consultation Meeting with PSNEI Board (November 2014)



Presentation and Validation of the Survey Questionnaire

by PSNEI Officers and Experts

Orientation on the Mechanics of the Data Gathering with the PSNEI Regional

Coordinator



Pilot Run of the Instrument with NSTP-NSRC Implementers

Conduct of Briefing NSTP –NSRC Training with PSNEI member-

institutional representatives



Regional Assembly of NSTP-NSRC Implementers for the Accomplishment of

the Survey Questionnaire

Brainstorming of Respondents to facilitate the accomplishment

of the Survey Questionnaire



Administration of Questionnaire to PSNEI-member institution

NSTP-NSRC Implementers

Discussion by Region of NSTP-NSRC Implementers

disaster risk reduction training and ... exchange...respondents through the questionnaire, as the...

Documents