Abstract
Accidents and disasters can potentially affect most elementary school students. Accordingly, comprehensive school safety is important to ensure children’s safety. This study aimed to identify the key indicators of the minimum standards for Disaster Preparedness and Safety School programs as a conceptual framework of comprehensive school safety in Indonesian elementary schools. This exploratory study was conducted with nine key informants using a qualitative descriptive approach. The data from semi-structured interviews with experts in disaster risk reduction were analyzed using content analysis. This study identified 23 key indicators, namely: commitment, policy and regulation, planning, budgeting, risk assessment, teamwork, coordination, standard operating procedure, technical guideline, monitoring and evaluation, resource mobilization, infrastructures, information system, assembly points, safe zones, sister schools, curriculum integration, integration to learning activities, simulation training programs, trained teachers, dissemination of information, student cadres, and safety competition. There were nine indicators identified as school disaster management pillars, five indicators for safe school facilities, and nine indicators for risk reduction education.
Indonesia is an archipelago that is geographically, geologically, and hydrologically vulnerable to natural disasters (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010). Over 75% of schools in Indonesia are located in disaster-prone areas (“Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015). Most school students are potentially affected by disasters; therefore, they need to be properly protected and prepared. As “change agents” and communicators who can aid in disseminating knowledge about disaster education to their parents and the people around them, school-age children are also the nation’s assets and future. Hence, it is necessary to integrate disaster risk reduction (DRR) education into schools’ formal curriculum to develop students’ competences and readiness toward disasters. It is clear that schools are responsible to ensure their students’ safety during and after an emergency occurrence (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Suharwoto et al., 2015c; Tipler et al., 2017).
Children are part of the more vulnerable groups during disasters and are also prone to threatening accidents or violence because of their lack of knowledge, energetic character, strong curiosity, and immature psychological and social development (Widowati, Hendriyani, et al., 2018; Widowati, Koesyanto, et al., 2018). Children should be given safety education because they can easily learn and absorb new information (Jatmiko, 2012). Early safety education also applies best for elementary school students because education at this formative age will be the foundation for their thinking process and affect the development of a safety-minded culture in the future. Accordingly, elementary school students should be well-educated about all potential dangers that can affect their safety, including the safety before, during, and after disaster occurrence, either in school or in their houses. Early safety education might contribute to the prevention of accidents, both minor and serious (resulting in disability/death) accidents. Greater concern is needed in the area of preparedness because disasters could cause serious detrimental impact in a country, especially if they affect the nation’s future generations (Widowati, Koesyanto, et al., 2018).
A disaster might affect physical, social, and economic aspects of an individual, a family, and a society. The impact on children would be more severe than on adults (Elangovan & Kasi, 2015). For that reason, modern schools need greater concern for safety education for their students. Disciplinary policy and safety education in schools can make students more concerned about their safety. In America, such awareness has been well-established and school safety programs not only focus on defensive technology but also on training for school staff to recognize the potential disastrous situations, mitigate such dangers, and decide prompt and proper management/handling for the affected individuals (Mowen, 2015).
Education should be given a larger role in humanitarian responses to disasters since it can provide holistic benefits, especially in life-saving and life support efforts (Halman et al., 2018). The Special Region of Yogyakarta or Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (DIY) is one of largest cities of education in Indonesia, with approximately 2,000 elementary schools (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah, 2019). Elementary schools throughout all regencies in the city are targeted for the DRR programs and there has been no minimum standard in the implementation since all schools in DIY have the potential to be developed into Disaster Preparedness and Safety Schools (Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah, 2018).
Disaster preparedness is an important aspect of safety education for children in order for their schools to run consistently and sustainably as well as support the safety culture application. Nowadays, the safety education delivered to Indonesian children is mostly related to massive disaster education and focused more on actions that must be done during a disaster. The government should play a greater role in disaster mitigation among children by providing safe settings for schools and comprehensive safety education. It is stated by the Project Manager of the DRR Plan of Indonesia, Amin Magatani, that unpreparedness, and school buildings are the main factors affecting the vulnerability of children in disasters, because more than 30% of all the school buildings in Indonesia are in improper or damaged condition (Jatmiko, 2012). The Director of Public Empowerment of the National Disaster Management Authority (BNPB), Lilik Kurniawan, also stated that there were seven infrastructure objects that should be strengthened to mitigate the number of victims and damage because of disasters. These include school buildings because they are closely related to the daily activities of the society where children, teachers, and staff spend at least 6 hours daily (Ristianto, 2019). Unfortunately, the condition of many school buildings in Indonesia are below the safety or children-friendly standards (Anisah, 2018). This dangerous situation was also highlighted by the Director of the Lestari Indonesia Foundation, Aris Sustiyonodi, in Yogyakarta, who stated that 60% of the children worldwide had the potential to become natural disaster victims (Jatmiko, 2012).
Integrated teamwork and coordination are needed to solve those problems. National level coordination is generally done through various forums, including national consultation forums, central development planning, national development planning, national planning work meetings, and cross-ministerial education and cultural planning meetings. The parties involved in the education and cultural planning coordination forums include the Ministry of Cultural Education, Ministry of Religion, Ministry of Finance, National Planning Agency, Provincial Governments and Regency/City Governments, and other parties such as the United Nations Agency (UNICEF, UN-OCHA, and UNESCO) and non-governmental organizations/NGOs (Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Deutschland eV/ASB, Plan Indonesia, PB National Platform, Save the Children, World Vision, etc.). Special coordination for the national secretariat for safety schools has been done regularly and led by the Ministry of Education and Culture, involving various parties deemed necessary. Coordination is also being done gradually. However, in fact, within the recent context of DRR programs in schools, the coordination of safe school programs has involved other Ministries or Institutions, namely the Ministry of Religion, the Ministry of Home Affairs, National Disaster Management Authority, National Planning Agency, and the Ministry of Finance, which are still lacking in their roles and responsibilities. Thus, the coordination and supervision at the regional level in the implementation of mainstreaming DRR programs still need to be enhanced (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; “Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015).
Previous studies showed elementary school students’ knowledge of safety education and disaster preparedness are still insufficient. The lack of sufficient knowledge is due to limited provision of safety education to elementary school students. This is especially true in the subjects which require prior safety education such as mathematics, sciences, and the arts, because the lessons sometimes involve several tools that can lead to injuries, for example, sharp objects and other potentially dangerous items. Furthermore, teachers’ capacities in exploring the values of safety education in the available teaching materials are also limited (Widowati, Hendriyani, et al., 2018; Widowati, Koesyanto, et al., 2018). This happens despite the fact that teachers’ capacity, teaching materials’ content, and schools’ facilities are very important in child safety education and its implementation. Child safety education in Indonesia is implemented through a program called the Disaster Preparedness School, including the provision of sister-schools, especially in Sleman Regency. Unfortunately, the focus of the education has been mostly on natural disaster preparedness (“Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015).
This situation is very different compared to New Zealand, where most schools have provided various disaster response activities on a regular basis such as planning, training, and education on dangers to students (Tipler et al., 2017). In Australia, a strategy has been developed since 2000 to support schools in building a culture of disaster prevention and raising the level of community awareness. This is done through the development and maintenance of a coordination system to improve community safety and emergency management. Additionally, the success of these DRR programs depends on facilitating the existing partnerships between emergency management and the school education community, promoting those aspects through school curriculum, while supporting and complementing schools in realizing community safety and emergency management (Ozmen, 2006). In the United States, school discipline policies and school safety measures are common policies to raise students’ awareness of their safety. School safety in the United States holds an important position in education policy. School safety is seen as a collective response to the perceived threats against the welfare of educational institutions, as well as the welfare of each member of the institution including students, staff, administration, family members, and anyone in the school or involved in the school business (Mowen, 2015).
Purpose of the Study
Comprehensive School Safety is supported with three pillars, namely: safe school facilities, school disaster management, and risk reduction education to reduce all hazards in the education sector, including schools (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR], 2017). Meanwhile, indicators of the Disaster Preparedness School in Indonesia currently cannot address all the potential hazards that exist in schools, especially for non-natural disasters, such as bullying or violence against children in schools. Therefore, the development of indicators for the Disaster Preparedness School towards Comprehensive School Safety should be done purposefully.
For these reasons, a research question was proposed: What are the key indicator(s) to ensure comprehensive school safety as the minimum requirements for elementary schools in Indonesia?
Elementary schools were the focus of this study because the number of elementary schools in Yogyakarta is 3.7 times greater than the number of junior high schools and 9.3 times more than high schools (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah, 2019). This is similar to the national pattern where the number of elementary schools in Indonesia is 3.6 times greater than the number of junior high schools and 5.2 times more than high schools (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2019). Elementary school education is the most basic formal education in Indonesia. Therefore, if the comprehensive school safety program can be implemented optimally in elementary schools, it will have positive impacts on the next education levels.
Methods
Participants
This qualitative descriptive study was conducted in Indonesia in 2019 to explore and describe the indicators of Disaster Preparedness and Safety Schools. The samples were nine key informants selected by purposive sampling technique from competent experts in their field. The inclusion criteria were those who are experts in comprehensive school safety including, disaster management, safety education, and child protection. Representatives of related institutions from the local government (province and regency levels), NGOs (national and international levels), and schools were also involved since they would become the targets for program implementation. The nine samples were sufficient for the development of a comprehensive school safety concept in Indonesia because as a qualitative descriptive study, the design did not emphasize the number of samples. Instead, qualitative study explores data in depth. Since the samples of this study are experts who are the main actors in DRR programs, they represent the key institutions involved in this research. Samples were recruited through consultation and recommendations for the names of the experts from each institution that met the inclusion criteria set in this study.
The key informants selected for the interviews were the experts in their fields related to various aspects of children safety. The experts from NGOs consisted of those from the United Nations (UN) delegation for Indonesia and Indonesian Red Cross. Representatives from the UN included UNICEF for child protection issues, the World Health Organization (WHO) for child health and well-being during emergency and the International Labor Organization (ILO) for the implementation of children safety to create a safety culture in a nation. The Indonesian Red Cross is the main stakeholder in charge of conducting intensive supervision the implementation of disaster preparedness in Indonesia. Besides NGOs, the expert team also consisted of government representatives to obtain their points of view, which included experts from the Education Office, Women and Children’s Protection Office and Local Disaster Management Authority (BPBD) on both the Province and Regency levels. Furthermore, to obtain indicators from the actual program users, the researchers selected representatives from schools that were first chosen to initiate the implementation of disaster preparedness programs in Yogyakarta. The Special Region of Yogyakarta was determined as the setting of this study because this region is one of the most disaster-prone regions in Indonesia.
All key informants were willing to participate in this study because they perceived this study to be very strategic and worth conducting. Respondents who agreed to participate in this study were asked to complete and sign written informed consent forms. Information sheets for research respondents on ethical clearance and informed consent as a form of protection for the research subjects were also provided.
Procedures
Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews with the experts (in person) to explore theoretical and practical views about the key indicators for a sustainable and successful implementation of the Disaster Preparedness and Safety School program in Indonesia. Experts were interviewed separately in order to ensure originality of opinions.
The questions proposed to respondents were related to several aspects of safety education for children and the development of the concepts of comprehensive school safety, including the concept of safety education for children based on experts’ perceptions, the scope, the channels used, the description of child safety education in Indonesia, the concept of comprehensive school safety based on experts’ opinions, its scope, indicators, benefits, and the urgency in Indonesia, key actors and their roles, as well as school constraints in realizing comprehensive school safety.
The results of the in-depth interviews were first recorded and then transcribed in detail, and the researchers secured the files in an inventory storage. Anonymity was guaranteed in the results of this study, in which only participating institutions were mentioned as appreciation for having supported the process of formulating the key indicators. All research procedures including those related to research ethics and protection of research subjects were guaranteed in a research protocol approved by the Medical and Health Research Ethics Committee (MHREC) of the Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Analysis
The researchers analyzed the qualitative data collected during the study using content analysis. Additionally, the quantitative data were described in the form of simple frequency distribution to complete the data regarding respondents’ feedback. Then, the expert panel’s answers were discussed and compared to the eight guidelines of standards in Indonesia, including: Undang-Undang (Law) RI No. 24 year 2007 on Disaster Management; Head of BNPB Regulation No. 4 year 2012 on Guideline for Implementation of Safe from Disaster School/Madrassahs School; Framework of Disaster Preparedness School; Roadmap of Safe School/Madrassahs School of Minister of Education and Culture 2015; Strategy of Priority for DRR in School; Module 1: Pillar 1 Facility of the Safe School; Module II: Pillar 2 Management of Disaster in School; and Module III: Pillar 3 Education, Prevention, and Disaster Risk Reduction.
Results
The descriptions of the key indicators based on experts’ opinions concerning the implementation of the Disaster Preparedness and Safety School program are presented in detail as follows. The descriptions based on the answers from UNICEF representatives for Indonesia included six key indicators: policy and regulations in the schools; standard operating procedures (SOPs) for students’ safety, early detection and management/first aids for accident or violence at school; SOPs for emergency preparedness at school; trained teachers in disaster preparedness, children violence, and counseling; SOPs for the referral mechanism; and monitoring and evaluation.
The description as proposed by WHO representatives for Indonesia mentioned 13 key indicators: government policy, technical guideline for the policy implementation; commitment from the school and the school committee/parents; trained teachers on safety issues; child cadres as representative from the students; school facilities that met minimum safety standard; dissemination of program to the parents; adequate curriculum on safety issues; safety demonstration; demonstration materials/tools for the safety; instrument for school assessment; assembly point in the school area; and competition to increase awareness of safety at school.
The ILO representatives for Indonesia mentioned 12 key indicators: planning to guarantee the system’s sustainability; implementation that guarantees the sustainability of the system; monitoring to guarantee the sustainability of the system; evaluation to guarantee the sustainability of the system; clear concept/indicators related to disaster preparedness; school indicators on emergency management; school budgeting; integration into school’s system and planning; training for teachers or teachers trained in disaster management; dissemination of information related to disaster; teachers’ capability to train the students; and student volunteers (especially for high school students who want to contribute and should have adequate knowledge concerning disaster management). Additionally, experts from the Indonesian Red Cross of the Special Region of Yogyakarta mentioned three key indicators: definitive rules; consistent implementation of rules; and supporting infrastructures.
The experts from the BPBD for regency level disaster management programs mentioned six key indicators: inclusive and safe infrastructures; teamwork; integration of disaster knowledge into the curriculum; capacity building of the teachers; budgeting; and protective regulations. Additionally, the representatives from the BPBD for province level disaster management mentioned 11 key indicators: risk assessment or risk mapping (the example provided at Ina Risk website); contingency planning/scenario (who, what, and how to do); coordination; mobilization of resources (in accordance to the needs in the field); information system (preferably an inclusive system which categorizes the information that should and should not be published); early warning system; procedure of disaster management; education or training; rehearsal or simulation; involvement of stakeholders from the Local Disaster Management Authority, Public Health Centers, safety committees and media; and network/cooperation between stakeholders.
The representatives of the Education Authority mentioned six key indicators: infrastructure; commitment; knowledge; curriculum; guideline book; and financing and budgeting. Additionally, the experts from the Women Empowerment and Children Protection Authority mentioned seven key indicators: SOPs; assembly points; socialization; safe zone at school; commitment from all elements in the school; availability of reserved school as an alternative location for education when disasters occur (sister school); and friendly infrastructures for children or persons who are disabled.
The representatives of school safety programs mentioned three key indicators: integration of system into teaching activities; simulation; and availability of adequate infrastructures.
Table 1 presents the initial number of indicators proposed by experts. The 67 initial indicators derived from experts’ answers were further categorized into 23 keywords based on the closeness of the meaning of these keywords. These 23 keywords were considered reflections of the main indicators that could be used in implementing the Disaster Preparedness and Safety School program. The results of the content analysis in Figure 1 show the number of times the keywords were mentioned by experts.
Description of the Number of Indicators Proposed.
Representatives from non-governmental organizations.
Representatives from government agencies.
Representatives from schools.
Distribution of the key indicators of Disaster Preparedness and Safety School in Indonesia based on expert’s answers.
There were 23 key indicators of the Disaster Preparedness and Safety School in elementary schools determined as the minimum requirement to ensure comprehensive school safety according to the experts’ opinions and experience qualitatively in conducting assistance programs in Indonesia. The 23 key indicators identified were: commitment, policy and regulation, planning, budgeting, risk assessment, teamwork, coordination, standard operating procedure, technical guideline, monitoring and evaluation, resource mobilization, infrastructures, information system, assembly points, safe zones, sister school, curriculum integration, integration to learning act, training program, trained teachers, dissemination of information, student cadres/agents, and safety competition. Among the expert opinions, the highest construed indicator concerned infrastructures while the lowest construed consisted of the following 10 indicators: risk assessment, coordination system, information system, technical guidelines for policy implementation, resource mobilization, assembly points, safe zone, sister school, student cadres/agents, and safety competition.
According to respondents’ comments, commitment was regarded as an indicator that strongly influences the success of comprehensive school safety as indicated in the following: ….all indicators are important, yet commitment is a more urgent one since it develops a long-term system as schools could never develop ideal conditions shortly. Ideal conditions can be developed gradually through strong commitment such as creating friendly school regulations…. (UNICEF). ….. the commitment to complete the predetermined program is most important regarding the fact that many institutions have lots of programs, yet they are not committed to implement them… there has to be a mutual commitment, including the ones of the government and Local Disaster Management Authority…. (WHO) ….. the first indicator should be commitment and mutual understanding about the concept of disaster-aware schools. Such commitment can also emerge from teachers, parents and students…. (Education Office). …. School commitment is rather multi-party as it aims at modifying a culture about safety awareness. Thus, building mutual commitment is also developing a potential partnership network…. (Local Disaster Management Authority/BPBD).
Discussion
Comprehensive School Safety consists of three pillars, namely: safe school facilities, school disaster management, and DRR education (UNDRR, 2017). The 23 indicators proposed in this study were codified into these three pillars of Comprehensive School Safety. Therefore, nine indicators (39%) were included as the pillars of school disaster management, namely commitment, policy and regulation, teamwork, planning, budgeting, risk assessment, SOPs, monitoring and evaluation, and coordination. Five indicators (22%) were included as the pillars of safe school facilities, namely infrastructures, assembly points, safe zones, sister school, and information system. Meanwhile, nine other indicators (22%) were included as the pillars of risk reduction education, namely curriculum integration, integration to learning act, technical guideline, resource mobilization, training program, trained teachers, dissemination of information, student cadres/agents, and safety competition.
Commitment is considered essential because it is the basis of any developmental activity. The manifestation of a country’s commitment includes regulations, law, political commitment, and other important aspects related to program implementation and sustainability. For example, the commitment from the Indonesia government on DRR was codified into the UU (Law) No. 24 year 2007 on disaster management. Indonesia has also pledged to actualizing government commitment as stated in the UMBC-DRR event in Sendai on March 2015 (“Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015; Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanggulangan Bencana, 2007; Suharwoto et al., 2015c).
In addition to commitment, policies are also needed for the success of the intervention programs, especially those related to disaster management. These should include a set of policies and guidelines on disaster management with disaster prevention, emergency response action, rehabilitation, and reconstruction plans. These should be developed in a just and equitable manner that can be considered as the guidance for DRR education at schools. The government should also strengthen the regulations on development, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of infrastructures that are resistant towards disasters. School regulations involve formal decisions by school elements on actions that must be supported in DRR programs at schools, both in an individual and holistic manner. Such decisions are strictly binding, because in its implementation, this policy would become a foundation, a guideline and a direction for DRR education at schools (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; “Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015).
Central and local government policies will determine the success of the implementation of mainstreaming DRR programs in schools, especially in building a system of DRR information that can be easily accessed by schools. Dissemination of information concerning DRR, and the Disaster Preparedness and Safety School programs must be provided to all school members and stakeholders. Information dissemination or promotion to the community, including the school community, is crucial for the successful implementation of mainstreaming DRR in schools (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011). Moreover, according to the regulations, every state building used for public services and interests must be equipped with an internal information system and a hazard communication system. Access to hazard information can be obtained from the environment or from the authorities (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; Suharwoto et al., 2015a).
Teamwork covers the organizational structure and management of public employees. Establishment of teamwork for implementing safety schools must comply with the laws and regulations that apply. The institutional framework is developed to improve the coordination activities during program implementation. Proper teamwork within organizational structures involving specific functions and measures are necessary to avoid duplication of functions and increase effectiveness and efficiency in conducting its programs. Meanwhile, teamwork can clarify management needs and enhance the professionalism of human resources. One of the teamwork challenges in implementing school safety programs is partnership with relevant stakeholders in prioritizing safety school/madrasah initiatives. In Indonesia, partnerships in the implementation of disaster management in the city/district level is done by the local governments and the villages, sub-districts, Disaster Management Authority, school teacher councils, teacher professional associations, and other government institutions (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana [BNPB], 2012; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; “Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman”, 2015). It is predicted that at schools, emergency response teams must also be available any time (O’Connor, 2013).
Planning activities aim to ensure fast and appropriate action during a disaster by integrating and considering local disaster management systems and adjusting to local conditions. Disaster management planning is determined by the local and regional governments in accordance to their authority. Disaster management planning includes introduction and assessment of disaster threats, understanding of community vulnerability, analysis of the possible disaster impacts, choice of DRR measures, determination of disaster preparedness, and response mechanisms. The products of this plan are documents, including preparedness SOPs, emergency or contingency plans, and related preparedness supporting documents, including early warning systems that are prepared by considering local accuracy and contextuality. Planning activities include the planning of school buildings that must consider natural conditions, technical conditions, budgeting, and economic constraints in the area where the school building is built (Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; Suharwoto et al., 2015a, 2015b; Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanggulangan Bencana, 2007). In Indonesia, during emergency response, the National Disaster Management Authority (BNPB) uses the funds provided by the government for the local BNPB’s budget (“Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015; Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanggulangan Bencana, 2007).
Every development activity with high inherent disaster risk should be equipped with a disaster risk analysis as part of the disaster management program. Fulfillment of the requirements for disaster risk analysis is shown in documents authorized by government officials and complies with specific laws and regulations. Disaster risk assessment documents are prepared in a participatory manner with school residents and school stakeholders. Disaster risk mapping is an overlay of three maps, namely: the threat map, the vulnerability map, and the capacity map. School risk maps are an indispensable tool for recording and describing risks and resources in the school and surrounding government environment. This risk mapping will assist in identifying and further developing methods to overcome the gaps between vulnerability and capacity (Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; Suharwoto et al., 2015b, 2015c; Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanggulangan Bencana, 2007). Technical guidelines on the strategy for mainstreaming DRR at schools can be used by policy makers and education managers at the education unit level (principals, teachers, and school committees) in preparing DRR programs for students of primary and secondary education (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010). In addition, schools must also develop guidelines or booklets and the contents can be discussed and reviewed at regular meetings with designated disaster safety instructors (Schmidt, 2018).
The compilation of SOPs for the provision of education in disaster situations is one of the policy directions for strengthening institutional capacity related to education in disaster situations in Indonesia. Permanent procedures for school preparedness must be agreed on, implemented, and updated by all school components, including SOPs for disseminating information on hazard communications in the school (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; “Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015; Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanggulangan Bencana, 2007). Schools must develop SOPs and/or contingency plans that are specific to local needs and reflect national and international good practices. These must be in accordance with the types of hazards and unique conditions of the local environment. This procedure is based on six basic emergency procedures including: evacuation (from) buildings, self-protection, locking oneself in, gathering and taking shelter outside, evacuation to safe places, and safe reunification (Suharwoto et al., 2015b).
One of the challenges in implementing safety programs in schools relates to challenges in monitoring and evaluation, for example, related to compliance with child schooling policies. Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of a sustainable strategy that prioritizes DRR including disaster preparedness, such as safety school/madrasah infrastructure are very important to be planned and done on a routine basis. Monitoring and evaluation should be administered by the provincial government, district/city government, and also by multiparty stakeholders involving the government, NGOs, UN agencies, and technical units related to aid providers and community participation. Participatory monitoring and evaluation must be done regularly to sustainably maintain supervision over these components, and also enable control over the implementation of development programs and activities to run based on predetermined plans. The results of monitoring and evaluation can be used in the decision-making process to improve the implementation of DRR strategies, both those concerning processes and products (BNPB, 2012; Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; “Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015; Suharwoto et al., 2015a). Monitoring and evaluation (supervision) conducted by the government include: identification of sources of threat or danger; development policies that have the potential to cause disaster; exploitation activities that have the potential to cause disaster; use of domestic goods, services, technology and engineering, and engineering capabilities; environmental conservation activities; spatial planning; management of the environment; reclamation activities; and financial management (Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanggulangan Bencana, 2007). Therefore, support from the Education Office, Disaster Management Authority, Public Works Office, Regional Office of the Ministry of Religion and organizations related to DRR in schools through the process of monitoring and evaluation largely determines the success of the implementation of central and local government policies related to the implementation of DRR education in schools (Suharwoto et al., 2015c).
School buildings that are not disaster resistant are very vulnerable in terms of security, because they not only pose a threat to the lives of children, but the damages or destruction of the physical infrastructure can cause economic loss since the cost to rebuild or repair will burden the country’s finances and economy in general. Accordingly, each building must be equipped with the means of rescue from disaster or response to emergency and must meet the standard requirements for building rescue facilities in accordance with the required Indonesian National Standards (SNI) (Suharwoto et al., 2015a). The application of standards and supervision of the safety school facilities and infrastructure in the construction, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of schools is one of the important points in the Safety School Roadmap in Indonesia. These facilities and infrastructure include, among others: school facilities with buildings along with their contents and surrounding courtyards that must meet the requirements for safe, and healthy facilities, including accessibility for children with special needs, the availability of an early warning system that is understood by all school components; availability of school evacuation maps with signs which are easily understood by all school components; school buildings that are resistant to disasters; the amount and type of equipment, supplies and basic post-disaster needs that schools must provide (Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; “Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015; Suharwoto et al., 2015a). Besides these components, assembly points have a very important role and must exist in a safe building design, and each point must be easily accessible (Suharwoto et al., 2015a). Furthermore, the formation and development of a “sister school” for schools, especially those located in disaster-prone areas, are very important in disaster mitigation (“Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015).
Most school-age children are potentially affected by disasters, therefore, DRR education is very important to be integrated into the formal curriculum in order to develop the abilities and preparedness of children when facing disasters. Integration of DRR into the curriculum aims to help students gain a deep understanding of the cross-subjects that are linked through the themes being studied and their relevance to the daily lives of students (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Suharwoto et al., 2015c). This integration of DRR into the school curriculum, in the short term, aims to make students feel safe and prepared in the event of a disaster and help students become “agents of change” as well as communicators in the dissemination of knowledge, especially to their families and their communities. In the long run, this integration aims to prepare children as a future generation with knowledge in prevention, mitigation, and preparedness for disasters to create an Indonesian society that is resilient to disasters. The integration of DRR in the curriculum and/or learning process is accessible and inclusive for all members of the school community. Therefore, students can have comprehensive knowledge about hazards (type, source, and magnitude of danger); vulnerability; capacity; risk and history of disasters occurring within the school or region; and efforts that can be made to reduce the risk of disasters in schools (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; “Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015; Suharwoto et al., 2015c).
Teachers and education staff can compile various learning media to train school members for the implementation of DRR in schools. Also, it is strongly important to always increase the capacity of teachers and education staff in the integration of DRR into the curriculum and/or learning process (“Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015; Suharwoto et al., 2015c). The DRR training is done by integrating the material into curriculum documents (Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011). The success of a curriculum depends on teachers’ knowledge of the contents of the curriculum. For example, one of the goals in physical education subjects in the education system in Malaysia is to make students have vibrant and healthy conditions with healthy skills, knowledge and values through physical activities, which include aspects of safety that are in accordance with the activities in which they participate (Barghi et al., 2017).
One way to improve teacher behavior is by administering regular training individually to teachers. These improvements in teacher behavior will be followed by changes in student behavior (Aasheim et al., 2020). Teachers and education personnel in schools are the most important components in creating the safety schools. Accordingly, teachers and education personnel need to have the skills and knowledge about the safety schools, the principles and parameters used, and be always involved in the education program with students and other school components, including parents and local government officials. The existence of trained educators is very important in the implementation of the Disaster Preparedness and Safety School program, because they will provide safety and preparedness education to all students. The implementation of teacher training and development of education personnel is done in three stages, namely: evaluation of the level of ability and knowledge of teachers and education personnel about the safety schools and the ability to respond to disaster situations, the implementation of teacher and education staff training based on evaluation results, and ongoing development of teacher professionalism through participation in seminars, community-based events, and outreach to students (Suharwoto et al., 2015c).
The safety competition indicator is a less-relevant solution to the standards used in this study, because there is no standard that confirms the need for a competition in the implementation of the School for Disaster Preparedness. Although in practice, the government often conducts competitions to motivate schools in implementing government programs, such as healthy school competitions, child-friendly schools or “
Preparedness can be promoted through organizing, counseling, training, and rehearsals on emergency response mechanisms. Education, training, and technical standard requirements for disaster management are implemented and determined by the government in accordance with statutory regulations (Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanggulangan Bencana, 2007). Access to information, knowledge, and training must be available for all school components to increase their capacity in DRR, including access to participation in a variety of ongoing DRR trainings for supervisors, principals, teachers, and students. In addition, involvement is needed in teacher forums, village meetings, student jamborees, and other groups (Gugus Tugas Pengarusutamaan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana dalam Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 2010; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011). In general, the implementation of the training programs are prioritized for constructors to comply with the technical standards for construction of state buildings, so that technicians, builders, and contractors understand how to strengthen school buildings to be safe from earthquakes. Furthermore, training programs related to the construction of earthquake resistant buildings must be based on regional characteristics and the need to produce safe school buildings. This training program is advantageous because it is developed from the needs of building makers to produce earthquake resistant buildings, with adult-based education and participatory learning models (Suharwoto et al., 2015a). School simulation activities for disaster prevention education should be done by all school residents on a regular basis (at least every 3 months) by teachers, students, and parents/committees and involve the surrounding community (Chen et al., 2012; Hosseini et al., 2006; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana Indonesia, 2011; “Roadmap Sekolah/Madrasah Aman,” 2015).
Indicators are very important in assessing a program’s sustainability and success. Indicators of safety in schools in Indonesia include several parameters including knowledge and skills, policies, emergency response plans, and resource mobilization (Suharwoto et al., 2015c). Theoretically, any job or activity can have an impact on the safety and health of people working for an organization. Organizations are influenced by the socio-political context. An organization can be considered as a system that may contain hazards which must be controlled to minimize risks. Attempts to minimize such risks can be done by enhancing the comprehension of factors affecting occupational safety and health which will result in an increase in the safety and health of the people in the organization. Therefore, Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) professionals involve all members of an organization to actively implement professional practices for sustainable improvement of the organization (Toft et al., 2012).
Conclusions
There were 23 key indicators proposed in this study, including: commitment, policy and regulation, teamwork, SOPs, risk assessment, planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation, coordination, information system, curriculum integration, integration to learning act, technical guideline, resource mobilization, trained teachers, training program, dissemination of information, infrastructures, assembly points, safe zones, sister school, student cadres/agents, and safety competition. The highest construed were the facilities and infrastructure indicators. These 23 indicators, when included in the three pillars of the Comprehensive School Safety program, consist of nine out of 23 indicators (39%) included as the pillars of school disaster management, five indicators (22%) included as the pillars of safe school facilities, and nine other indicators (22%) included as the pillars of risk reduction education.
To optimize the implementation of comprehensive school safety, schools can enhance the commitment and partnerships in meeting these 23 key indicators based on the capabilities and resources of the school, especially schools located in disaster-prone areas. The government, particularly the Education Office needs to provide proper facilities for the development of partnership networks between schools and various stakeholders related to specific aspects, including child protection, child safety, and DRR programs. These partners include the National and Regional Disaster Management Agency, the Indonesian Red Cross, the Child Protection Services, the Fire Service, referral hospitals, police departments, NGOs and social workers to improve the ability and competence of schools in dealing with multi-hazard risks.
Therefore, modifications of the current policies regarding this matter are needed in order to integrate child protection efforts that were initially only done partially, and separately. This policy upgrade moves beyond being focused on merely reducing the risk of natural disasters to becoming more comprehensive and holistic integrative policies. The policies should consider multi-hazard risks, both natural disasters and threats from violence against children as well as all other safety risks. Regarding the facts obtained in this study, further research is needed to produce technical guidelines for schools for more comprehensive and sustainable school safety program improvement.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) received partial financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article from Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES).
