national evaluation of the disaster-safe school programme

NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE DISASTER-SAFE SCHOOL PROGRAMME

Research report

Initiated by:

National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School

Conducted by:

Supported by:

Ministry of Education and Culture

Ministry of Religious Affairs

Ministry of Public Works and Housing

National Disaster Management Agency

UNICEF

2020

RESEARCH TEAM

2

AUTHORS

Avianto Amri Nuraini Rahma Hanifa Yusra Tebe Jonatan Lassa Giovanni Cynthia Pradipta M. Reperiza Furqon Leslie Nangkiawa CONTRIBUTORS

Gisella Nappoe Jeeten Kumar Maora Rianti Nabiilah Mujahidah Putriani Novianty Tsaairoh ADVISORY BOARD

• Secretariat General, Ministry of Education and Culture

• Directorate of Community Education and Special Education, Ministry of Education and Culture

• Directorate of Teachers and Education Personnel for Secondary Education and Special Education, Ministry of Education and Culture

• Directorate of Primary Schools, Ministry of Education and Culture

• Directorate of Disaster Mitigation, National Disaster Management Agency

• Directorate of Disaster Countermeasure System, National Disaster Management Agency

• Directorate of Curriculum, Infrastructure, Institutional Affairs and Student Affairs, Ministry of Religious Affairs

• Directorate of Strategic Infrastructure, Ministry of Public Works and Housing

EDITORIAL TEAM

Samto Mukhlis Janaka Faisal Khalid Wahyu A. Kuncoro Nugroho Warman

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD BY THE NATIONAL SECRETARIAT OF DISASTER-SAFE SCHOOL .............................. 6

FOREWORD BY UNICEF .............................................................................................................. 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 1. introduction ......................................................................................................... 12

1.1. Background ................................................................................................................... 12

1.2. Research objectives ...................................................................................................... 14

1.3. Report framework ......................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 16

2.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................... 16

2.2. Research locations ........................................................................................................ 16

2.3. Data collection methods ............................................................................................... 17

2.4. Quality monitoring and data analysis ........................................................................... 20

2.5. Research schedule ........................................................................................................ 20

2.6. Research ethics ............................................................................................................. 21

2.7. Research strengths and weaknesses ............................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 3. QUANTITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS ...................................... 24

3.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................... 24

3.2. Children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of disaster hazards....................................... 24

3.3. Children’s and adolescents’ perspectives on disaster preparedness ........................... 26

3.4. How children and adolescents seek out information about disaster preparedness ... 28

3.5. Summary of survey results............................................................................................ 30

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS FOR EACH PILLAR .......................................................... 31

4.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................... 31

4.2. Safe Learning Facilities (Pillar 1) ................................................................................... 31

4.2.1. Relevance ........................................................................................................................... 34

4.2.2. Effectiveness and efficiency ............................................................................................... 36

4.2.3. Impact ................................................................................................................................. 40

4.2.4. Sustainability ...................................................................................................................... 40

4.2.5. Innovation .......................................................................................................................... 41

4.2.6. Lessons learned .................................................................................................................. 42

4.3. School Disaster Management (Pillar 2) ......................................................................... 43

4.3.1. Relevance ........................................................................................................................... 44

4


4.3.3. Impact ................................................................................................................................. 50

4.3.4. Continuity ........................................................................................................................... 51

4.3.5. Innovation .......................................................................................................................... 51

4.3.6. Lessons learned .................................................................................................................. 53

Case study: National monitoring and evaluation system for SPAB implementation ................... 54

4.4. Risk Reduction and Resilience Education (Pillar 3) ....................................................... 57

4.4.1. Relevance ........................................................................................................................... 57


4.4.3. Impact ................................................................................................................................. 76

4.4.4. Continuity ........................................................................................................................... 80

4.4.5. Innovation .......................................................................................................................... 85

4.4.6. Lessons learned .................................................................................................................. 86

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 89

5.1. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 89

5.2. Recommendations for Pillar 1 ...................................................................................... 91

5.2.1. Recommendations at the national level ............................................................................ 91

5.2.2. Recommendations at the local level .................................................................................. 92

5.2.3. Recommendations at the school level ............................................................................... 92


5.3.1. Recommendations for central government ....................................................................... 92

5.3.2. Recommendations for local governments ......................................................................... 93

5.3.3. Recommendations for schools ........................................................................................... 93

5.3.4. Recommendations for non-government institutions and NGOs ....................................... 94


5.4.1. Recommendations for central government ....................................................................... 94

5.4.2. Recommendations for local governments ......................................................................... 95

5.4.3. Recommendations for schools ........................................................................................... 95

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 97

5

ABBREVIATIONS

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BNPB National Disaster Management Agency (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana)

BOS School Operational Assistance (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah)

BPBD Regional Disaster Management Agency (Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah)

CBDRR community-based disaster risk reduction

CSO civil society organization

CSS Comprehensive School Safety

DRRE disaster risk reduction education

FBDRR family-based disaster risk reduction

FGD focus group discussion

ICT information and communication technology

IT information technology

LIPI Indonesian Institute of Sciences (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia)

MIKK Muhammadiyah Insan Kreatif Kembaran (primary school)

NGO non-governmental organization

SANRES Yayasan Flores Sejahtera

SMAB Disaster-safe Madrasa (Sekolah Madrasah Aman Bencana)

SOP standard operating procedure

SPAB Disaster-safe School (Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana)

SSB Disaster-prepared School (Sekolah Siaga Bencana)

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

6

FOREWORD BY THE NATIONAL SECRETARIAT OF DISASTER-SAFE SCHOOL

Praise and gratitude we pray to Allah SWT fo His blessings that this research report titled "National

Evaluation of the Disaster Safe Education Unit Program" has been completed.

Indonesia has more than 500,000 educational units from various levels, be it formal, informal, and

non-formal education. On the other hand, Indonesia is one of the most disaster-prone countries in

the world. Thus, the Disaster Safe Education Unit (Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana/SPAB) program

is important to be implemented in all education units to ensure that all students can learn

comfortably and safely from the threat of disasters, can gain important knowledge that can save

their lives in the event of a disaster, and can restore the functions of education sector immediately

when affected by a disaster.

The National Secretariat of the Disaster Safe Education Unit (Seknas SPAB), which is coordinated by

the Ministry of Education and Culture and supported by the Ministry of Religion, the National

Disaster Management Agency, and the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing as well as other

SPAB National Secretariat partners, have supported the implementation of the SPAB program that

has been initiated since 2008 which is the result of a multi-stakeholder joint effort and collaboration

between various government agencies, NGOs, academics, private parties, as well as other

community organizations.

In this regard, the SPAB National Secretariat has the task of coordinating the implementation of the

SPAB program, including evaluating the SPAB programs that have been implemented so far,

documenting good practices, achievements, and innovations that have been produced, and

identifying lessons learned so far that will be useful to formulate future SPAB programs. This

evaluation of the SPAB program is the first to be carried out in a comprehensive manner that

discusses all components of the SPAB program, both from the aspect of facilities or infrastructures,

disaster management in education units, as well as disaster risk reduction education. This evaluation

also involves various parties both at the national and regional levels, including the perspectives of

children, parents, teachers and other education personnel, NGOs, as well as donors.

To all who have contributed to this evaluation, I express my gratitude. I hope that this evaluation

report can be put into good use and become a reference for all parties, from government, non-

government, and private institutions, in preparing the SPAB program in the future so that it can be

more effective, on target, reaching all educational units, and running efficiently sustainable.

7

FOREWORD BY UNICEF

The COVID-19 pandemic situation in Indonesia has resulted in significant disruption of access to

quality education for more than 68 million children as well as 4 million teachers and other education

personnel in more than 534,000 schools in Indonesia. This situation is increasingly concerning

considering that Indonesia is a country that is highly vulnerable to natural hazards, including floods,

landslides, cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. Millions of children in Indonesia

are living in disaster-prone areas. The Disaster-safe School (Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana; SPAB)

programme is thus very important and highly relevant, and its implementation across Indonesia is

needed urgently.

The rights of children are protected in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, namely the right to

life, survival and development, protection, and the right to participate, which also includes the right

to have a safe, adequate, and quality education. UNICEF encourages all parties to work together to

ensure the safety of all children while learning and empower children to cope with disaster risks in

the present and in the future. This evaluation of the SPAB programme is an appropriate moment to

document good practices that have been achieved as well as existing lessons that we can learn so

that we can improve coordination and collaboration as well as determine together the next steps for

a more integrated, comprehensive and sustainable SPAB programme.

UNICEF gave highest appreciation to the Ministry of Education and Culture as the coordinator of the

National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School, along with the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Ministry of

Public Works and Public Housing, and the National Disaster Management Agency for initiating and

supporting this evaluation. Our hope is that the results of this evaluation can be used as a reference

for various SPAB actors in Indonesia so that it will give a lasting impact to all children in Indonesia.

Jakarta, 12 March 2021

Hiroyuki Hattori

Chief of Education, UNICEF Indonesia

8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Based on the disaster database of Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency (Badan

Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana; BNPB), over time, disaster events in Indonesia are likely to

become more frequent, more impactful, more extensive, more unpredictable and more complex in

terms of required countermeasures. Indonesia has one of the world’s largest education systems,

with 47 million students and more than 3.2 million educators across more than 272,000 schools,

according to the DAPODIK database of the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture. This long-

term trend in disaster events in Indonesia has become a serious concern among stakeholders since

many schools (formally known as ‘education units’) are located in some of the country’s most

disaster-prone regions.

The Government of Indonesia has been implementing the three pillars of the Comprehensive School

Safety (CSS) framework since 2008. It has done so by teaming up with various stakeholders,

including NGOs, the private sector and academics, to deliver the Disaster-safe School (Satuan

Pendidikan Aman Bencana; SPAB) programme. This evaluation was initiated by the Ministry of

Education and Culture and involved an advisory board comprising representatives of affiliated

ministerial institutions that co-lead the SPAB programme – that is, the Ministry of Religious Affairs,

the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, and BNPB. The UNICEF-supported evaluation also

involved various non-government institutions and academics, including members of Consortium for

Disaster Education networks and, at school level, head teachers and teachers.

The evaluation set out to collate evidence of achievements, lessons learned and good practices to

come out of the SPAB programme, to inform future national strategies for school safety.

This research study adopted evaluation criteria including relevance, effectiveness and efficiency,

impact, sustainability and innovation to examine how the SPAB programme has implemented each

pillar of CSS. The mixed methods approach encompassed a literature review, an online questionnaire

(quantitative data) and interviews and virtual focus group discussions (qualitative data). The

evaluation research was conducted at the national level and also at the provincial level, in Aceh,

Central Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta. Primary data

collection began in March 2020 and ended in October 2020. More than 2,000 children and

adolescents were involved in the evaluation through the online questionnaire, which was

disseminated to all provinces in Indonesia. The research team encountered no significant obstacles

to influence the quality of this evaluation.

9

The evaluation is the first research study to comprehensively analyse the three pillars of CSS at a

macro level (i.e., national level) as well as at a micro level (i.e., school level). The following key

findings emerged from this research.

Innovations of SPAB implementation

The establishment of the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School at the national level and a Joint

Secretariat of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa for each regency/city is a sign of systemic efforts to

strengthen multi-stakeholder coordination, collaboration and cooperation. In turn, this will

encourage improved resource mobilization (i.e., funding, human resources and devices) as well as a

more structured approach to developing the capacity of school communities to adopt and

implement the three pillars of CSS. Collaboration between schools and external parties – by

incorporating into schools existing programmes such as School Scouts, Disaster Preparedness

Cadets, the Indonesian Youth Red Cross and the Hizbul Wathan Scout Movement – can also be seen

as an effective strategy to implement the CSS agenda in a more systematic way.

BNPB and the Ministry of Education and Culture have launched an application (app) for monitoring

and supervising implementation of the SPAB programme. This app will be used to map and regularly

update the progress of CSS adoption and implementation by schools (‘education units’).

Unequal achievement of Pillars 1, 2 and 3 at different levels of education

Schools that are directly supervised by the Ministry of Education and Culture, especially primary

schools, have been the key adopters of the SPAB programme. Overall, SPAB remains scarcely

implemented in early childhood education, at upper secondary level and in vocational schools.

Implementation of the equivalent programme for madrasas as well as SPAB implementation in non-

formal education settings (i.e., learning activity centres, community learning activity centres)

remains rudimentary. The focus of SPAB implementation has typically been skewed towards Pillar 2

and Pillar 3 of CSS; fewer institutions and actors have engaged with Pillar 1.

The quality of SPAB programme activities depends on the capacity of teachers. Consequently, the

capacity building of teachers is critical to the implementation of the SPAB programme. Technical

guidance and strategy for teachers and other education personnel needs to be structurally,

systematically, massively, and sustainably implemented and disseminated. The use of e-learning

methods, online technical guidance, and adjustment to teachers’ education -particularly in higher

education- can support capacity-building endeavours for teachers and other education personnel.

The technical guidance should improve teachers’ confidence to conduct SPAB activities flexibly and

independently.

10

SPAB actors are predominantly from central government and CSOs

For more than a decade, SPAB actors have predominantly been based in central government and

CSOs. Change must prevail in the long run, with local government and the private sector assuming

more important roles in the programme. This evaluation found that head teachers have a significant

role in sustaining SPAB activities on the ground, while local governments can play an important part

in extending both the scope and replication of the programme.

Inclusion of regions and schools remains erratic

Current policy has prioritized implementation of the SPAB programme in ‘3T regions’ (Terluar,

Tertinggal, Terdepan or frontier, outermost and disadvantaged regions) and in post-disaster regions,

to recover disaster-safe school facilities and infrastructure. An inclusive approach to programme

implementation has not been taken, however. This is needed in particular to ensure that the SPAB

programme is adopted in special education and that children and adolescents with special needs and

disabilities are involved in SPAB activities including disaster education.

This evaluation report provides specific recommendations for three main types of stakeholder:

• Central government is required to promote the SPAB programme; take aggressive policy

measures to implement SPAB; revise the SPAB road map for the period 2020–2024; update

norms, standards, procedures and criteria related to school facilities and infrastructure; make

proper use of information technology for monitoring and supervision; promote inclusive SPAB

implementation; and encourage innovations in disaster education (also known as disaster risk

reduction education) during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

• Local governments at different levels (province, regency and city) are required to promote the

SPAB programme; ensure that all schools are safe from disaster risk; establish expert systems

and knowledge on Pillar 1 of CSS (Safe Learning Facilities); allocate budget for SPAB; create a

local mechanism for collaboration and consultation; expand collaboration with other

stakeholders; and encourage integration of SPAB with community- and family-based disaster risk

reduction programmes.

• School leadership and management teams are required to make use of the School Operational

Assistance (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah) programme fund as well as seek alternative funding

for SPAB activities (e.g., from the Village Fund, private funds); conduct a school-level disaster risk

assessment within the local context; establish a standard operating procedure for disaster

management; establish a disaster preparedness team; conduct regular disaster simulation

exercises; incorporate into lesson plans disaster preparedness and education appropriate to the

11

context of local hazards; recruit and promote safe school champions; and seek support from

parents and communities to implement CSS through the SPAB programme.

12

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Indonesia is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, frequently affected by various

hazards including floods, landslides, cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic activity. Over the

last decade (from 2007 to 2018), these hazards have inflicted major damage and casualties every

year, and resulted in annual economic losses of US$2.2 billion to US$3 billion for the country.1 Figure

1 displays disaster data from Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency (Badan Nasional

Penanggulangan Bencana; BNPB) 2, showing how disaster events in Indonesia are likely to continue

to become more frequent, more impactful, more extensive, more unpredictable and more complex

in terms of required countermeasures.

Figure 1. Disaster events in Indonesia (2004–2019)

Source: BNPB

Indonesia has one of the largest education systems in the world, with 47 million students and more

than 3.2 million educators across more than 272,000 schools, according to the DAPODIK national

education database of the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture (Kementerian Pendidikan

dan Kebudayaan). This long-term trend in disaster events in Indonesia has become a serious concern

among stakeholders as many schools (formally known as ‘education units’) are located in some of

the country’s most disaster-prone regions. According to an assessment conducted by the Ministry of

1 World Bank, Indonesia Disaster Risk Finance & Insurance. Project Information Document, World Bank, Washington, D. C.,

2020. 2 Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, “Data Informasi Bencana Indonesia (DIBI),” 2019, http://dibi.bnpb.go.id/DesInventar/profiletab.jsp?countrycode=id&lang=ID&datalng=LL.

13

Education and Culture and BNPB, more than 52,000 schools are located in earthquake-prone areas

and there are about 54,000 schools in flood-prone areas.3

Since 2008, the Government of Indonesia has continuously implemented the three pillars of the

Comprehensive School Safety (CSS) framework.4 It has done so by teaming up with various

stakeholders – including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector and academics

– to deliver the Disaster-safe School (Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana; SPAB) programme. Specific

initiatives have included the development of the Disaster-safe School Roadmap 2015–2019 (and its

subsequent update);5 stipulation of Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 33 of

2019 concerning Implementation of the Disaster-safe School Programme; establishment of the

National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School (Seknas SPAB); and development of technical guidelines.

In addition, numerous capacity-building initiatives for teachers and students have emerged.

In 2010, Indonesia joined the global One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals campaign.6 In 2017,

Indonesia declared its support for the Worldwide Initiative for Safe Schools and is among the 58

countries globally that serve as Safe School Country Champions today. Indonesia has contributed to

various other international and also Southeast Asia regional activities. A report issued by the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Safe School Initiative claims that Indonesia is one of

eight countries in the region that actively promotes and implements the SPAB programme, both at

the national level and in Southeast Asia.7

Using evaluation criteria such as relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, and sustainability to

examine how the SPAB programme has implemented each pillar of CSS, this evaluation research set

out to identify evidence on what works and what could be done better in this regard. Furthermore,

the research study sought to identify lessons learned in the course of SPAB implementation to date

to inform the realization of Indonesia’s National Medium-term Development Plan 2020–2024 and

the UNICEF Strategic Plan 2018–2021, as well as follow-up actions for SPAB initiatives – including to

pursue the new road map for the SPAB programme.

3 Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Pendidikan Tangguh Bencana: “Mewujudkan Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana di Indonesia”, Kemendikbud, Jakarta, 2019. 4 The CSS framework is co-promoted by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Global Alliance for

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector. 5 The Disaster-safe School Roadmap 2015–2019 aimed to: (1) provide a legal basis for safe school implementation; (2)

function as a set of basic tasks and responsibilities for stakeholders; and (3) provide instruction, references and guidelines for programme implementation, needs assessment, budget availability and other resource availability. 6 United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), “Indonesia Strengthens Bid to Make Schools and Hospitals

Safer,” 2010, https://www.undrr.org/news/indonesia-strengthens-bid-make-schools-and-hospitals-safer. 7 ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative (ASSI), “ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative: Enhancing The Enabling Environment For Education Continuity In Multi-Hazard Settings In Asean” (2020), https://www.preventionweb.net/files/69899_assiresearchoneducationcontinuityin.pdf.

14

Launched in 2020, the National Roadmap of Disaster-safe School Programme Implementation 2020–

2024 stipulates the following 10 main objectives for this five-year period:

1. National and local policies and regulations on the SPAB programme in every Indonesian province

and district (regency/city).

2. Formation of 200 Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School at the provincial and district level, to

play a coordinating role in SPAB implementation.

3. Self-implemented SPAB programme in 40 per cent of all schools in Indonesia.

4. Development of a monitoring and evaluation system that integrates data from InaRISK (owned

by BNPB), DAPODIK (Ministry of Education and Culture) and the Education Management

Information System (Ministry of Religious Affairs).

5. Implementation of the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 33 of 2019, to

accommodate higher education and non-formal education (through learning activity centres and

community learning activity centres).

6. Creation of five innovative products that support implementation of the SPAB programme.

7. Stakeholders understand the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 33 of

2019.

8. Granting of SPAB programme awards.

9. Local organizations (e.g., Disaster Preparedness Cadets, School Scouts, Indonesian Youth Red

Cross, National Search and Rescue Agency) are involved in supporting SPAB implementation.

10. NGOs and the private sector contribute to the SPAB programme through the provision of

funding, experts and infrastructure assistance.

1.2. Research objectives

This study adopts an evidence-based approach to the evaluation of SPAB implementation in

Indonesia since 2008. It identifies achievements, lessons learned and good practices to come out of

the SPAB programme in Indonesia as well as the main actors, policies, institutions and their

programmes/projects related to SPAB. It does so to meet the following research objectives:

• Assess challenges and opportunities of the existing SPAB implementation and identify

achievements and lessons.

• Collate evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the SPAB programme in Indonesia,

including to inform future policy.

15

• Provide strategic recommendations on how to sustain and improve the SPAB programme in

Indonesia.

1.3. Report framework

This report, which comprises five sections, is established based on the CSS framework used globally

– that is, the three pillars of CSS. These are: Pillar 1: Safe Learning Facilities; Pillar 2: School Disaster

Management; and Pillar 3: Risk Reduction and Resilience Education.

Section 2 presents the research design for this evaluation, including research locations; data

collection methods and techniques used by the researchers to ensure a high quality of data

collection and data analysis; the research schedule; the means for ensuring compliance with ethical

research standards; and strengths and weaknesses of the research.

Section 3 presents the results from the quantitative data collection, i.e., the online questionnaire

used to capture the perspectives of children and adolescents. The three key aspects discussed are

respondents’ perceptions of disaster hazards, their perspectives on disaster preparedness, and how

they seek out information on disaster preparedness. This section ends with a summary of the survey

results.

Section 4 presents the results and analysis of SPAB implementation for each CSS pillar, structured

according to the research study’s six evaluation criteria: (1) relevance; (2) effectiveness and

efficiency; (3) impact; (4) continuity; (5) innovation; and (6) lessons learned. Finally, section 5 offers

conclusions and recommendations specific to each of the three pillars of CSS.

16

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Overview

This research study uses a mixed methods approach comprising a literature review (secondary

qualitative data), an online questionnaire (primary quantitative data) and key informant interviews

and focus group discussions (primary qualitative data).

Numerous research studies have captured the perspectives of children,8 teachers and other school

personnel,9 and NGOs on disaster hazards and disaster preparedness in Indonesia.10 Very few

research studies have, however, comprehensively documented the perspectives of all stakeholders

relevant to the CSS pillars, particularly those at the frontlines of policymaking and implementation of

child-centred disaster risk reduction programmes, including the SPAB programme.

2.2. Research locations

The team carried out the evaluation research at both the national and subnational level. Among the

provinces nominated by the advisory board for inclusion in the study were Aceh, Central Sulawesi,

East Nusa Tenggara and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta.

Aceh Province was selected as an Indonesian region that has been (continuously) recovering from

both a major natural disaster (i.e., the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004) and a number of minor to

medium-scale natural hazards, including several floods and the relatively recent Pidie Jaya

earthquake. On the morning of 7 December 2016, a 6.4 moment magnitude (Mw) earthquake hit

Pidie Jaya Regency, in Aceh, causing the death of 104 people and affecting approximately 85,000

others. This event caused damage to 11,000 buildings, including more than 200 schools as well as

hospitals, office premises and places of worship.

East Nusa Tenggara Province was selected to represent the perspectives of non-urban Indonesian

society and also those provinces with regular slow- and rapid-onset natural hazards every year. East

8 Emma Back, Catherine Cameron, and Thomas Tanner, “Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Taking Stock and Moving

Forward,” 2009, 44.; Thomas Tanner, “Shifting the Narrative: Child-Led Responses to Climate Change and Disasters in El Salvador and the Philippines,” Children & Society 24, no. 4 (2010): 339–51, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00316.x. 9 Victoria Johnson et al., “Implementing Disaster Preparedness Education in New Zealand Primary Schools,” Disaster Prevention and Management 23 (July 29, 2014): 370–80, https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2013-0151. ; Koichi Shiwaku et al., “Promotion of Disaster Education in Nepal: The Role of Teachers as Change Agents,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 24 (November 1, 2006): 403–20. 10 Riyanti Djalante and Frank Thomalla, “Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Indonesia: Institutional

Challenges and Opportunities for Integration,” International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 3 (July 13, 2012): 166–80, https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901211245260.

17

Nusa Tenggara has dealt in recent years with various types of disasters, specifically flooding,

earthquake, volcanic activity, tsunami, tornado and drought, all hazards that are aggravated by land

use change, infrastructure development, deforestation, climate change and poverty, which

exacerbate vulnerability to disaster risks.11

The inclusion of Central Sulawesi Province was justified based on recent major disasters – i.e., the

earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction events in 2018 – and the fact that it is currently undergoing

the recovery process. The epicentre of the 7.5 Mw earthquake that struck Central Sulawesi in

September 2018 was located 81 km north of Palu, causing intense shocks and a tsunami that

engulfed coastal residences along Palu Bay. The disaster led the death of 4,402 people and affected

1.5 million others, including about 665,000 children.12 More than 1,100 schools were reported to be

damaged in which 12,000 teachers are affected.13

Finally, the Special Capital Region of Jakarta was selected as representative of Indonesian cities

(urban context) that are frequently hit each year by natural hazards such as floods and flash floods.

Complex urban problems such as high population density combined with its regular flood

inundations, its proximity to earthquake fault lines and the numerous upstream rivers that flow into

its below-sea-level delta areas make Jakarta prone to several threats. In early January 2020, Jakarta

was hit (again) by widespread flooding events that were caused by intense rainfall and recorded as

Indonesia’s largest-scale floods since 2000s. More than 400,000 people were affected, with

economic losses estimated at approximately IDR 1 trillion owing to disruption to the trade,

transport, warehouse and logistics, and financial services sectors.14

2.3. Data collection methods

This study involved multi-stage research, combining mixed methods with a step-by-step approach,

and a focus mainly, but not exclusively, on the perspectives of children and adolescents (as learners),

government representatives (at the national, provincial and district/city level), academics and NGO

staff. Qualitative data collection included a literature review, semi-structured key informant

interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Quantitative data collection was also conducted,

11 Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timor, Rencana Strategis 2019–2023, Kupang, 2019. 12 United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Humanitarian Situation Report No. 4, 12–25 November 2018’, UNICEF Indonesia,

Jakarta, 2018. 13 Pemerintah Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah, ‘Pergub No. 10 Tahun 2019 Tentang Rencana Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi Pascabencana’, Palu, 2019. 14 Fadli, Ardiansyah, ‘BI: Kerugian akibat banjir Jakarta awal 2020 capai Rp1 triliun’, Alinea.id, 28 February 2020,

<www.alinea.id/bisnis/bi-kerugian-akibat-banjir-jakarta-awal-2020-capai-rp1-triliun-b1ZIr9rWp>, accessed 29 April 2021; Provinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, ‘Rekapitulasi Data Banjir Dki Jakarta Dan Penanggulangannya Tahun 2020’, Jakarta, 2020.

http://www.alinea.id/bisnis/bi-kerugian-akibat-banjir-jakarta-awal-2020-capai-rp1-triliun-b1ZIr9rWp

18

using an online questionnaire. Varied research methods were adopted based on previous research

results and adjusted to suit the respondent’s context.

Initially, the research design adopted by the research team featured face-to-face interviews and

FGDs. The onset of the COVID-19 crisis necessitated that the team instead collect data remotely,

however, using local researcher networks to recruite local researchers and support data collection,

and virtual meetings for both the interviews and FGDs.

During the first stage of the research, the team used snowball and online searches to collate

documentation on the SPAB programme from various actors, which was then analysed through a

scoping literature review.15 This type of review is helpful in providing an overview of the available

literature on new, complex and diverse topics. A scoping review is also useful for identifying existing

gaps in research and in practice, and for determining future research, policy and practice.16

The second stage assessed the situation regarding attempts to implement the SPAB programme,

especially in terms of awareness-raising and capacity-building efforts, and disaster risk reduction

activities at schools. Online questionnaires were developed and distributed through an educator

network developed by the Ministry of Education and Culture, and through the UNICEF U-Report

platform to obtain the views of children and adolescents. Through this process, data were collected

and studied to gain a better understanding of previous (or ongoing) efforts in SPAB implementation

since the programme was initiated in 2008.

Three series of FGDs were conducted at the national level by way of an initial consultation focusing

on the three pillars of CSS: Safe Learning Facilities, School Disaster Management, and Risk Reduction

and Resilience Education. This consultation was conducted to guide the data collection at the local

level by involving relevant stakeholders of the three pillars and identify key problems and the views

of various stakeholders regarding the progress of CSS implementation at the national level.

Primary data collection was carried out through virtual fieldwork in the four selected provinces:

Aceh, Central Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta. Both the key

informant interviews and FGDs specifically targeted the government apparatus (at the provincial and

district/city level); civil society organizations (CSOs), specifically NGOs; and groups of children and

adolescents. Resilience Development Initiative collaborated with local researchers in the four

provinces, who helped with data collection, the scheduling of virtual meetings with local

stakeholders, and the conduct of virtual FGDs. The research team also collected data from children

15 Peters, Micah D. J., et al., ‘Guidance for Conducting Systematic Scoping Reviews', International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, vol. 13, no. 3, 2015, pp. 141–146. 16 Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth, ‘A Typology of Reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated

methodologies’, Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 2009, pp. 91–108.

19

through consultation and collaboration with schools, using information technology (IT) to ensure the

participation of students. To meet this objective, participating children – Grade 5 and 6 student

representatives from the four regions – gave their testimonies, via video, regarding their

perspectives on:

• locations on their way to and from school where they feel safe (or at risk) from natural

hazards

• what the ideal safe school looks like.

Local stakeholders and school communities were also consulted online through FGDs and online

interviews to identify information about their perspectives, knowledge and practices pertinent to

the SPAB programme. The local community’s capacity for and expectations of the programme were

also identified. The research team moderated the online discussions. Previous studies provide

evidence of communities living in fear of natural hazards,17 of their unique methods for identifying

and understanding risks,18 and of their concerns regarding disaster risk reduction.19 The research

team adopted interactive and people-centred (and also child-friendly) approaches in the data

collection process to create an environment conducive to the respondents sharing their views.

The final stage of the research featured a national workshop with stakeholders including

representatives of NGOs and relevant national-level government bodies, and academics. An FGD in

the form of workshop is considered one of the best methods to comprehend a specific issue and to

enable follow-up actions when necessary.20 Furthermore, as part of sequential approach, discussions

in FGD at local level were guidede from the FGD’s findings during initial consultation.

The evaluation also identified positive changes in relation to school safety that are sustained by the

stakeholders and/or actors.

The main steps involved in the evaluation methodology were as follows:

17 Ollendick, Thomas H., ‘Reliability and Validity of the Revised Fear Survey Schedule for Children (FSSC-R)’, Behaviour

Research and Therapy, vol. 21, no. 6, 1983, pp. 685–692; Ollendick, T. H., J. L. Matson and W. J. Helsel, ‘Fears in Children and Adolescents: Normative data’, Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 23, no. 4, 1985, pp. 465–467; Burnham, Joy J., et al., ‘Examining Children’s Fears in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina’, Journal of Psychological Trauma, vol. 7, no. 4, 2008, pp. 253–275. 18 Mitchell, Tom, Thomas Tanner and Katharine Haynes, ‘Children as Agents of Change for Disaster Risk Reduction: Lessons

from El Salvador and the Philippines’, Working Paper No. 1, Children in a Changing Climate – Research, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK, 2009; Haynes, Katharine, and Thomas M. Tanner, ‘Empowering Young People and Strengthening Resilience: Youth-centred participatory video as a tool for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction’, Children's Geographies, vol. 13, no. 3, 2015, pp. 357–371. 19 Back, Emma, Catherine Cameron and Thomas Tanner, Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Taking stock and moving

forward, Children in a Changing Climate – Research, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK, 2009; United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and Plan International, Children’s Action for Disaster Risk Reduction: Views from children in Asia, UNDDR and Plan International, Bangkok, 2012. 20 Kitzinger, Jenny, ‘Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups’, BMJ, vol. 311, no. 7000, 1995, pp. 299–302; Parker, Andrew, and Jonathan Tritter, ‘Focus Group Method and Methodology: Current practice and recent debate’, International Journal of Research & Method in Education, vol. 29, no. 1, 2006, pp. 23–37.

20

1. Preparation and initial meeting: After the research contract was approved, a meeting was held

to discuss the tasks to be carried out. Preliminary documentation on the SPAB programme,

including available data, were collated by the research team.

2. Literature review: The research team reviewed all relevant documents on the SPAB programme

and projects, and reconstructed and analysed the intervention logic or programme theory as

well as its premise. The available existing data were analysed and interpreted. Documents were

sourced from either government bodies or NGOs.

3. Initiation phase: In its preliminary report, the research team described the evaluation design

and explained how it would go about collecting and analysing primary data.

4. Virtual data collection phase: Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered, analysed and

interpreted.

5. Presentation: A presentation of key findings (including workshop feedback) was given following

the conclusion of the fieldwork conducted in the Special Capital Region of Jakarta.

6. Draft final report: Submission and presentation of the draft final report, and request for

comments/responses from evaluation partners and contracting parties.

7. Final report: Submission of final report.

8. Journal article submission: Submission of a scientific paper about the SPAB programme in

Indonesia to relevant and credible journals.

2.4. Quality monitoring and data analysis

Questionnaires were disseminated and the survey data collected using U-Report, with the support of

the UNICEF Indonesia team. The gathered data were analysed using basic descriptive statistical

analysis in Microsoft Excel due to the relatively small sample size.

Data obtained from FGDs and interviews (where this was permitted by respondents) were audio

recorded. Key points were recorded by the research team and later included in this report.

2.5. Research schedule

The research began in early March 2020 and ended in October 2020 (see Table 1). Key milestones in

the data collection included the:

• preliminary meeting of advisory board: 11 March 2020

• U-Report survey: 15 June–10 July 2020

• mini workshops on Pillars 1, 2 and 3: 18, 19 and 23 June 2020

21

• provincial workshops: 2, 8, 9, 14, 17, 21 and 29 July 2020

• presentation to advisory board on early-stage findings: 28 July 2020

• national workshop: 27 August 2020

• dissemination of research findings: 14 October 2020.

2.6. Research ethics

Ethical clearance for this research was granted by the Ethics Committee of Atma Jaya University, in

Jakarta, on the basis of the following procedure:

1. Permission for the research is obtained from local government offices and each school.

2. Written consent is obtained in advance from each adult participant and from the

parent/guardian of each child participant. Consent forms follow the UNICEF Procedure for

Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection and Analysis.

3. In addition to the written consent of the parent/guardian, the verbal consent of each child

participant must also be obtained prior to the research commencing.

4. The consent form clearly mentions that the research is to be recorded (where applicable),

meaning that giving written consent to participate in the research also grants permission to

record.

5. Children participate from familiar and safe places (e.g., at home or at school – when school

reopens – under the parent/guardian or teacher’s supervision). Timings and locations for the

research are decided in consultation with the parent/guardian and/or school committee to avoid

interruption to teaching and learning activities.

6. Activities are monitored by the parent/guardian or teacher who can oversee the whole process

and immediately inform the facilitator/researcher of any discomfort that the child experiences

during the process.

7. During the initial session with child participants, facilitators use interactive and child-friendly

methods (e.g., employing games or songs). Questions for children – whether asked in a

questionnaire or during an FGD or family interview – are age-appropriate and phrased in such a

way that they can be easily understood.

8. Topics discussed (natural hazards such as flood, landslide and drought) correspond to children’s

overall experience and are delivered to provide information without inducing stress and trauma.

9. School counsellors are available when child participants feel anxious. Where a school does not

have a counsellor, an alternative free counselling service is provided and is accessible (where

necessary).

22

10. Information about UNICEF is available to children, parents/guardians and teachers so that they

can find out more about disaster risk and its management. A research report is made publicly

available at the conclusion of the research.

11. Fieldwork is overseen by Avianto Amri, an experienced facilitator with more than 10 years’

experience of facilitating workshops for NGOs in which children are the main focus.

12. All information extracted from child participants is anonymous. Access to identifiable research

data is limited to research team members only.

13. All data (recordings and generated documents such as questionnaires) are stored as digital files

and saved in a password-protected directory on each researcher’s laptop as well as in password-

protected cloud storage.

14. Considering the country in which the research is conducted, all stages of the research comply

with Indonesia’s Law on Child Protection. All of the above steps, including obtaining permission

from local government, from school, written consent from participants or the parent/guardian

of child participants and verbal consent from child participants, are adequate and in line with

Indonesian law.

2.7. Research strengths and weaknesses

This evaluation is the first research study to comprehensively analyse the three pillars of the CSS

framework at a macro level (i.e., national level) as well as at a micro level (i.e., school level). The

evaluation was initiated by the Ministry of Education and Culture and involved an advisory board

comprising representatives of affiliated ministerial institutions that co-host the SPAB programme.

The UNICEF-supported research also involved various non-government institutions and academics,

including members of Consortium for Disaster Education networks and, at school level, head

teachers and teachers.

Additionally, more than 2,000 children and adolescents were involved in the evaluation through the

online questionnaire, which was disseminated to all provinces in Indonesia.

The downside of the research process was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic early on in the work.

This severely restricted the research team’s ability to carry out face-to-face interviews and in-person

fieldwork, especially with children. The IT used to overcome this issue comes with its own set of

disadvantages, however, including the time needed to devise solutions, the mental energy expended

in virtual meetings, the information digging techniques required and the need for participants to

have internet access.

23

These disadvantages did not, however, preclude the achievement of successful outcomes, made

possible by the strengths of this research study. In particular, the information extracted during the

research culminated in high-quality and reliable analysis, thanks to the access and availability of the

technology (which was probably better than the approach originally envisaged).

24

CHAPTER 3. QUANTITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

3.1. Overview

This research gathered the views of children and adolescents using an online questionnaire

disseminated through the U-Report platform developed by UNICEF. U-Report is designed to

empower young people to discuss issues that are relevant to their lives and to their aspirations to

help create positive change in their communities. In Indonesia, the U-Report mechanism uses data

obtained from UNICEF Indonesia’s database to connect with young people across the country

through Short Message Service (SMS), Facebook and WhatsApp messages.

Using the U-Report platform, the survey was conducted from 15 June to 10 July 2020. During this

data collection period, U-Report collected responses from 2,083 children and adolescents from 32

Indonesian provinces (all provinces except Bangka Belitung Islands and North Maluku). This sample

size indicates a confidence level of 95 per cent with a margin of error of 2.15 per cent. The majority

of respondents (70 per cent) were aged 13–17 years. The youngest respondent was 11 years of age

and the oldest was 18 years, while the average age was 15 years.

The questionnaire was developed based on earlier studies and aimed to measure children’s and

adolescents’ perceptions, knowledge and experience of disaster preparedness. The survey

comprised 11 questions, both demographic questions (age, address, grade level and school) and

multiple choice (closed-ended) questions regarding disaster preparedness. More questions were

originally envisaged, but the number was reduced to 11 based on previous experience of data-

gathering exercises using U-Report: respondents’ interest typically declines the more questions are

asked.

Prior to the survey’s launch, the questionnaire was tested with five child respondents to determine

its difficulty and children’s ability to answer the questions. This testing showed that respondents

could complete the questionnaire within 10 to 15 minutes and without difficulties.

The following sections discuss the survey results and data analysis of the questionnaire disseminated

using U-Report.

3.2. Children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of disaster hazards

Respondents were asked to select the three types of hazard most likely to happen in their school.

Earthquake, flood, riot and violence, (settlement) fire and tornado are the five hazards that were

most frequently identified by respondents, besides disease outbreak (see Error! Reference source n

25

ot found.). Due to data collection taking place in June and July 2020, it is reasonable that many

respondents would choose disease outbreak; the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Indonesia was

reported in March 2020, with schools ceasing operations from April or May 2020, forcing most

children to study at home.21

The survey results for this question reveal characteristics of disasters in Indonesia. According to

Indonesia’s Agency for Meteorological, Climatological, and Geophysics (Badan Meteorologi,

Klimatologi, dan Geofisika), Indonesia has seen an increase in the number of earthquake events in

recent years, with 11,920 earthquakes recorded in 2018 and more than 10,300 earthquakes

recorded in 2019. This represents a drastic rise in events compared with the period 2008–2017,

when only 5,000 to 6,000 earthquakes were recorded each year.22 In addition, earthquake is one of

the deadliest and most damaging hazards in Indonesia, second only to tsunami.23 After earthquake,

flood is the hazard that was most often selected by respondents, because flooding has been the

most common natural hazard to occur in various regions of Indonesia.

Figure 2. Perceptions of most likely hazards at school

It is interesting to note that natural hazards are not the only hazards that the child and adolescent

respondents perceive as threats to their communities. Next in terms of causing concern to the

largest number of respondents are the hazards of riot and violence, and fire (in settlements).

Reflecting on several cases of settlement fire in urban areas such as Jakarta, these are mostly caused

21 Ihsanuddin, ‘Fakta Lengkap Kasus Pertama Virus Corona di Indonesia’, Kompas, 3 March 2020, <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/03/03/06314981/fakta-lengkap-kasus-pertama-virus-corona-di-indonesia?page=all>, accessed 29 April 2021; Liputan6.com, ‘Dukung Sekolah Libur Akibat Covid-19, Mendikbud Luncurkan Portal Rumah Belajar’, 15 March 2020, <www.liputan6.com/news/read/4202236/dukung-sekolah-libur-akibat-covid-19-mendikbud-luncurkan-portal-rumah-belajar>, accessed 29 April 2021. 22 CNN Indonesia, ‘Gempa di Indonesia Meningkat dalam 5 Tahun Terakhir’, 1 December 2019, <www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20191201065329-199-453026/gempa-di-indonesia-meningkat-dalam-5-tahun-terakhir>, accessed 28 April 2021. 23 Pendidikan Tangguh Bencana: “Mewujudkan Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana di Indonesia”.

https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/03/03/06314981/fakta-lengkap-kasus-pertama-virus-corona-di-indonesia?page=all


https://www.liputan6.com/news/read/4202236/dukung-sekolah-libur-akibat-covid-19-mendikbud-luncurkan-portal-rumah-belajar


http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20191201065329-199-453026/gempa-di-indonesia-meningkat-dalam-5-tahun-terakhir


26

by a system failure or human error – i.e., electrical short circuit, gas leak, candle fire, unattended

kitchen stove, deliberate burning of rubbish – and hence are preventable.24

The last of the most commonly cited hazards is strong winds. Strong wind events have intensified

over time, such that in 2019 they became the most common natural hazard in Indonesia, according

to data from BNPB and the Agency for Meteorological, Climatological, and Geophysics.25 Moreover,

there has been an increase in the number of tornado events caused by the combination of climate

change, increased geographic mobility and higher population density in disaster-prone regions of the

country.

3.3. Children’s and adolescents’ perspectives on disaster preparedness

The survey results show that most child and adolescent respondents (58 per cent) have experienced

disaster events. Furthermore, most children and adolescents (68 per cent) claimed that they are

either knowledgeable or very knowledgeable about how to be safe from hazards (see Figure 3).

Moreover, the majority of respondents (68 per cent) claimed that their school is either prepared or

very prepared to cope with disasters, and 56 per cent of respondents are confident that they would

survive in their classroom in the event of a disaster.

This shows that most children and adolescents have high confidence in themselves and in their

community in terms of ability to cope with disaster risks. This shared perception of high efficacy

among respondents could be because most children and adolescents have either experienced

disaster or learned from the experience of others.

Figure 3. Perspectives on disaster preparedness

24 Beritagar.id, ‘Fakta Musibah Kebakaran di DKI Jakarta’, 19 October 2017,

<https://beritagar.id/artikel/infografik/musibah-kebakaran-di-dki-jakarta-dalam-angka>, accessed 29 April 2021. 25 CNN Indonesia, ‘Bencana Puting Beliung Paling Sering Terjadi di RI Pada 2019’, 27 December 2019, <www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20191227180652-199-460519/bencana-puting-beliung-paling-sering-terjadi-di-ri-pada-2019>, accessed 29 April 2021.

https://beritagar.id/artikel/infografik/musibah-kebakaran-di-dki-jakarta-dalam-angka

http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20191227180652-199-460519/bencana-puting-beliung-paling-sering-terjadi-di-ri-pada-2019


27

The question about what to do if a disaster occurs while at school revealed an alarming finding.

Nearly 70 per cent of respondents do not know whether their school has a procedure in place for

disasters, meaning that only about 3 in 10 children and adolescents know what to do in the event of

a disaster at school (see Figure 4). This could mean either that the school has no such disaster

response plan or that the response plan is not communicated effectively (or at all) to students.

Figure 4. Understanding of school procedure in the event of a disaster

28

3.4. How children and adolescents seek out information about disaster

preparedness

The survey results reveal that 7 out of 10 respondents have attempted to seek out

information/insights on disaster preparedness (see Error! Reference source not found.). F

urthermore, the most popular methods used by children and adolescents to search for risk/disaster

preparedness information are social media platforms (such as Instagram, Facebook and Twitter),

followed by websites (such as Google, Detik.com and Kompas.com), television, and messaging

applications (such as WhatsApp, Telegram and LINE) (see Error! Reference source not found.).

Figure 5. Attempts to know more about disaster preparedness

Figure 6. Most common means used to find out more about disaster preparedness

Social media platforms and other internet-based sources were ranked highest among the sources of

risk information used by respondents, followed by input from teachers, parents and friends. In other

29

words, more children and adolescents prefer to seek out disaster information through social media

and internet platforms than through direct interaction with the people around them.

When asked ‘What are the topics that interest you?’ with five options (see Figure 7), most child and

adolescent respondents selected the option ‘Information about how to self-rescue in the event of

disasters’. To fulfil children’s and adolescents’ aspirations, the disaster risk reduction aspect of the

SPAB programme must therefore include information on self-rescue, in addition to how to cope with

a disaster; the impact of disasters; the process of a disaster event; and how to reduce risks.

Figure 7. Topics of interest related to disaster

Respondents also showed great interest in being involved in building school resilience to disasters.

Nearly all of the children and adolescents (92 per cent) stated a desire to be either partly or fully

involved in school efforts to improve disaster resilience through the SPAB programme (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Interest in being involved in the SPAB programme

30

3.5. Summary of survey results

Overall, the survey results show that children and adolescents in Indonesia have a high awareness of

disaster hazards in their communities. In addition to disease outbreak, earthquake, flood, riot and

violence, (settlement) fire and tornado are the hazards perceived as most likely to occur while at

school. Consequently, the SPAB programme should focus mainly on these types of hazards.

While many children and adolescents reported that they feel capable of self-rescue in the event of a

disaster, they also indicated that their understanding of disaster preparedness is lacking. They are

particularly interested, however, in learning more about topics related to disaster preparedness,

especially self-rescue methods, and exhibit a strong desire to be involved in the SPAB programme at

their school.

According to the survey, children and adolescents typically use social media and internet platforms

to seek out information regarding disasters. This can open up a space for future support for disaster

education. On the other hand, the survey also indicates that the role of teachers and parents in

education efforts demands a rethink. Consequently, disaster preparedness and/or disaster risk

reduction education (DRRE) efforts at school and at home need to be optimized to establish a

disaster-resilient society. But the context of this research could be biased by the fact that almost all

Indonesian students were involved in online learning during the last academic semester of 2020,

owing to school closures necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

31

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS FOR EACH PILLAR

4.1. Overview

Qualitative data collection was based on key informant interviews and FGDs. Owing to the COVID-19

pandemic, the entire process was carried out remotely, mainly using teleconferencing to maximize

participants’ involvement.

Each FGD was guided by semi-structured questions raised by the researchers. Participants included

teachers and head teachers; relevant government officials; staff of NGOs with experiences in

implementing SPAB programme, active in the four research locations; stakeholders at the national

level, including representatives of the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School, Ministry of

Education and Culture, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Ministry of Public Works and Housing, and

BNPB; staff of national NGOs and international donor partners; and academics.

The findings are divided into three main sections focusing respectively on Pillars 1, 2 and 3 of the CSS

framework, which is widely used by policymakers globally and adopted by Indonesian stakeholders.

Nevertheless, there are interventions that overlap two or more CSS pillars.

4.2. Safe Learning Facilities (Pillar 1)

The scope of analysis for Pillar 1 in this evaluation includes the physical placement, design and

construction of schools; post-disaster school rehabilitation and reconstruction activities; and

periodic maintenance and supervision of facilities.

Under Pillar 1, central and local government and NGOs have made significant strides to promote the

improvement of disaster-safe facilities and infrastructure for Indonesian schools, as follows:

• Two upgrades of the original Earthquake-resistant Building Code (SNI 1726:2002) by the Ministry

of Public Works and Housing in 2012 and 2019. In the latest revision, SNI 1726:2019, school

buildings are incorporated into Risk Category IV, which means that they must be earthquake-

resistant, and a 1.5 safety factor must be applied to schools compared with normal safety factor

for buildings in general.

• Over the 12-year period 2008–2019, the Ministry of Education and Culture, specifically the

Directorate of Primary Schools, has used the state budget to cover the costs of the rehabilitation

of school buildings and classrooms and the procurement of school supplies and information and

communication technology (ICT) for schools.

• A clearer mechanism for school recovery is now in place. In general, school construction – as

well as the rehabilitation and reconstruction of schools – is carried out by the Directorate of

32

Strategic Infrastructure, Directorate General of Human Settlements, Ministry of Public Works

and Housing. For schools, including madrasas, and universities located in ‘3T regions’ (Tertinggal,

Terdepan, dan Terluar or least developed, frontier, and outermost regions), it has become a new

imperative for the Ministry of Public Works and Housing to launch or prioritize post-disaster

renovation and rehabilitation and ensure quality control.

• Improvements in planning for school safety can be traced down to the school level. Schools

located in disaster-prone areas are now geotagged by the type of hazards exist in the location

through InaRISK, using a combination of central data from the Ministry of Education and Culture

(DAPODIK database) and BNPB data (see Note: This map does not reflect a position by UNICEF on the legal

status of any country or territory or the delimitation of any frontiers. Source: inaRISK (BNPB, 2021)

•

).

• A Pillar 1 learning module for the SPAB programme has been produced by the Ministry of

Education and Culture and UNICEF.

• At least 12 local governments recently issued new regulations to promote the SPAB programme.

For instance, the Provincial Government of East Nusa Tenggara now has a policy (Circular Letter

of the Department of Education and Culture of East Nusa Tenggara regarding Satuan Pendidikan

Aman Bencana or SPAB) that safe school facilities and infrastructure are a requirement for

school accreditation, encouraging the provision of emergency equipment for every school.

• For schools in areas affected by disaster, there has been more systematic provision of

equipment and materials, for example, emergency school tents, recreational equipment and

school supplies. Both FGD participants and key informants suggested that the central

government currently has an allocated budget for the provision and distribution of school tents

in times of emergency. For instance, the Directorate of Primary Schools of the Ministry of

Education and Culture supported schools affected by earthquake and tsunami in Central

Sulawesi in 2018 through distribution of emergency school tents to 211 primary schools;

rehabilitation and reconstruction of damaged school facilities, in total 50 classrooms across 218

primary schools; and provision of school supplies for 904 primary schools.

• Recovery efforts have been provided to schools affected by disaster by the Ministry of Public

Works and Housing, for instance, following the 2016 earthquake in Pidie Jaya and Bireuen, and

following the earthquake in Lombok and the earthquake and tsunami in Central Sulawesi in

2018. Partnerships between the Ministry of Education and Culture and NGOs also play an

important role in the establishment of transitional and/or semi-permanent schools to house

students until the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the original schools is complete.

33

• Central government is responsive in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in the education

sector, where one of the measures is to provide or repair handwashing facilities in schools.

• There is now a clearer mechanism for post-disaster financing for schools, as regions can access

the Special Allocation Fund (Dana Alokasi Khusus) for the rehabilitation of schools, school

construction, and the procurement of school supplies and ICT.

Figure 9. InaRISK interface showing schools located in disaster-prone areas

Note: This map does not reflect a position by UNICEF on the legal status of any country or territory or the delimitation of

any frontiers. Source: inaRISK (BNPB, 2021)26

Up until the 1990s, school construction was carried out by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing.

The management of school construction was then taken over by the Ministry of Education and

Culture. In 2019, the Ministry of Public Works and Housing was given a mandate to manage school

facilities and infrastructure through Presidential Regulation No. 43 of 2019 on the Construction,

Rehabilitation or Renovation of Public Markets, University Infrastructure, and Primary and

Secondary Educational Unit Infrastructure. Following the adoption of this regulation, the Center for

Development of Education, Sports and Market Facilities and Infrastructure was established, also in

2019. In 2020, it became part of the Directorate of Strategic Infrastructure under the auspices of the

Directorate General of Human Settlements of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing.

The renewed involvement of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing suggests that there are now

greater concerns about the physical safety of schools in Indonesia. The concept of managing

disaster-safe schools implemented by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing involves the

fulfilment of technical requirements for building worthiness (including safety, well-being, comfort

26 Dr. Udrekh, Direktorat Sistem PB-BNPB, “Pengembangan InaRISK Untuk Edukasi Kebencanaan,”

https://bnpb.go.id/berita/monitoring-dan-evaluasi-program-spab-di-aceh-besar.

34

and convenience) that strive to ensure safe and comfortable learning spaces, facilities for teaching–

learning activities and character development, and basic infrastructure, as well as accessibility. For

instance, school buildings should have an earthquake-resistant structure and guiding block in

hallways; a field used for flag ceremonies and sports may simultaneously serve as an assembly point;

and wheelchair ramps, outward-opening doors and accessible toilet facilities for female and male

students with disabilities should be available.

The school structure should also consider safety in terms of functioning as a sanctuary to protect

local community members affected by disaster. For instance, in Jakarta, renovated schools can be

converted into shelters for locals living nearby in the event of flood. This needs to be complemented

with good education management efforts in times of emergency to make sure that the teaching–

learning process is not interrupted while awaiting the disaster recovery process to commence.

“The main function of [the] school’s structure is to facilitate teaching–learning

activities for future generations and to concurrently work as shelter in time of

disaster.”

– FGD participant

4.2.1. Relevance

According to data from the Ministry of Education and Culture, 13 larger disaster events in Indonesia

from 2010 to 2019 have had a serious impact on Indonesian schools.27 Over the decade, disasters of

all scales – including forest and land fire, earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, flood, and tornado

– affected some 62,687 schools, in turn affecting about 12 million students.28 Based on the Ministry

of Education and Culture report (2019), of the 492 public facilities damaged in the Lombok

earthquakes of 2018, 373 (about 76 per cent) were educational facilities. Collectively, the 2018

disasters in Lombok and Central Sulawesi have damaged more than 2,500 schools, affecting more

than 140,000 students.

The actual number of schools affected by hazards may be even greater than 62,687 schools. This is

because, in general, data collected by the Ministry of Education and Culture concern those schools

damaged by medium- to large-scale disaster events. Meanwhile, small-scale disaster events, which

occur more frequently and, in a sense, also have a significant impact on educational facilities and

infrastructure in Indonesia, may be overlooked by the data.

27 Pendidikan Tangguh Bencana: “Mewujudkan Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana di Indonesia”. 28 Ibid.

35

At the same time, the structural quality of schools is compromised by poor adoption of the various

iterations of the national standard for earthquake-resistant structures (SNI 1726). In addition, lack of

enforcement of the building codes (standards) during the construction process is the key problem in

ensuring the implementation of CSS Pillar 1. Structural safety standards for new school buildings

refer to only two types of hazard, i.e., seismic activity and fire. Meanwhile, other types of hazard,

such as flood, landslide, volcanic eruption, tsunami and tornado, are not yet included. Collaboration

with academics and professional associations is necessary to draft various standards to protect

against further types of disaster hazard.

“The core value of [the] building structure for achieving disaster-safe education is

the fulfilment of technical requirements during its construction. The building

structure must be reliable. This reliability in question comprises safety,

convenience, comfort, well-being.”

– Interviewed representative of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing

Furthermore, government must actively forge partnerships with other parties. The private sector

needs to be involved in at least two aspects requiring improvement. The first is inviting influential

actors to be involved in the process of building construction and maintenance, such as contractors,

professional associations, and a team of building experts to perform safety inspections and

supervision. Local governments must each assemble such a team of building experts to inform field

implementation, as stipulated in the Regulation of Minister of Public Works and Housing No. 11 of

2018 regarding Team of Building Experts, Technical Assessor, and Building Inspector.

The second aspect for improvement includes inviting the private sector to collaborate in resource

mobilization, including support for funding to support the accomplishment of disaster-safe school

facilities. Many schools are currently located in disaster-prone areas. The InaRISK platform (a risk-

and hazard-mapping system owned by BNPB) uses data from DAPODIK (the national education

database managed by the Ministry of Education and Culture) and national risk assessment data from

InaRISK itself as the basis for school risk mapping. InaRISK shows that at least 54,080 Indonesian

schools are located in flood-prone regions; 52,902 schools are in regions prone to earthquake;

15,597 schools are in areas prone to landslide; 2,417 schools are in tsunami-prone regions; and

1,685 schools are in areas prone to volcanic eruption.29

BNPB and other institutions have published disaster risk maps specific to each type of disaster

hazard, including earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption and vulnerability to mass movement

(which may cause landslide) as well as other risk maps, such as for flood risk. Unfortunately, risk

29 Ministry of Education and Culture and National Disaster Management Agency, Pendidikan Tangguh Bencana, 2019.

36

communication efforts on a more systematic and ambitious scale – especially for the school

communities in which these maps are used – have yet to be carried out. Meanwhile, these maps

should function as the basis for CSS policymaking to determine follow-up measures for each region,

especially at-risk regions; for awareness raising and the building of disaster literacy; and for further

development of CSS implementation. There is a clear need to promote safer schools and

infrastructure in Indonesia.

Based on the findings of the literature review and FGDs, placement of disaster-safe schools should

avoid:

• the most vulnerable zone of volcanoes

• the most vulnerable zone in areas prone to mass movement

• locations within fault lines with a radius of 15 metres

• tsunami-prone areas (especially in locations very close to coastal areas where school

community members would have little time to save themselves)

• areas with flash flood potential.

There is an implementation gap, however. Decisions regarding school placement remain the

responsibility of local government (at the provincial and district level). This is an interesting finding

considering that, at the national and local level, the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School has

not involved the Ministry of Home Affairs, which direct supervises local government leaders. School

relocation is also a complex matter as it involves an entire ecosystem, consisting of several

communities, and is determined by various social, economic, cultural and political factors.

Local government also plays an important role in achieving the objectives of the SPAB programme,

which include allocating budget for school rehabilitation and reconstruction. For instance, the

Provincial Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta allocated a budget of IDR 2 trillion to

renovate 147 schools in 2019. This effort may be replicated by other local governments to promote

disaster-safe school facilities and infrastructure in their respective locations. This will be important

given that, under the existing Presidential Regulation, the Ministry of Public Works and Housing is

mandated to implement the SPAB programme only in 3T regions of the country. This policy remains

unknown by local governments, causing unnecessary dependency on central government.

4.2.2. Effectiveness and efficiency

The SPAB programme has yet to be extensively developed and prioritized, especially in terms of CSS

Pillar 1. Neither the role of the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School at national level nor that

37

of the Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa at local level has had a satisfactory

outcome to date, as collaboration among stakeholders to support the establishment of disaster-safe

school facilities and infrastructure remains limited. This may reflect the fact that only 2 of the 24

Pillar 1 achievements (8 per cent) are incorporated in the Disaster-safe School Roadmap 2015–2019

– that is, the drafting of a Pillar 1 learning module and the provision of emergency equipment.

Disaster-safe school facilities are, in fact, a priority for neither government nor school communities,

causing non-optimal SPAB implementation specifically in terms of meeting the Pillar 1 standards.

In 2019, the Ministry of Public Works and Housing identified which Indonesian schools required

renovation. Of the approximately 10,000 damaged schools recorded in DAPODIK, only about 3,600

schools were verified as in need of renovation, and at least 1,467 schools were renovated

accordingly by 2019. Data from the Ministry of Religious Affairs showed that approximately 1,000

madrasas were categorized as having mild to severe damage; following a verification process, about

419 madrasas were set to proceed with renovation, with 144 units renovated in 2019 (see Error! R

eference source not found.).

Based on the 2019 data, this implies that school renovation (including retrofitting) is carried out by

the Ministry of Public Works and Housing at a rate of about 1,500 schools per year. At this rate, it

will take more than 33 years for Indonesia to renovate and/or retrofit its 50,000 seismically

vulnerable schools.

Furthermore, the fieldwork found that there are still gaps in the data managed by the Ministry of

Education and Culture, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Ministry of Public Works and Housing. This is

caused, in particular, by the absence of standardized assessment tools adopted by all three national

ministries and could potentially affect planning.

In addition, many schools do not know about and/or do not hold a Certificate of Worthiness

(Sertifikat Laik Fungsi) issued by the local government. The Certificate of Worthiness is issued by

local government to process a Building Construction License (Izin Mendirikan Bangunan or IMB) and

it serves as evidence of compliance with building codes and standards. A Certificate of Worthiness

issued for buildings in general, including schools, has a validity period of five years.

To fulfil the requirements of disaster-safe school facilities calls for strict supervision during the

construction process, since it is the technical construction of the school that determines its

structural quality – irrespective of the presence (or not) of good planning.

“We have SNI, ministerial regulations, guidelines regarding Pillar 1, you name it.

But, according to the assessment result in the field, nearly all schools have not

38

yet met the technical requirements.”

– Interviewed representative of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing

39

Figure 20. School and madrasa renovation by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing in 2019

At one point or another, the construction of school buildings also involves labour-intensive activities

– undertaken by largely untrained construction workers. This practice must be carefully monitored,

particularly in terms of workers’ capacity to deliver earthquake-resistant or disaster-safe school

structures, given that they are unlikely to be familiar with such concepts. Poor understanding of the

construction of disaster-resistant buildings has become a human resource challenge, especially in

regions with more untrained workers. Additionally, school building designs and specifications may

vary from one area to another, resulting in difficulties in constructing buildings of a consistent

quality and maintaining quality after buildings have been constructed.

Education facilities and infrastructure in Indonesia are far from sufficient and are not child-friendly.

The provision of facilities and infrastructure for children and adolescents with disabilities is paid

insufficient attention by the relevant institutions. Fulfilment of safe school facilities and

infrastructure must conform to child-friendly principles. To date, several schools have not fully

40

implemented the all-inclusive measures, for instance, some schools still use tables with acute angles

(which may be dangerous for some students) while others place evacuation signs such that they are

invisible from a child’s point of view.

4.2.3. Impact

Both government bodies and NGOs have played a part in the implementation to date of CSS Pillar 1,

to ensure that the safety of school facilities is in the best interests of all parties and relevant to

existing needs. International donor organizations and private sector actors have occasionally

provided support for Pillar 1. Their net contributions are not well documented, however.

Due to the high capital inputs involved in the construction or renovation of physical infrastructure,

only a few NGOs promote SPAB programme activities related to the strengthening of CSS Pillar 1.

Some NGOs have been more engaged in this area, as they have started to conduct activities such as

improving the school building structure (retrofitting); building retaining walls to protect against

landslide; digging biopore infiltration holes and building infiltration wells, for flood adjustment; and

performing technical inspections to assess school building safety.

4.2.4. Sustainability

Learning from the 2009 earthquake events in West Sumatra, the Government of Indonesia started to

include school buildings in Risk Category IV. This means that schools must be designed to resist

earthquakes and to meet a safety factor of 1.5 – the highest level of safety for public buildings. Over

the period 2008–2019, various regulations and policies issued by the Government have encouraged

the achievement of disaster-safe school facilities. Unfortunately, most such policies are not

mandatory and a lack of clarity surrounds the roles and responsibilities mandated to authorities and

institutions relevant to SPAB implementation, especially CSS Pillar 1.

The Ministry of Public Works and Housing issued technical guidance for design standardization and

school damage assessment on 27 October 2020, through the Circular Letter of Directorate General

of Human Settlements No. 47/SE/DC/2020. Technical Guidance for School and Madrasa Design

Standardization is expected to maintain the quality of technical plans for school and madrasa

construction and rehabilitation/renovation, while Technical Guidance for School and Madrasa

Damage Assessment is to be used as an instrument for identifying the level of building damage as a

basis for determining follow-up action. These documents function as technical guidance for planning

the construction of disaster-safe schools, as stipulated in Pillar 1 (see Figure 11).

41

The fulfilment of disaster-safe facilities and infrastructure may also be incorporated as one of the

indicators for school accreditation. (This was implemented by some schools in East Nusa Tenggara,

even though the use of the indicator turned out to be suboptimal.) Consequently, schools that wish

to be accredited must meet all of the indicators, including the fulfilment of disaster-safe facilities

and infrastructure. This also means that local governments should play a critical role in supporting

schools to meet structural safety standards.

Implementation of CSS Pillar 1 is unsustainable due to the absence of formal mechanisms for the

monitoring and supervision of the implementation of existing SPAB-related policies. One of the

examples that was raised concerning the lack of monitoring of compliance with SNI 1726, which is

supposed to be linked to the Certificate of Worthiness and Building Construction License. The

absence of a monitoring mechanism for SNI compliance in the construction process results in a lack

of information about how many schools adopt multi-hazard mitigation measures.

Figure 11. Extract of Ministry of Public Works and Housing presentation given at Pillar 1 workshop

Source: Ministry of Public Works, 2020

4.2.5. Innovation

Several innovative measures have been carried out regarding Pillar 1:

• A more detailed mapping of schools represents good progress at the national level. Schools

that are exposed to multiple types of hazard have been identified. Data on school

infrastructure (from DAPODIK, owned by the Ministry of Education and Culture) have been

integrated with national risk assessment data (from InaRISK, owned by BNPB) and made

publicly accessible via the InaRISK platform. Through this mapping, the National Secretariat

of Disaster-safe School also has access to data on schools in disaster-prone areas. This

42

suggests that where there is political will, policy intervention can directly target vulnerable

schools that are exposed to multiple hazards.

• New applications for building safety assessment have recently been developed. VISUS

(Visual Inspection for defining the Safety Upgrading Strategies) was developed by the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the University of

Udine, Italy; and STEP-A was developed by the United Nations Development Programme in

collaboration with stakeholders of the Consortium for Disaster Education. These apps help

school community members to assess building safety against various types of hazard. At the

time of writing, however, the apps have yet to be made public, and so unfortunately cannot

currently be used to advocate for support for the SPAB programme.

• Sporadic innovations have been made by local governments. For example, a web-based

information platform for the detail mapping of schools affected by disaster and in need

rehabilitation and reconstruction was developed by the Center for Educational Assessment

of the Department of Education and Culture of Central Sulawesi in collaboration with

UNICEF and Yayasan Plan International Indonesia In the aftermath of the earthquake and

tsunami events in Central Sulawesi in 2018, the platform was a source of information for

affected communities about the impact of the disaster on the education sector as well as

updates on recovery efforts.

4.2.6. Lessons learned

There are inconsistencies in the central data of the Ministry of Education and Culture held in the

DAPODIK database. Views from representatives of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing suggest

that school damage identification data compiled in DAPODIK need to be standardized, as there are

discrepancies when compared with data in databases owned by other ministries.

Budget allocation from local government for post-disaster renovation and rehabilitation of schools

remains non-existent. An alternative model for post-disaster financing for schools depends on

central government budget; other alternative sources of funding should be considered to enable

schools to achieve financial independence.

A more systematic approach to the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of CSS Pillar 1 is

needed. This includes the need to monitor and enforce the implementation of earthquake-resistant

construction techniques when local stakeholders build new schools or reconstruct and renovate

schools after disasters. There is a greater urgency to implement enforcement of the school building

Certificate of Worthiness. This mechanism requires suitably trained individuals to oversee the

43

construction process, especially in remote and vulnerable locations. School building designs and

specifications may vary from one place to another, making it difficult to ensure the uniform

worthiness of the constructed buildings. Both structural and non-structural building failures were

commonly observed in earthquake-affected schools, owing to ignorance of existing building codes

(such as SNI 1726).

In regard to school building planning and design related to local characteristics and hazards, it is

important to assign suitably qualified personnel – in both the Ministry of Public Works and Housing

and the Department of Public Works and Housing in the remote region – to support not only the

planning process but also the monitoring and implementation of Pillar 1. Such mandates must also

be decentralized in all areas across Indonesia, although this is challenging because of the limited

human resources in the Ministry of Public Works and Housing and other relevant institutions,

particularly to strengthen capacities and monitor the implementation at the local level. It is

necessary to implement strict monitoring and supervision of the school building construction

process, by either the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Department of Public Works and

Housing or another relevant organization/entity (e.g., a team of building experts) depending on the

conditions of the region. This is because many construction workers are unfamiliar with earthquake-

resistant building methods and have not implemented the relevant standards in practice, in

accordance with the planning. Local government also needs to be more committed to Pillar 1

implementation.

The Earthquake-resistant Building Code (SNI 1726) is the standard for the seismic design of buildings,

including schools. The latest iteration of the code, SNI 1726:2019, incorporates school buildings into

Risk Category IV, which is the most severe category, requiring the most stringent measures. Central

and local government and advocates of the SPAB programme need to communicate the code and

similar standards more aggressively to stakeholders.

4.3. School Disaster Management (Pillar 2)

The scope of analysis for Pillar 2 in this evaluation comprises all attempts to create a management

system for disaster countermeasures in school, including risk assessment; formation of a disaster

alert team; further development of SPAB-related policies at school level; preparedness and

countermeasure planning for education in times of emergency; and development of action plans.

In summary, central and local government and NGOs have made various efforts under Pillar 2 to

support disaster management in Indonesian schools, as follows:

44

• A ministerial regulation – the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 33 of 2019

concerning Implementation of the Disaster-safe School Programme – has been adopted to

regulate disaster management in schools.

• Local-level policies on school disaster management are in place in the provinces of Aceh, Bali,

Bangka Belitung Islands, Central Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara and the Special Capital Region of

Jakarta, as well as in eight regencies/cities.

• Learning materials for Pillar 2 have been made available by the Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe

School/Madrasa. These materials include a learning module on disaster management in schools.

• A dedicated national website has been created to support knowledge sharing on the SPAB

programme and to serve as a repository for related documents such as policies, regulations and

guidelines (at national to local level) as well as learning resources developed by NGOs.

• A policy document – namely the Disaster-safe School Roadmap 2015–2019, which has since

been updated – outlines how to go about the development of technical guidelines, the

strengthening of partnerships with NGOs to scale up the technical assistance for schools at local

level, and the development of disaster preparedness instruments for schools, as well as offering

technical guidance on the three pillars of Safe School.

• The National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School was formed, its membership comprising various

non-government institutions that are mainly engaged in the implementation of Pillars 2 and 3.

• Schools nationwide participate each year in a joint disaster simulation exercise on Indonesia’s

National Disaster Preparedness Day, 26 April.

• Development and publication of Guidelines for Education in Emergencies as an attempt to

ensure a rapid response to emergencies by the education sector and to ensure the effective

recovery of schools following a disaster event.

• Indonesia is one of the pioneering countries that also promotes the SPAB programme at the

global level as well as among ASEAN member countries.

4.3.1. Relevance

Ministry of Education and Culture data on damaged school facilities and infrastructure show that the

types and levels of risk facing Indonesian schools, combined with their (generally) unsafe facilities

and infrastructure, must be counteracted by a form of improved disaster management at the school

level.

School disaster management includes the development of safety and security procedures for the

school, including by assigning roles using elements of 5W1H (what, who, where, when, why, how?);

45

the formation of a disaster alert team in school; and the adoption of necessary measures on what to

do before, during and after disaster events. Such actions should be complemented by a planned

emergency evacuation route, a well-publicised evacuation map, clearly visible evacuation signage

and other essential information for staff and students (see Figure 12).

Figure 32. My School is Prepared information board

Source: BNPB, 2020.

Currently, only 5 per cent of all Indonesian schools (approximately 13,000 of the country’s more

than 272,000 schools) have received an intervention from the SPAB programme. According to the

data from the FGDs, the programme does focus chiefly on CSS Pillars 2 and 3. But this very low

proportion of schools to receive an intervention means that improving on programme efforts related

to Pillar 2 (as well as the other pillars) is highly relevant – especially for schools in disaster-prone

areas.


Indonesia has become one of 68 countries worldwide deemed to have good overall policies on

disaster risk reduction (GADRRES, 2017). It has achieved this by converging its education policies for

non-emergency situations with its education policies for times of emergency, the latter of which are

implemented in collaboration with, and with immense support from, the United Nations and

numerous NGOs.

46

Various national-level policies to support SPAB implementation have been issued by BNPB, the

Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, including guidelines

developed by the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School, NGOs, donor organizations,

universities and private companies. Other stakeholders which have developed regulations, policies

and initiatives regarding disaster education and school safety management in Indonesia in the

period 2008–2019 include provincial- and district-level organizations such as the Regional Disaster

Management Agency (Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah; BPBD), Departments of Education

and Culture, and Departments of Public Works and Housing; local NGOs; and universities.

Currently, the main legal basis for SPAB implementation in Indonesia is the Regulation of the

Minister of Education and Culture No. 33 of 2019 concerning Implementation of the Disaster-safe

School Programme (for brief details of all national- and local-level regulations, see Figures 13 and

14). This regulation specifies how the SPAB programme is implemented before, during and after

disaster events; the range of services to be provided; the procedures for establishing the National

Secretariat of Disaster-safe School and the Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa; the

funding mechanism for the SPAB programme; and methods for the regular monitoring and

evaluation of the programme.

Factors that have accelerated SPAB implementation in Indonesia include the development of

technical guidelines and learning modules on the three pillars of CSS (published in 2016 by the

Ministry of Education and Culture and BNPB) and active support from various NGOs from the same

year onwards.

Improving the implementation process driven by the Ministry of Education and Culture and BNPB

runs in parallel with improving collaboration with external organizations to support the SPAB

programme. Through partnerships with the likes of the School Scouts, Disaster Preparedness Cadets

(Ministry of Social Affairs), Indonesian Youth Red Cross and Hizbul Wathan Scout Movement

(Muhammadiyah), SPAB activities can be promoted as an extra-curricular option for school students

– they may even be mandatory for some students. This initiative to improve collaboration is

accompanied by learning modules for partner organization facilitators/trainers, for instance, a

learning module for School Scouts’ leader and its members. This may be an effective strategy to

expand the scope of the SPAB programme.

At the local level, the development of the SPAB programme is still under way. The main actor in

charge of SPAB implementation in a province/district is the Joint Secretariat of Disaster-safe

School/Madrasa (where this exists). Just like the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School, each

Joint Secretariat acts as a platform to improve multi-party coordination and collaboration, especially

across the education and disaster management sectors, but on a local level.

47

Figure 43. Regulatory framework for the SPAB programme

Source: Kemendikbud, 2020

In 2019, Aceh Province – specifically its Department of Education and Culture and Aceh Disaster

Management Agency – initiated the formation of a Joint Secretariat with support from several NGOs.

The impact that this newly formed Joint Secretariat has already had is apparent from its recent

advocacy efforts to push local government to draft a specific local regulation (qanun) to regulate the

disaster education agenda. At the time of writing, the draft qanun is currently being discussed by the

Aceh House of Representatives.

In terms of budgeting, Aceh has received financial support for the SPAB programme through the

Special Allocation Fund dedicated by central government to disaster management activities (i.e., the

rehabilitation of schools, school construction, and the procurement of school supplies and ICT).

In Central Sulawesi Province, the education agency, religious agency, and disaster management

agency drafted policies related to disaster-safe school and led by the provincial government in the

48

aftermath of the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction events in 2018. This chiefly concerned Sigi

Regency, Palu City and Donggala Regency as well as the province as a whole. In addition, the

Governor’s Regulation no 420/785/DISDIK/2019, a Joint Secretariat of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa

and a school hazard map are in place in Central Sulawesi.

In East Nusa Tenggara, in addition to policies, monitoring and evaluation tools developed by the

Secretariat for Disaster-Safe School of East Nusa Tenggara through Governor Decree no

303/KEP/HK/2017 are used for assessment and audit purposes. An accreditation instrument for

SPAB implementation has been devised with reference to an instrument issued in 2017 by the

National Accreditation Board for Schools and Madrasas (Badan Akreditasi Nasional

Sekolah/Madrasah). Additionally, several schools in the province have integrated the SPAB

programme into extra-curricular activities. These achievements are the result of effective

collaboration between various parties, including the Local Office of Education and Culture, the Local

Office of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, BPBD and many NGOs.

“The integration of learning module regarding disaster management into intra-

curricular and extra-curricular activities has been implemented. We have

received assistance in terms of SOP [standard operating procedure] for

integrating the material into school subjects. For fourth to sixth graders, the

material comes in a form of implemented instructions to date, while for first to

third graders, it comes in a form of comic strips about disaster and posters put on

the walls in each classroom.”

– Teacher, East Nusa Tenggara

Meanwhile, the Special Capital Region of Jakarta passed the Governor’s Regulation No. 187 of 2016

regarding Implementation of Disaster-safe School and Madrasa. This regulation includes 10

performance indicators for the SPAB and SMAB programmes, with the focus mainly on the

implementation of CSS Pillars 2 and 3. The detailed indicators are as follows:30

1. Formulation of school hazard map by school/madrasa head teacher.

2. Formulation of fixed procedures on school disaster management by school/madrasa head

teacher.

3. Formulation of safe school action plan by school/madrasa head teacher.

4. Establishment of disaster alert team at school by school/madrasa head teacher.

30 Jaringan Dokumentasi dan Informasi Hukum (JDIH) Jakarta, “Peraturan Gubernur Nomor 187 Tahun 2016 Tentang Penyelenggaraan Sekolah Dan Madrasah Aman Bencana” (Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta, n.d.), https://jdih.jakarta.go.id/uploads/default/produkhukum/PERGUB_NO.187_TAHUN_.2016_.pdf.

49

5. Availability and instruction of learning modules for disaster management, including on flood

control, fire safety, and earthquake and tornado preparedness, for school/madrasa students.

6. Availability of teachers who are capable of guiding and facilitating the implementation of

disaster management, including flood control, fire safety, and earthquake and tornado

preparedness, at school/madrasa.

7. Availability of safety infrastructure, fire extinguishers, life vests, ropes, evacuation signs, first aid

kits and megaphones/sirens.

8. Implementation of disaster simulation exercises at school/madrasa at least once a year.

9. Implementation of monitoring and evaluation for safe school/madrasa activities.

10. Promotion of safe school/madrasa campaigns at school by school committee.

According to data for the Special Capital Region of Jakarta obtained from its BPBD, implementation

of the SPAB programme has been conducted in more than 380 of the region’s schools to date. The

Department of Education and Culture of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta has also provided

teachers with training on SPAB, through the Center for Competency Development of Educators and

Educational and Vocational Personnel (Pusat Pengembangan Kompetensi Pendidik, Tenaga

Kependidikan dan Kejuruan).

“Disaster-safe school is the one with well-built buildings, equipped with

evacuation signs, early warning tools, and fire extinguishers. It is also necessary

to conduct training [on SPAB] once in a while.”

– Teacher, Special Capital Region of Jakarta

Implementation of other activities specifically related to Pillar 2 in the Special Capital Region of

Jakarta include training for students, and regular disaster simulation exercises involving the police

department, public health centre and village officers. To monitor implementation of the SPAB

programme, the Jakarta-based Red Cross Society of Indonesia initiated, in 2018, the drafting of a

SPAB monitoring instrument in collaboration with BPBD; the Department of Education and Culture;

the Department for Empowerment, Child Protection and Population Control; the National

Secretariat of Disaster-safe School; Wahana Visi Indonesia; and Yayasan Kausa Resiliensi Indonesia.

In 2019, the instrument was adopted into healthy school assessment in the Special Capital Region of

Jakarta.

“In terms of Pillar 2, we – representatives from Department of Education [and

Culture], along with Damkar [fire department], BPBD and several NGOs – have

provided assistance regarding disaster-safe school management.”

50

– Representative of the Department of Education and Culture and FGD

participant

Many schools still do not have an evacuation map and signage. The SPAB programme (particularly

those activities related to CSS Pillar 1) encourages the fulfilment of safety infrastructure, one aspect

of which is the provision of an evacuation map and route signs in schools. Once each school is able

to recognize the disaster risks in its local area, it can then devise an action plan that encompasses an

emergency plan for use in the event of a disaster – including, for instance, putting in place an

evacuation map and signage before any disaster events occur.

SPAB implementation in Indonesia has adapted to change and continues to progress. During the

early stages of the programme’s implementation, conventional or face-to-face methods were most

prevalent. Over time, the Government of Indonesia – through the Ministry of Education and Culture

and BNPB, with support from NGOs – has developed an online e-learning platform for teachers and

educators, to enable a more time-efficient learning process. In addition, the technical guidance

programme currently taking place online encourages teachers and head teachers to participate in

devising follow-up plans, including to build an effective disaster management system at school.

4.3.3. Impact

Currently, more than 250,000 Indonesian schools are located in disaster-prone regions – that is,

about 90 per cent of all schools in the country. In terms of overall coverage, more than 62 million

school children and 8 million college students are affected. The advancement of the SPAB

programme – and the underlying CSS framework that it implements – has been prioritized by

government and other relevant stakeholders in education to ensure safe education for children.

Since the SPAB programme was introduced in Indonesia in 2008, more than 27,000 schools (about

10 per cent of all schools) have implemented the programme, using funds totalling IDR 842 billion

(US$57.3 million) received from the state budget, bilateral donors and NGOs.

The Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Religious Affairs and BNPB recognize the

significant impact brought about by the SPAB programme over the period of implementation of the

Disaster-safe School Roadmap 2015–2019 (see Figure 14). This is reflected in the approval of an

annual budget allocation for SPAB implementation as well as by the enactment of the Regulation of

the Minister of Education and Culture No. 33 of 2019 concerning Implementation of the Disaster-

safe School Programme, complemented by the Regulation of the Head of BNPB No. XX of 2014 on

the implementation of safe school.

51

Collaboration in encouraging the achievement of programme coordination and synchronization

across institutions has brought about the establishment of the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe

School, comprising members across government and ministerial bodies: Ministry of Education and

Culture, Ministry of Religious Affairs, BNPB, Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child

Protection, and Ministry of Public Works and Housing. A few Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe

School/Madrasa are also established in various regions in Indonesia, at both the provincial and

district level.

4.3.4. Continuity

Despite challenges, implementation of the SPAB programme has been encouraged through various

initiatives. For instance, a collaboration between BNPB, the Ministry of Education and Culture and

local NGOs from 2015 to 2020 advanced SPAB implementation during this period. Some strategies

used include the appointment of national facilitators from various institutions to promote Pillar 2 in

the regions, facilitation of programme implementation, and capacity building of local facilitators on

Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 activities.

BNPB has also been collaborating with the Indonesian Scout Movement (Gerakan Pramuka

Indonesia) in some of the schools in some regions, which has been possible because the majority of

the Scout leaders are teachers and education personnel. This strategy was effective in some areas

such as Rembang Regency in Central Java. In 2019, BNPB and the Scout Movement provided disaster

preparedness training in 7 locations across 16 regencies/cities, involving 35 Scout masters. In total,

338 disaster management facilitators were trained. According to BNPB, the recruited and trained

facilitators have been making an impact for at least 33,000 students.31 In the view of an interviewed

BNPB official, the 338 facilitators would continue to provide assistance in their respective regions.

The researchers were unable to verify this claim.

4.3.5. Innovation

Various innovations have been developed by central government and NGOs to expand the scope of

Pillar 2 implementation in Indonesia through the SPAB programme. In terms of product innovation,

31 National Disaster Management Agency, ‘Acceleration of SPAB Implementation in Indonesia’ (Percepatan Implementasi

SPAB di Indonesia), PowerPoint presentation, 2020.

52

the Ministry of Education and Culture, through the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School, has

made at least four major innovations:

• The launch of an online (e-learning) portal for SPAB training, which is accessible via the

website at <https://simpatik.belajar.kemdikbud.go.id/user/spab>. This portal uses the SPAB

technical instruction system. The course consists of 12 modules delivered in creative and fun

ways through the addition of images, videos, graphics, reading materials and quizzes. The

target audience for this innovation is teachers and education personnel, although in practice

any interested party may sign up for the training.

• The launch of a dedicated SPAB website managed by the National Secretariat of Disaster-

safe School, available at <https://spab.kemdikbud.go.id>. The website includes learning

resources and modules, policies, and ICT resources that anyone can access to obtain data

and information related to the programme.

• Integration of data on school infrastructure from DAPODIK (owned by the Ministry of

Education and Culture) with national risk assessment data from InaRISK (owned by BNPB)

and made available via the InaRISK platform at <https://inarisk.bnpb.go.id>. This innovation,

supported by collaboration between BNPB and the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe

School, has produced information regarding disaster hazards for all schools in Indonesia.

• Development of a monitoring and evaluation application – called MONEV SPAB – specifically

for the SPAB programme. This app can be used on a smartphone or on a computer (via a

website) and aims to make monitoring easier, structured and measurable. It was developed

by BNPB, the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Religious Affairs, in

coordination with the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School and with the support of

Plan Indonesia and others.

Other innovations relevant to Pillar 2 that are being implemented by government agencies at the

national and local level, as well as by schools and NGOs, include the following:

• Collaboration with the Indonesian Scout Movement, initiated by BNPB to provide training

for Scout leaders on safe schools, so that the SPAB programme can be implemented through

extra-curricular activities in a more sustainable way.

• Establishment of Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa and development of a

monitoring tool that functions as part of the mechanism to assess and audit school

accreditation.

• School-level innovations such as the daily siren drill at the Saint Yoseph Catholic primary

school in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara. As a reminder that the school is at high risk of

https://simpatik.belajar.kemdikbud.go.id/user/spab

https://spab.kemdikbud.go.id/

https://inarisk.bnpb.go.id/

53

earthquake, the school sounds the emergency siren every day at 9 a.m., during class time, so

that students and staff are aware of it and hence more prepared in the event of a disaster.

• Plan Indonesia developed a SPAB-inspired educational video game in 2014, which is

accessible at <https://preventionweb.net/educational/view/45103>. The child-friendly game

can also be downloaded via the Google Play Store. Plan Indonesia also held a competition in

2019 inviting young developers to create a SPAB mobile application.


Despite great strides made in implementing Pillar 2 since 2008, there remain various challenges to

be addressed:

• Key proponents of the SPAB programme must raise greater awareness of the importance of

school-level disaster preparedness.

• More derivative policies related to disaster-safe school are needed to promote and enforce the

implementation of school-level disaster preparedness by local governments at the provincial and

district (regency/city) level.

• More capacity-building activities on implementing Pillar 2 at school level are needed for teachers

and other education personnel. Activities may take the form of training, communications and/or

incentives, and should focus in particular on how to analyse hazards, risks and capacities; devise

a standard operating procedure; draw a hazard map; and conduct regular disaster simulation

exercises.

• The number of facilitators/teachers and education personnel assisting the implementation of

Pillar 2 should be increased across Indonesia. This has proven to be beneficial in Aceh, Central

Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta.

• Greater initiative and creativity are required to implement the SPAB programme at the local

level. There is a need to avoid local governments depending on central government for finance,

human resources and knowledge for SPAB implementation.

• More budget allocation for SPAB implementation is needed at both the national and local level.

While there is anecdotal evidence of commitments being made by central government, the

reality on the ground is that there is insufficient school budget to proceed with SPAB

implementation. Many schools are still unable to reallocate funds from the School Operational

Assistance (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah; BOS) programme for SPAB implementation. BOS funds

are mainly used for a school’s operation and salary allocation.

https://preventionweb.net/educational/view/45103

54

• A high turnover of staff at the local government level compromises the continuity of SPAB

implementation owing to the often differing priorities and main focuses of newly appointed

officers and their predecessors.

• Despite progress in the development of monitoring and evaluation tools, as identified above,

there is still a need to promote a systematic monitoring and evaluation system for regular

observation of the SPAB programme at the national and local level.

There are also several activities that have been successfully executed, which need to be further

developed and sustained:

• Further Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa must be established for every

province and district. The current data suggest that fewer than 15 local governments have thus

far established a Joint Secretariat. The Joint Secretariats are important as they can support local-

level coordination across institutions relevant to the development and implementation of the

SPAB programme.

• Departments of Education and Culture and Regional Offices of the Ministry of Religious Affairs

need to be more aggressive in promoting the SPAB agenda. This includes facilitating the most

easily achievable activities, such as SPAB-related festivals and competitions. Such an approach

may encourage schools to keep implementing the SPAB programme.

• Regular documentation of various achievements and promotion of good practices in SPAB

implementation are needed at the national and local level.

• The capabilities of the InaRISK mobile application can be tapped into further. Previously an

information platform for disaster risks and hazards, the InaRISK system now links up with the

monitoring and evaluation tool for SPAB implementation used in all Indonesian schools.

Case study: National monitoring and evaluation system for SPAB implementation

Among the main obstacles to SPAB implementation mentioned by respondents during the FGDs and

virtual fieldwork are the lack of information on: (1) how many schools have implemented the SPAB

programme, whether under the coordination of the Ministry of Education and Culture or the

Ministry of Religious Affairs; (2) what gaps exist across the three pillars of CSS, including what

activities have been more or less implemented at which levels; and (3) how prepared are schools

(both those involved in pilot projects and non-intervention ones) for disasters.

Implementation of the SPAB programme has been going on for more than 12 years, having started in

2008. Data from the Ministry of Education and Culture and BNPB show that more than 27,000

55

schools in Indonesia have implemented the SPAB programme. According to information from various

institutions assisting with SPAB, the programme is chiefly concerned with the implementation of

Pillar 2 (School Disaster Management) and Pillar 3 (Risk Reduction and Resilience Education).

Consequently, BNPB, the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Religious Affairs –

under the coordination of the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School and with the support of

Plan Indonesia and other relevant organizations – have developed a monitoring and evaluation

application, known as MONEV SPAB, specifically for the SPAB programme. The app can be used on a

smartphone or computer (via a website) and aims to make monitoring easier, structured and

measurable.

MONEV SPAB has subsequently been integrated into the InaRISK mobile application developed by

BNPB. Using the monitoring and evaluation tool via InaRISK is considered more appropriate, since

school data are already integrated into the InaRISK system, which is now updated to also include the

school’s SPAB monitoring components.

In general, InaRISK is an information system for disaster risk assessment that shows the spatial

distribution of disaster risks. InaRISK comes in two formats: web-based (InaRISK Web) and mobile-

based (InaRISK Personal). InaRISK Personal includes the MONEV SPAB feature, which teachers and

head teachers can use to evaluate and submit reports on SPAB implementation at their respective

schools (see Figure 15).

Figure 55. MONEV SPAB feature on the InaRISK Personal mobile application

Source: Screenshots from the application

56

Widespread use of MONEV SPAB culminates in a mapping of SPAB implementation of all three pillars

on the progress and the implementation rate in all areas and schools in Indonesia (see Figure 16).

Figure 16. MONEV SPAB illustration of SPAB implementation rate

Note: This map does not reflect a position by UNICEF on the legal status of any country or territory or the delimitation of

any frontiers. The traffic light system shows at a glance where progress has been made and where further implementation

is required. Kurang: Poor; Cukup: Satisfactory; Baik: Good. Source: BNPB inaRISK32

MONEV SPAB can, at least in theory, be used to inform future road maps for SPAB implementation in

Indonesia. The app is straightforward to use, asking only closed-ended questions, which are:

• Does the school have a communication agenda for SPAB?

• Does it receive training?

• Does the school integrate SPAB into the school curriculum or extra-curricular activities?

• Does the school conduct risk assessment?

• Has the school developed a standard operating procedure (SOP) for disaster response?

• Does the school allocate a special budget for SPAB?

• Has the school established a disaster alert team?

• Has the school developed a policy on SPAB?

• Does the school conduct assessment for the school building Certificate of Worthiness?

• Does the school conduct regular disaster simulation exercises?

• Does the school periodically monitor SPAB implementation activities?

MONEV SPAB is a major product innovation, but process innovation is also required. New processes

are needed to ensure that schools and education stakeholders are committed not only to entering

information into MONEV SPAB but also to sustaining the SPAB programme itself.

32 BNPB inaRISK, “InaRISK: Panduan Pengguna” (BNPB, 2019), http://inarisk.bnpb.go.id/panduan_singkat_ina.pdf.

57

4.4. Risk Reduction and Resilience Education (Pillar 3)

The scope of analysis for Pillar 3 in this evaluation includes the disaster risk reduction agenda

integrated into the formal school curriculum; training for teachers and the development of staff; and

community-based extra-curricular activities and informal education.

Disaster education can be considered a conscious effort to sustainably improve national resilience.

It is a strategic intervention to create a disaster preparedness ecosystem for three reasons: First,

disaster education encourages students to improve their understanding (cognitive ability) and skills

regarding disaster resilience; second, it encourages students to become active agents in building

resilience in their own communities; and third, disaster education is an investment in human

development. Children will grow up and become adults, which means that an all-out investment in

their disaster education is necessary.

In this research, disaster education and disaster risk reduction education (DRRE) are considered

synonymous and are used interchangeably. The research team defines DRRE (and indeed disaster

education) as a process, as well as an objective, to build the mental resilience of students at various

levels so as to reduce disaster risks and multidimensional vulnerability. DRRE does so with reference

to the knowledge attainment process (in cognitive terms) as well as praxis (in terms of the ability to

convert the assimilated knowledge into action – in this case, self-rescue and helping others).

4.4.1. Relevance

The need to implement DRRE in Indonesia has become increasingly critical and urgent, as school

communities continue to be affected by disaster events. According to teachers involved in the four

provincial workshops, the SPAB programme – particularly its focus on DRRE – is considered a highly

relevant and urgent matter because of the increasing number of disaster events nationwide. DRRE

helps students to become alert by teaching them the concepts of safety and resilience. Most of the

time, schools are considered unprepared to face extensive disaster risks such as flood and fire.33

Furthermore, More than 600,000 students in 5,680 Indonesian schools were affected by disaster

events over the period 2016–2019, with a total financial loss of more than IDR 1 trillion.34

33

The Special Capital Region of Jakarta is prone to flood and structural fire. Schools felt unprepared to handle such hazards, however. 34 Mansur, Mukhlis 2020. Pengelolaan Program Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana FGD Pillar 2 SPAB Pra-Bencana:

Manajemen Bencana di Satuan Pendidikan, 19 June 2020.

58

The national target to cover all schools through DRRE interventions needs to be ambitious, but also

measurable and consistent. At the national level, the implementation rate for DRRE has increased

from zero pre-2008 to 2,200 schools on average each year since 2008 (the year that SPAB began to

be implemented). By 2019, the SPAB programme – and hence DRRE programming – had reached

more than 27,000 schools, equivalent to about 10 per cent of Indonesia’s more than 272,000

primary and secondary schools. This falls to only 4 per cent of all schools (and 2.7 million out of 64

million students) if early childhood education, special education, community education and

vocational schools under the coordination of the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry

of Religious Affairs are also included.35

The implementation rate for the Disaster Education in Schools agenda at the local level may vary,

but it generally requires improvement. For instance, only 2 per cent of schools (10 out of 477

schools) in Sikka Regency, East Nusa Tenggara, are implementing disaster education as local subject

following the enactment of the Local Subject in Curriculum 2013. In Palu, the local government is

only targeting several schools with its pilot project intervention on SPAB.

Poor implementation of DRRE at the school level is caused by institutional gaps, especially the lack of

regency/city-level regulations capable of stimulating implementation of DRRE. The research found

that teachers, particularly those in schools recently struck by a series of disaster events – such as in

Aceh and Central Sulawesi – perceived disaster education on earthquakes as fundamental. This

therefore needs to be carried out in a more sustainable manner.

“SPAB programme is important because students’ safety is at stake. We have

taught students how to cope with earthquake, but students may still feel panic in

time of disaster and it makes them forget the lessons learned during simulation

exercises.”

– Teacher, Centra Sulawesi Province

Although the implementation of disaster education can be carried out independently by schools – as

reported in Aceh, Kupang, Palu and Yogyakarta during the FGDs at local level–, the enactment of

local regulations is considered a catalyst for enabling independent implementation by schools, as

previously analysed by Nurdin (2019).

Schools consider regulation a necessary legal instrument and regulatory compliance an imperative

for local actors. Regulations help SPAB programme activities to evolve from project-based activities

35 See: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, ‘Data Referensi Pendidikan’, Kemdikbud,

<https://referensi.data.kemdikbud.go.id/index11.php>, accessed 25 July 2020.

https://referensi.data.kemdikbud.go.id/index11.php

59

into rule-based activities. Rule-based activities are assumed to be more capable of self-reproducing,

thanks to their increased legitimacy.

“The teachers feel that a legal basis is necessary, as it turns out. Although we are

already supported by various regulations, it’s still nevertheless insufficient and

needs to be further managed because most activities are only project-based and

not sustainable.”

– Researcher facilitating an FGD at the national level

“Instructions and policies from relevant institutions are needed in order to

implement SPAB programme at school.”

– Teacher, Central Sulawesi Province

Table 1 presents a list of SPAB-related legislation and regulations enacted in Indonesia since 2007.

The list shows that the Ministry of Education and Culture has been quite highly involved in

establishing instruments relevant to disaster education. Yet the Ministry also needs support in such

efforts from BNPB, which issues technical regulations. For example, an updated version of the

Regulation of the Head of BNPB No. 4 of 2012 – in effect for nearly one decade – is now needed.

Table 1. Legal instruments related to the SPAB programme in Indonesia

Year Institution Focus of instrument Instrument

legitimacy

Instrument title

2019 Ministry of

Education and

Culture

SPAB

implementation

Ministerial

regulation

Regulation of the Minister

of Education and Culture

No. 33 of 2019 concerning

Implementation of the

Disaster-safe School

Programme

2017 Ministry of

Education and

Culture

National Secretariat

of Disaster-safe

School

Ministerial

decree

Decree of the Minister of

Education and Culture No.

110/P/2017

2016 Government/House

of Representatives

Persons with

disabilities

Law Law on Disabilities (No. 8

of 2016)

60

2014 Ministry of

Education and

Culture

Joint Secretariat of

Disaster-safe

School/Madrasa

Decree of

Secretary General

of Ministry of

Education

Decree of the Secretary

General of the Ministry of


8953/A.A2.1/KP/2014

2014 Ministry of

Women’s

Empowerment and

Child Protection

Child-friendly school;

safe school/madrasa

Ministerial

regulation


of Women’s

Empowerment and Child

Protection No. 8 of 2014

2013 Ministry of

Education and

Culture

Implementation of

Special Services

Education (including

education in

emergencies)

Ministerial

regulation


of Education and Culture

No. 72 of 2013

2012 BNPB Implementation of

Disaster-safe

School/Madrasa

Implementation

manual

Regulation of the Head of

BNPB No. 4 of 2012

2010 Ministry of

Education and

Culture

Mainstreaming of

disaster risk

reduction in the

education sector

Circular letter Circular Letter No.

70a/MPN/SE/2010

2008 President Establishment of

BNPB

Presidential

regulation

Presidential Regulation

No. 8 of 2008 concerning

National Disaster

Management Agency

2007 Ministry of

Education and

Culture

Regulation of

standard facilities

and infrastructure

for schools and

madrasas

Ministerial

regulation

Regulation of Minister of


24 of 2007

61

2007 Government/House

of Representatives

Disaster

management

Law Law concerning Disaster

Management (No. 24 of

2007)

Disaster education remains vital. Our findings from FGDs and interviews have shown that schools

often mistakenly follow the evacuation plan for earthquake in the event of tornado, gathering

evacuees outdoors and hence exposing them to debris carried by the tornado. This indicates not

only that school-strengthening needs to be disaster-specific to ensure more appropriate measures,

but also that disaster education is a very important policy agenda.


“The first thing coming to mind when an earthquake hit is a desk and if the shock

subdues, I will find the exit with bag over my head.”

– Teacher, Aceh Province

An online portal for SPAB training, available to teachers and other education personnel, provides e-

learning resources to accelerate the learning process.36 With a better understanding of disaster risks,

teachers and other primary stakeholders can then transfer learning and materials to students

through innovative means such as online games; online competitions; information, education and

communication materials; and educational playthings.

The government-centric approach to education that dominates formal disaster education – as

described in section Error! Reference source not found. – is insufficient in terms of meeting I

ndonesia’s current needs. To reach as many schools as possible calls for a new strategy – that is, one

that increases the adoption rate of CSS Pillar 3 through SPAB programme activities. Findings from

the present evaluation suggest that greater coverage of DRRE can be achieved by, first, inspiring

more schools to independently implement the SPAB programme; second, identifying more varied

models for integrating DRRE into schools, and encouraging further diversification of DRRE

integration models; and third, setting strategic incentives and disincentives to encourage schools to

adopt both the SPAB agenda in general and DRRE in particular.

36 Learning modules for Disaster-safe School programming can be accessed through the website: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan and Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, ‘Diklat Sekolah Aman Bencana Untuk Satuan Pendidikan’, Pusdatin Kemendikbud, 2021, <https://simpatik.belajar.kemdikbud.go.id/user/spab>, accessed 29 April 2021.


62

Existing studies on the SPAB programme typically suggest that integration of DRRE into schools can

be achieved using any of three strategies: First, DRRE can be integrated into the existing school

curriculum, through mainstream subjects such as natural science, in which natural hazards are

introduced, and other subjects that discuss behavioural science topics related to emergency

situations and evacuation. Second, disaster education can be integrated as a local content (mulok)

subject – that is, DRRE is treated as a separate subject and is taught routinely in a particular

teaching–learning period for a particular grade. The human dimension of disasters, including

vulnerability, can be explored through local content to fill a gap in the hazard-centric approach that

has typically dominated the study of natural science. Third, DRRE can be introduced to students as

an extra-curricular activity.

In addition to the DRRE integration model above, in which the school is central, this evaluation

uncovered two new integration models. On the one hand, formal DRRE can be complemented by

community pathways, through community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR), in which disaster

education is introduced as an empowerment agenda, through participatory learning and action.

CBDRR is also referred to as Disaster-resilient Village (or Desa Tangguh Bencana in Bahasa) by BNPB

or as Disaster Preparedness Village (or Kampung Siaga Bencana in Bahasa) by the Ministry of Social

Affairs, among other variations.37 CBDRR can be transformed from the disaster management

paradigm dominated by adults to be more inclusive, so that children and youth can play a greater

role in their communities to achieve DRRE objectives.38

On the other hand, disaster education can be introduced through family pathways. Family-based

disaster risk reduction (FBDRR) can be used as a new platform for disaster education, either to

complement formal DRRE or as a stand-alone means of building a resilience mentality in children

from an early age. Family plays an important role in shaping life skills and also in encouraging

children to act and contribute to their community, including through disaster risk reduction efforts.39

Schools and governments do not have all of the necessary resources to take on DRRE alone.

Likewise, families and communities have unique resources at their disposal to support FBDRR and

CBDRR. These two new pathways can shift the dominant paradigm of disaster education, such that

formal DRRE in school can either complement, or be complemented by, disaster education at home

37 Habibullah, Habibullah, ‘Kebijakan Penanggulangan Bencana Berbasis Komunitas: Kampung Siaga Bencana Dan

Desa/Kelurahan Tangguh Bencana’, Sosio Informa, vol. 18, no. 2, 2013, pp. 133–150. 38 Reed, Sheila, and Dominique Blariaux, ‘Evaluation of UNICEF’s Disaster Risk Reduction Programming in Education (2013–

2018) in East Asia and the Pacific’, n.p, 2020. Available at: <www.unicef.org/evaluation/reports#/detail/16576/evaluation-of-unicefs-disaster-risk-reduction-programming-in-education-in-east-asia-and-the-pacific>, accessed 29 April 2021. 39Amri, Avianto, ‘Building Disaster-resilient Households through a School-based Education Intervention with Children and

Their Families’ (PhD thesis), Macquarie University, Sydney, 2020.

https://www.unicef.org/evaluation/reports#/detail/16576/evaluation-of-unicefs-disaster-risk-reduction-programming-in-education-in-east-asia-and-the-pacific


63

or in the community.

a. Self-adoption of DRRE by schools

Self-adoption of DRRE by schools is one of the SPAB programme objectives set out in Regulation of

the Minister of Education and Culture No. 33 of 2019 concerning Implementation of the Disaster-

safe School Programme in Indonesia. It is intended to promote the protection and safety of students,

teachers and education personnel from disaster impacts on schools.

‘Model school’ (sekolah model) and ‘pioneering school’ (sekolah penggerak) are two models often

used by government to initiate a new innovation in education in Indonesia. The model school

approach targets selected schools to serve as the benchmark for the innovation. This is often

complemented by the pioneering school approach, which targets certain schools to implement the

innovation with the objective that the school will continue to do so independently, without formal

interventions, after a certain period.

“In DRR [disaster risk reduction] context, we appoint model schools to conduct

disaster risk reduction activities, whereas in the national context of quality

education, we appoint pioneering schools.”

– National FGD participant

Schools continue to be treated as passive beneficiaries by many external parties (both government

and NGOs) which ‘preach’ about disaster education. How schools independently adopt DRRE, or are

encouraged and supported to have policies on DRRE, is a question that still needs to be answered.

This evaluation found evidence related to the independent adoption of the SPAB programme – and

hence self-adoption of DRRE – at school level, which can be categorized into two models. The first is

a formal model in which the school creates a disaster alert team and assigns tasks to that team to

implement SPAB activities in support of CSS Pillars 1, 2 and 3. This model can be observed at the

Muhammadiyah Insan Kreatif Kembaran (MIKK) primary school, in Bantul, Yogyakarta, which has

developed a disaster preparedness team structure followed by an annual work plan that is routinely

updated with clear performance targets. MIKK is a champion school, and its inclination to adopt

DRRE and SPAB has been an endogenous initiative. MIKK is not a school typically targeted by

international NGOs, and it has managed to develop the SPAB programme independently, in

collaboration and consultation with a local NGO in Yogyakarta. Its success in building its SPAB system

reflects the strong will of members of the MIKK school community (teachers and head teacher).

64

“We formulate disaster risk reduction action plans every year. For instance, in

2019, end-of-year evaluation of DRR; devising lesson plan for 2020 and syllabus

integrated into each school subject; devising and printing DRR student worksheet

and teaching DRR subject once a month [at the end of every month]. We also

collaborate with facilitators from NGO in order to achieve disaster-safe school

through collaboration.”

– Teacher, Yogyakarta Province

The second model of self-adoption SPAB is based on a ‘no-regrets’ approach that aims to ensure the

safety of the school community but is not explicitly expressed in formal school policy. For example,

at the Inpres Kalukubula primary school in Kalukubula, Central Sulawesi, disaster preparedness

activities have been initiated by teachers, despite the school not formally engaging in

implementation of the SPAB programme. For those teachers who have initiated DRRE activities in

their classroom, taking matters into their own hands by teaching disaster education is a better

option than waiting for change to come from the top.

“Even though disaster preparedness team does not exist, we – the teachers – are motivated

to initiate ‘disaster preparedness’ programme due to imminent danger of disasters. We

hope that students know what to do in times of emergency.”

– Teacher, Central Sulawesi Province

Unfortunately, not all schools have teachers with both the agency to initiate and the capacity to

introduce disaster risk knowledge routinely to their students. Internal barriers such as teacher

capacity, school management and lack of incentives often condition schools to depend on external

parties – both government agencies and NGOs, and also informed parents – when it comes to such

matters.

“Inclusion of DRRE into school subjects/units is challenging because not all teachers are

capable of doing it. SPAB needs support and participation of all relevant parties, including

parents. SPAB also needs financial supports. One of the most challenging barriers at school

level is funding. Until now, there is insufficient funding from regional office [Department of

Education and Culture] for SPAB programme [such] that schools have to allocate from BOS

fund for SPAB implementation.”

– Teacher, Central Sulawesi province

Results from the national FGD conducted for this evaluation to discuss Pillar 3 show that there are

schools in Aceh that are initiating independent SPAB implementation. The researchers found,

however, that this is a relatively complex phenomenon, associated with involvement by multiple

65

parties. For instance, a pilot project of the Disaster-prepared School (Sekolah Siaga Bencana; SSB)

campaign in 2009 left a positive legacy that has helped some schools to continue to independently

pursue disaster education – but the pilot involved the Syiah Kuala University Tsunami and Disaster

Mitigation Research Center as well as the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (Lembaga Ilmu

Pengetahuan Indonesia; LIPI) and UNESCO.40

Despite the advantages of self-adoption, some researchers during FGD believe that the effectiveness

of the independent adoption of DRRE by schools should be evaluated. For instance, there are gaps in

the learning strategy and outcomes between schools involved in the SSB pilot project (intervention)

and schools not involved (control group). SSB pilot schools (88 schools in total over the course of the

period 2009–2014) were found to have a wider variety of learning media correlated with CSS Pillar 2

(e.g., disaster-safe resources such as evacuation routes and maps) than the control group schools.

During a post-intervention assessment by external parties, however, SSB pilot schools were found to

face constraints in sustaining the SSB programme, owing to insufficient financial support.41

b. Effectiveness of integration models for DRRE in schools

This evaluation found a greater variety of models for integrating DRRE into schools: (1) integration of

disaster education into intra-curricular activities (mainstream and thematic curricula); (2) integration

of disaster education into local content (mulok) subjects; (3) integration of DRRE predominantly into

extra-curricular activities; (4) integration of DRRE into formal school, plus CBDRR; (5) integration of

DRRE into formal school, plus FBDRR (though still in the absence of any institutional, regulatory or

incentive mechanism); (6) integration of disaster education with pre-service training of civil servants,

including teachers (for this model, policy advocacy is required); and (7) a hybrid (multipronged)

model that goes beyond formal schooling. The first six models are described in turn in more detail

below.

Integration of disaster education into mainstream curriculum

The processes of integrating DRRE into the mainstream school curriculum is one of the options.

Tuswadi observed two such integration models being used in Indonesia.42 In the first, DRRE is

“nested” or build into the mainstream subjects (see Figure 17). Implementation of the nested

40 Adiyoso, Wignyo, and Hidehiko Kanegae, ‘The Effect of Different Disaster Education Programs on Tsunami Preparedness

among Schoolchildren in Aceh, Indonesia’, Disaster Mitigation of Cultural Heritage and Historic Cities, vol. 6, July 2012, pp. 165–172. 41 Sakurai, Aiko, et al., ‘The 11th Years Assessment on School Safety and Disaster Education at the Public Elementary

Schools in Banda Aceh after the 2004 Aceh Tsunami: Preliminary findings’, Paper presented at the National Symposium on Tsunami Disaster Mitigation 2015, Banda Aceh, 21–22 December 2015. 42 Tuswadi, ‘Disaster Management and Prevention Education for Volcanic Eruption’.

66

integration model can be observed in different Indonesian regions. Various types of natural hazard,

such as earthquake, volcano and tsunami, are introduced through natural science and geography

(see Figure 17, Scenario 1) or humanities subjects (see Figure 17, Scenario 2). In Aceh, the discipline

of DRRE has generally been integrated into mainstream subjects such as Indonesian language,

religious education, social sciences, natural science and local content (mulok) subjects.43 Scenario 3

in Figure 17 is a flexible scenario that leaves it to the teacher’s discretion to introduce DRRE subjects

that she/he feels confident in teaching.

The other integration model is model for integrating disaster education into a local content (mulok)

subject/unit and/or an extra-curricular activity that aimed at “Integrated disaster education in

primary and secondary schools and equivalents”. As an example is the SSB model used in Aceh.44

The built-in integration model has been implemented by upper secondary schools in Aceh (e.g.,

Peukan Bada upper secondary school) where disaster education has been taught as a separate

school subject/unit. Necessary conditions for this approach include compulsory training for teachers.

Peukan Bada teachers were given a mandate by Aceh Disaster Management Agency and UNICEF to

participate in training on SPAB.

“SPAB programme should be sustained by shared commitment of all. Instead of

implementing it as project-based, it should be included as integral part of school curriculum

so we can be accustomed to the programme.”


“Capacity building for teachers is required to improve the resilience of the teachers in every

situation, especially when teaching disaster education to the students.”


43 Adiyoso and Kanegae, ‘The Effect of Different Disaster Education Programs on Tsunami Preparedness’. 44 Pemerintah Aceh, Peraturan Gubernur Aceh 48 Tahun 2010 Tentang Rencana Aksi Daerah Pengurangan Risiko Bencana

Aceh Tahun 2010–2012.

67

Figure 67. Nested DRRE integration model

Scenario 1. Various hazards are taught in natural science and geography

Scenario 2. Concept of a safe, green, healthy, inclusive, child-friendly and fun school is introduced in humanities subjects

Scenario 3. Teachers use their discretion to integrate particular DRRE subjects into their teaching according to their capacities

Source: Author’s illustration, adapted from: Tuswadi, Takehiro Hayashi, ‘Disaster Management and Prevention Education for Volcanic Eruption: A case of Merapi area primary schools in Java Island, Indonesia’ (PhD thesis), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, 2014.

This nested integration model can also be applied through alternative ways of delivering the subject,

such as field trips. For example, in Kupang regency, representatives of private schools claimed that

they partially adopt the SPAB programme, adjusting it to the local disaster context in a way that is

easily remembered by teachers. For example, fire is considered a recurring risk, so a field trip to the

local fire department (Damkar) is conducted in the hope of improving students’ cognitive knowledge

(by observing what the firefighters are doing and their preparedness to cope with fire) and their

acquisition of further experience (by riding the fire engine and role-playing being a firefighter for the

day).

The same representatives of the schools observed, however, that ensuring continuity in the use of

such an integration model is determined by the proactive behaviour of the Ministry of Education and

Culture. Certain things could be done better by the Ministry, for example, engaging in routine

communication with schools through a “circular letter of Department of Education [and Culture]

specifying budget allocation for programme assistance.” Provision of a circular letter by the

Department of Education and Culture is considered a low-cost activity, but one that can encourage

schools to implement disaster education and the SPAB programme, given its formal nature.

Science, geography

Volcanic

eruption

Tsunami

Flood

Seismic hazard

Landslid

e

Fire

hazard

Humanities

Fun

Child-

friendly

Inclusive

school

Healthy

school

Safe

school

Green

school

Mainstream subjects

DRRE 1 Green

school

DRRE 3 DRRE

n+1

68

Integration of disaster education into local content

Inclusion of DRRE in local content (or muatan lokal -mulok- in Bahasa) subjects varies by location and

may be done with or without regulation. Specific formal regulation can have an impact on

incentivizing schools to initiate the SPAB agenda, including through the formulation of learning

modules and/or mulok material. Implementation of this integration model remains limited to pilot

projects only, in just a few selected Indonesian schools. Scaling up the adoption of mulok is often an

issue at the local level.

In general, the integration of DRRE into mulok in schools in Indonesia has increased since 2008. Data

are unavailable, however, regarding the adoption rate of DRRE into mulok in the more than 27,000

schools that have implemented the SPAB programme according to the Ministry of Education and

Culture.

In Sikka Regency, East Nusa Tenggara, targeted schools received training and assistance on mulok,

which culminated in the formulation of special learning modules for the students. NGOs and the

local government have been collaborating in conducting capacity-building activities, including

integrating DRRE into mulok in pilot schools. When it comes to the integration of DRRE into the

curriculum through mulok, or into extra-curricular activities, Sikka is considered a benchmark for

other regencies and cities where disaster education has been stipulated as an imperative by a

regulation of the bupati (mayor).

“There are several published and distributed modules. For instance, in Sikka, learning

module formulated by SANRES [Yayasan Flores Sejahtera] has been incorporated into

mulok.”

– NGO staff, East Nusa Tenggara province

Meanwhile in South Central Timor Regency, where there is no specific regulation on integrating

disaster education through mulok, collaboration between NGOs and the Department of Education

and Culture has provided assistance to and facilitated the SPAB programme in selected pilot project

schools.

“We have received assistance and trainings on how to integrate the DRRE material into

school subjects. We have received the learning modules and implemented them for students

of fourth to sixth grades. For students of first to third grades, we provide literature regarding

disaster and put posters in each classroom.”

– Teacher, East Nusa Tenggara province

69

This evaluation has, however, identified two main perspectives on integrating DRRE into mulok,

which have been interpreted differently by practitioners and by advocates of this mulok integration

model. First, mulok is seen as an organic response to the importance of DRRE that is based on the

local context, due to the need for safety in disaster-prone regions. The manifestation of this

response model is the development of a newly created subject/unit separate from mainstream

subjects. In Aceh, this mulok integration model is put into practice in a form of a dedicated subject

taught with a single 2-hour session per week and/or four 45-minute sessions per week (Nurdin,

2019). This type of initiative has a long history, having been used in the SSB pilot project launched in

2009 by the Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center in collaboration with LIPI and

UNESCO.

In various places in Banda Aceh and Bengkulu, the mulok approach focuses on the improvement of

children’s cognitive level, resulting in better cognitive responses among children in the intervention

group than among children in the control group.45

According to the second perspective, integrating DRRE into mulok can be seen as an attempt to

rediscover local wisdom, by documenting tacit knowledge informed by an oral history of past events

that has been internalized into local culture and practice. Through mulok, this knowledge is then

introduced to students. For example, an introduction to smong (the local term for tsunami in Aceh)

is transformed into mulok.46 Despite its potential transformation into mulok, however, local wisdom

on disaster education is not fully introduced formally to students in schools, as has been observed in

Minangkabau.47

Integration of DRRE into extra-curricular activities

The literature suggests that extra-curricular activities are recognized as outdoor activities that help

to improve students’ cognition and motor skills, in this case in relation to disaster resilience building.

Extra-curricular activities in the context of DRRE and the SPAB programme are generally

preparedness activities such as drill exercises, as observed in the preliminary introduction of the SSB

programme in Indonesia, for instance, in Sikka Regency in 2009.48 Performance of extra-curricular

45 Islami, Princess Mozart Della, Herman Lusa and Dalifa Dalifa, ‘Pengaruh Bahan Ajar Muatan Lokal Bencana Alam di

Bengkulu Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa di Kelas V’, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Dasar, vol. 1, no. 3, 2018, pp. 199–206. 46 Desfandi, Mirza, Kearifan Lokal “Smong” Dalam Konteks Pendidikan: Revitalisasi nilai sosial-budaya simeulue, Syiah

Kuala University Press, Banda Aceh, 2020. 47 Damsar and Indrayani, ‘Local Wisdom Based Disaster Education in Minangkabau Society’, MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 229, 2018. 48 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia and Yayasan

Puter Indonesia, ‘Cerita dari Maumere: Membangun Sekolah Siaga Bencana’, 2009; Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, ‘UNESCO Resmikan Sekolah Siaga Bencana di Maumere’, LIPI, 25 February 2009, <http://lipi.go.id/berita/unesco-resmikan-sekolah-siaga-bencana-di-maumere/4151>, accessed 29 April 2021.

http://lipi.go.id/berita/unesco-resmikan-sekolah-siaga-bencana-di-maumere/4151


70

activities and physical education can be combined and incorporated into routine disaster simulation

exercises (see Figure 18). This suggests that Pillar 3 of CSS is closely linked to Pillar 2.

Figure 18. Extra-curricular DRRE integration model

Scenario 1. DRRE is taught through separate extra-curricular activities

Scenario 2. Extra-curricular activities are combined with the subject of physical education to teach DRRE

Source: Author’s illustration.

A study in Aceh found that SPAB activities in the province are still dominated by extra-curricular

activities.49 Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, SPAB pilot schools in Sikka apparently continued to

implement extra-curricular activities with a modification to integrate the subject of physical

education by including disaster simulation exercises, occasionally run on a Saturday, over the course

of 2017–2018 (see Figure 18, Scenario 2). This approach has been observed consistently in both Aceh

and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta.

“Extra-curricular model can be divided into two sub-models: First, as separate

subject/unit; second, as an extra-curricular activity that is integrated into a

particular subject, such as sport [physical] education.”

– Representative of the Department of Education and Culture and FGD

participant

The Indonesian Scout Movement (Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia) and Indonesian Youth Red Cross

provide examples of DRRE being integrated into separate extra-curricular activities (see Figure 18,

Scenario 1). The research team observed that, in particular contexts, both organizations are

considered unique as they offer some form of DRRE that can complement school agendas. In such

49 Nurdin, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction in Education and the Secondary High School Science Curriculum’.

Extra-curricular activities

Physical education

subject

Extra-curricular activities

71

cases, the disaster education knowledge offered by the organization and the school may be quite

different, despite the input of both institutions intersecting with SPAB objectives (Pillars 2 and 3).

Thus far, integration of DRRE into the Scout system has been initiated by BNPB at the national level.

Figure 19 illustrates BNPB intervention activities on DRRE for Scouts, which in 2019 targeted 700

Scouts to receive technical guidance enabling them to become DRRE advocates for other students.

This evaluation assumes hypothetical coverage of 28,000 students resulting from this initiative,

based on the assumption by BNPB that a single student can ‘evangelize’ 40 students.

There are almost no studies regarding the Scout Movement’s role in strengthening SPAB

implementation and vice versa – that is, how to regularize DRRE in the Scout Movement.

Nevertheless, this evaluation found a strong association between Scout activities and earthquake-

focused DRRE, indicated by the fact that primary school students in Bengkulu City have gained some

skills such as the ability to perform emergency skills, such as first aid skills.50

Figure 19. Step-by-step implementation of Scout-based DRRE, 2019

Despite the incorporation of numerous disaster education-related extra-curricular activities into the

subject of physical education, this evaluation did not manage to ascertain a detailed picture of the

role of Indonesia’s sporting institutions in relation to the building of disaster resilience in schools.

Integration of disaster education into formal school, plus CBDRR

Historically, those NGOs focused mainly on child rights and development have been the strongest

proponents of CBDRR initiatives. Since 2007, such child-focused NGOs have started to integrate

50 Puspadiningrum, Delvia, Endang Widi Winarni and Hasnawati Hasnawati, ‘Ekstrakurikuler Pramuka Terintegrasi Siaga Bencana Gempa Bumi Terhadap Keterampilan Tanggap Bencana Siswa SD’, Jurnal PGSD: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, vol. 10, no. 2, 2017, pp. 73–78.

72

DRRE agendas into CBDRR activities. For example, in Rembang and Sikka, representatives of Plan

Indonesia have been working with local stakeholders at village level to facilitate numerous village

children’s forums that can play a role in disaster risk reduction forums at the village and district level.

In Palu, following the 2018 earthquake, several NGOs initiated communications regarding risk

management and safety at the community level, for example, by installing an information board at

various targeted schools, which was complemented by the distribution of banners and posters.

Research conducted by Oktari et al. suggests, however, the need for clarity when it comes to

developing a collaborative framework to build community resilience, such as among schools and

coastal communities in Banda Aceh.51 For example, CBDRR activities such as Disaster-resilient Village

(Desa Tangguh Bencana) can include SPAB implementation in general and DRRE in particular to

maintain connections between schools, communities and village administration.

Integration of disaster education into formal school, plus FBDRR

A narrative regarding FBDRR has become paramount among disaster risk reduction stakeholders in

recent years in Indonesia. The term FBDRR was first introduced by the leadership of BNPB. Despite it

being a compelling concept for both policymakers and academics, however, the FBDRR narrative has

not been translated into an executable formal policy framework for schools. Furthermore, the

commitment to leave no child behind – which, in theory, might target 62 million students in

Indonesia as well as 43 million family members – although shared by disaster management officials,

is challenging to put into practice.

At the school level, an awareness of the importance of reaching out to families is shared by many of

the teachers who participated in this research across the four provinces.

“The integration [of the SPAB programme] into curriculum runs smoothly. However, we also

inform other community members that in order to equip children about how to conduct

self-evacuation and how to save one[’s] life, the responsibility does not rest in schools and

teachers but also families and communities. In forums or meetings, we always take several

minutes to discuss disaster-related issue with participating parents. This disaster education

is not only for teachers and students, but also for parents. When children return home from

school, they put what they learn into practice, for example, washing hands at home.”


51 Oktari, Rina Suryani, et al., ‘A Conceptual Model of a School–community Collaborative Network in Enhancing Coastal

Community Resilience in Banda Aceh, Indonesia’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 12, 2015, pp. 300–310.

73

“We maximize the existing resources at school, then school attempts to transfer the disaster

knowledge to the students, in hope for applying it at home. Now, the students are also

capable of understanding and communicating disaster risks at school to other family

members.”


Integration of disaster education with pre-service training of state teachers

Efforts to ensure the integration of Pillar 3 in schools must not be limited only to schools.

Participants in the national workshop conducted for this evaluation pointed to the needs that should

be integrated into the training curricula of the Educational Institution for Education Personnel

(Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan), especially those for prospective state teachers.

Proponents of this idea indicated that state teachers could receive basic lessons regarding DRRE,

which suggests that DRRE should be an imperative of the pre-service training system for state

teachers. There are five main ways in which DRRE can be included in this system: leadership training;

transformation of pre-service professional education for teachers; local-level development of

teachers in relation to the learning ecosystem; training in social and collective education; and

institutional context, including regulation, management, and coordination with local governments.

This vision for disaster education does not stop at increasing the competencies of teachers. Rather, it

is more about whether teachers’ understanding of DRRE can be absorbed and put into practice by

students, making it easy to measure their learning achievements.

c. Effectiveness of local regulations

Regarding to what degree regulations at the subnational level can have an impact on the

implementation of DRRE as a routine activity in school, the answer may vary. For instance, in Aceh

Province, since the enactment of Governor of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam’s Decree regarding the

integration of DRRE into the curriculum (Instruksi Gubernur Provinsi NAD 2/2020), this requirement

has been only partially implemented by schools in Banda Aceh.52

Clarity of subnational regulations is vital because existing national regulations on disaster

management do not establish an imperatives for DRRE implementation in particular. Local actors in

Aceh who are currently drafting a qanun (equivalent to a provincial regulation) regarding disaster

education were aware of this problem. Indeed, up until the time this report was drafted,

stakeholders in Aceh were still striving for the enactment of a regulation, in a form of a qanun, that

envisions the requirement for local governments to allocate resources for DRRE.

52 Sakurai, Aiko, et al., ‘Exploring Minimum Essentials for Sustainable School Disaster Preparedness: A case of elementary

schools in Banda Aceh City, Indonesia’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 29, 2018, pp. 73–83.

74

In the Special Capital Region of Jakarta, schools that have been implementing DRRE – such as

Klender 21 primary school – started to receive support for such efforts from NGOs in 2019. Here,

DRRE has been adjusted to the local context. For example, to prevent fire, students learn how to use

electronic appliances safely and how to save water at school and at home to reduce how much is

taken from the environment. DRRE activities also extend to Pillar 2, through students’ involvement

in a fire simulation exercise run by the local fire department (Damkar) three times a year.

d. Models for the adoption of Pillar 3 only

Because it is difficult, practically, to initiate the implementation of all three pillars of CSS at all

schools, many actors have identified approaches that first and foremost encourage the adoption of

DRRE by schools.

Assisted school approach of NGOs

The research team discovered a fairly consistent finding that the initial experiment to introduce the

SPAB programme in Indonesia was initiated by child-focused NGOs (e.g., Plan Indonesia, Save the

Children, World Vision and ChildFund. This claim is verified by various respondents from all four

provinces in which the qualitative data collection took place (as well as by respondents from Central

Java and the Special Region of Yogyakarta).

Model school or champion school

Use of the ‘model school’ approach in the context of building the resilience of schools has been

adopted by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture (and its previous incarnations) over the

past few decades. The final version of the model school used by the Ministry of Education and

Culture is based on the school community members meeting the six criteria of being noble,

independent, critical, creative, cooperative and open-minded.53

In the DRRE context, model schools were recruited to perform certain disaster risk reduction

activities. The name ‘model school’ was then adapted to ‘pioneering school’ – as in, “in DRR [disaster

risk reduction] context, these pioneering schools are the model schools that have implemented

disaster risk reduction activities.”In the context of national quality development, pioneering school is

the preferred term.

53 See also: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, ‘Kemendikbud Selenggarakan Jambore Pandu Sekolah Model Tahun

2019’, Kemendikbud, March 2019, <www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2019/03/kemendikbud-selenggarakan-jambore-pandu-sekolah-model-tahun-2019>, accessed 29 April 2021.

https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2019/03/kemendikbud-selenggarakan-jambore-pandu-sekolah-model-tahun-2019


75

Targeted school approach

‘Targeted schools’ are the schools recruited to serve as the sites for pilot projects. It is an operational

term used by local government, with schools selected according to certain predefined criteria. For

example, in 2016, the Government of Sikka Regency recruited 10 targeted schools to implement DRR

education based on criteria such as the school is vulnerable to tsunami and earthquake; and the

school is located in a remote area.

In practice, this model and the two models preceding it have often been overlapped and/or

hybridized, because the selection of targeted schools is frequently based on which schools are

assisted by NGOs. This was observed among targeted schools in East Nusa Tenggara (in the Sikka and

South Central Timor regencies) and Central Sulawesi, where the process of recruiting the schools had

been carried out by the Department of Education and Culture in collaboration with assisting NGOs.

BNPB version of the ‘sister school’ model

Generally, the integration of the ‘sister school’ model has become an aspiration of BNPB wherever it

is committed to accelerating the integration and harmonization of disaster education with relevant

school subjects at all levels of education and for all types of hazards. It can be said that BNPB is

involved in the ‘direct selling’ of DRRE to schools. An example of sister school is that if there is a

primary school located in volcano eruption risk zone, there will be a school in the safe zone (the

sister school) assigned to serve as a backup if the community in the risk zone needs to evacuate due

to increase volcanic activity.

During the period 2015–2018, BNPB procedures for SPAB implementation consisted of 11 stages

combined with its Sister School programme. BNPB has set an ambitious target whereby the SPAB

adoption rate is increased such that by the end of 2024, all schools in Indonesia have adopted the

programme. This suggests that the 60 schools with Sister School status currently considered

successful – that is, they have independently adopted SPAB – will continue to grow by 120,000

schools annually to reach more than 600,000 Indonesian learning institutions (this figures combining

formal schools, non-formal schools, and informal learning institutions) by 31 December 2024.

“Before 2015, we communicated the programme as a broad package. Since 2015,

we have started to slice the SPAB programme into 11 stages in various places in

Indonesia. As part of 2015–2018 strategy, we collaborated with BPBDs and

various local Department of Education [and Culture] to conduct training and

immediately put the knowledge into practice at school. However, based on

lessons during these four years, we feel that the outcome of such trainings hasn’t

materialized as expected. We are also aware that only 60 schools continue the

76

programme independently until 2020. In 2019, we were forced to change the

strategy not only as a field executor but also as local coordinator through

networking, for example, Scout Movement, which is due to its massive network

and its volunteering nature, is able to sustain their activities without external

financial support.”

– Representative of BNPB and FGD participant

Eyeing the 2024 deadline, and supported by the commitment to leave no school behind, BNPB is

developing guidelines for the independent adoption of the SPAB programme (for use by schools

nationwide).54

BNPB also combines its Sister School programme with the Scout Movement’s Frontline initiative.

BNPB delivers action-based training of Scouts through the technical guidance approach, which is

carried out in seven cities. In each location, 35 prospective DRRE advocates are targeted, and by

2019, BNPB had trained 560 Scouts as advocates. Once trained, each advocate is then expected to

facilitate action in two schools. BNPB also has collaborated with the Scout Movement in 2019 in

developing a pocket guidebook aimed at guiding children to independently learn about disaster risk

reduction.

“They [the trained Scouts] later follow up on the training by visiting schools where they will

assist. We assume that each facilitator is in charge of assisting two schools and in school

with, let’s say, 100 students will bring a total of 28,000 students by the end of 2019. In

reality, this number might differ, but [we assume that] at least 50–70 per cent of all

facilitators have followed up on self-implementation of SPAB in the schools that they assist.”

– BNPB staff during National level FGD

Regarding how BNPB estimates the number and the successful contribution of SPAB facilitators, the

research team has no information on this matter.

4.4.3. Impact

a. Impact of SPAB-related regulations

The development of DRRE regulations in Indonesia is seen as positive progress, allowing the country

to move in a better direction. More commitments are required, however, to implement the Sendai

Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 in full by 2030. From 2007 until the end of 2020,

54 Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, Panduan Teknis Fasilitasi SPAB Bagi Fasilitator Pemula: Edisi fasilitasi

kelompok anak anak BNPB 2020. Untuk Indonesia yang tangguh bencana, BNPB, 2020.

77

at least 12 regulations on disaster management in general were enacted at the national level, plus

more than 500 such regulations at the provincial and district level. As at September 2020, however,

only 6 of the 34 Indonesian provinces have a regulation equivalent to a governor’s regulation or

provincial regulation that stipulates DRRE as an imperative. Fewer than 10 regencies and cities have

enacted regulations since 2008 to establish the DRRE agenda.

At the national level, the implementation rate for DRRE has increased from zero pre-2008 to 2,200

schools on average each year since 2008 (when SPAB implementation began). By 2019, the SPAB

programme – and with it, DRRE – had reached more than 27,000 Indonesian schools, which is about

10 per cent of the country’s primary and secondary schools. If early childhood education, special

education, community education and vocational schools are also included, this proportion falls to

only 4 per cent – which represents just 2.7 million of the 64 million students who need to be

reached.

In general, the readiness of schools to implement the SPAB programme is considered inadequate.

Policy coordination across provinces and regencies/cities is required to strengthen both SPAB

programming and implementation. DRRE itself needs to be scaled up significantly to inspire the

political will to develop DRRE-specific policies at the provincial and district level. Such policies are

needed to encourage local governments to allocate resources for DRRE and to grant teachers and

other education personnel adequate capacity and resources to implement DRRE and the SPAB

programme.

b. Institutional impact of the National and Joint Secretariats

Institutional achievement 1: Knowledge transfer by National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School

The National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School, which evolved from the National Secretariat of

Disaster-safe School/Madrasa in 2014, has made several positive impacts to date. These include the

development, production and distribution of DRRE capacity development materials and instruments

for schools, including facilitator training resources and regular documentation of best practices for

nationwide stakeholders.

The National Secretariat also functions as a platform for information dissemination and practical

knowledge transfer regarding DRRE implementation in Indonesia. With support from the Ministry of

Education and Culture, the National Secretariat also acts as an organizational hub and information

clearing house for Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa in the provinces and districts

that are interested in implementing the SPAB programme.

78

One of the important contributions made by the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School is the

increased number of learning resources on disaster education and the SPAB programme published

by stakeholders at the national level (see Box 1). For instance, the National Secretariat collaborates

with various ministerial institutions to develop learning materials that aim to facilitate DRRE

knowledge transfer.

A few local governments have taken the initiative to develop their own SPAB learning modules. Such

gestures need to be appreciated and seen as a positive outcome. For example, in Palu, the Joint

Secretariat of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa has been involved in devising a mitigation textbook

based on ‘local wisdom’, which is intended to be used as part of the school curriculum. Participation

in the production of modules can boost the self-efficacy of local stakeholders, which in turn can

provide positive motivation to promote DRRE.

Box 1. Selected list of guides to disaster education and the SPAB programme

• National Disaster Management Agency, Technical Guide to Disaster-safe School Facilitation

for Beginner Facilitators: Children’s group facilitation edition, National Disaster Management

Agency, 2020.

• Directorate of Disaster Risk Reduction, Don’t Panic! Good lessons from disaster, National

Disaster Management Agency, 2019. Available at: <https://bnpb.go.id/uploads/24/siaga-

bencana/buku-pembelajaran-spab-indo.pdf>, accessed 29 April 2021.

• Amri, Avianto, Disaster Resilient Education: Achieving Disaster-safe Schools in Indonesia,

National Disaster Management Agency, Ministry of Education and Culture and National

Secretariat of Disaster-Safe School, 2017.

• Deputy for Child Development, Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection,

A Guide to Child-friendly School, Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection,

2015. Available at: <https://sekolahramahanak.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/juknis-final-3-

2-16-1.pdf>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Institutional achievement 2: National and Joint Secretariats as a catalyst for implementation

The establishment of Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa at the provincial and district

level, as well as the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School, has functioned as a catalyst for

implementation of DRRE and the SPAB programme. For example, the absence of a Joint Secretariat

in Aceh is considered a problem by local stakeholders. Meanwhile, where Joint Secretariats do exist,

https://bnpb.go.id/uploads/24/siaga-bencana/buku-pembelajaran-spab-indo.pdf


https://sekolahramahanak.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/juknis-final-3-2-16-1.pdf


79

their role tends to depend on the presence and action of civil society, including through disaster risk

reduction forums/platforms.

Theoretically, Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa can act as agents of change,

especially at the district level. The process for establishing Joint Secretariats in regencies – despite its

paternalistic nature (i.e., the need to await an order from the province) – often runs without

significant difficulties. The number of Joint Secretariats at the district level remains limited, however.

For example, only 5 of the 22 regencies/cities in East Nusa Tenggara have a Joint Secretariat: Kupang

regency, Lembata, Nagekeo, Sikka and South Central Timor.

These five regencies are the regions of East Nusa Tenggara with the highest concentration of civil

society organizations (CSOs) that are active in disaster risk reduction activities in general and which

have had a particular focus on children’s rights since 2008. According to the patterns found in East

Nusa Tenggara, the establishment of Joint Secretariats in regencies/cities depends on the presence

and coordination of CSOs.

In East Nusa Tenggara Province, the tasks of the Joint Secretariat of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa

include, but are not limited to, efforts such as the mapping of natural hazards and their impacts on

the education sector. This particular Joint Secretariat is one of the active organizations in the

province that routinely conducts multi-stakeholder coordination. Participants of the multi-

stakeholder FGDs conducted in East Nusa Tenggara (on 9 July 2020) highlighted that the provincial

Joint Secretariat is also in charge of steering its district stakeholders and facilitating the

establishment of Joint Secretariats at the regency/city level.

Joint Secretariats can also advise governors on policy matters such as the legal basis for the

implementation of disaster education at the school level. For example, the Joint Secretariat for East

Nusa Tenggara Province has encouraged the enactment of the Decree of the Governor of East Nusa

Tenggara No. 33/KEP/HK/2017 regarding Provincial Joint Secretariat of Disaster-safe School and it

has encouraged regencies/cities in the province to do the same.

c. Growing number of academic studies on the SPAB programme in Indonesia

Despite a growing increase in the volume of research on the SPAB programme in Indonesia, the

literature review suggests that the majority of peer-reviewed articles are published in international

journals. There has also been an increase in the number of doctoral studies on disaster education in

Indonesia. Box 2 provides examples of the main focus of doctoral theses focusing on DRRE in

Indonesia, by researchers based in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland. The small number of PhD studies from Indonesia is unsurprising

80

considering the few incentives provided to Indonesian universities and research institutes to

research disaster education.

Box 2. Recent theses on disaster education

Anggaryani, Mita, ‘School-based DRR Program in Disaster-prone Areas: A case of Yogyakarta’ (PhD

thesis), Australian National University, Canberra (forthcoming).

Amri, Avianto, ‘Building Disaster-resilient Households through a School-based Education

Intervention with Children and Their Families’ (PhD thesis), Macquarie University, Sydney, 2020.

Nurdin, Nurmalahayati, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction in Education and the Secondary High School

Science Curriculum in Indonesia’ (PhD thesis), University College London, London, 2019.

Amri, Avianto, ‘Challenges in Implementing Disaster Risk Reduction Education: Views from the

frontline in Indonesia’ (Master’s thesis), Macquarie University, Sydney, 2015.

Tuswadi, Takehiro Hayashi, ‘Disaster Management and Prevention Education for Volcanic Eruption:

A case of Merapi area primary schools in Java Island, Indonesia’ (PhD thesis), Hiroshima University,

Hiroshima, 2014.

Sulistyaningrum, Eny, ‘Human Capital Outcomes for Children: The impact of school subsidies and

natural disasters’ (PhD thesis), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 2013.

Taylor, Heather Lynne, ‘Children’s experiences of flooding in Surakarta, Indonesia’ (PhD thesis),

Massey University, Wellington, 2011.

Anecdotally, some of these studies have contributed to the process of devising guides and technical

instructions, including for SPAB programme development in the regions, by expanding the variety of

information, education and communication resources available as a by-product of the research. To

what extent such academic works have contributed to nationwide policies regarding SPAB in

Indonesia needs to be further investigated, however.

4.4.4. Continuity

a. Effective regulation is prerequisite for continuity

The continuity of the SPAB programme – and hence integration of DRRE into Indonesian schools –

depends on regulatory and institutional schemes at the district level. Despite criticisms that

81

implementation of the SPAB programme is still largely limited to pilot projects, the research team

argues that strong regulations, complemented by political will and effective leadership, can become

the foundation for regencies/cities and schools to routinely promote SPAB activities.

Regulations around disaster management have increased in recent years, with up to 500 regulations

at various levels now in place. These regulatory efforts have been followed by the formation of

formal institutions that engage in disaster management in general. Unfortunately, however, this

regulatory framework is still considered insufficient for promoting SPAB implementation.

Therefore, there is a need for a better SPAB regulatory architecture in Indonesia. This also requires

the integration and harmonization of regulatory and legal frameworks at all levels, which can lead to

a more comprehensive institutional mechanism for the SPAB programme at both the national and

subnational level. In addition, the routine allocation of incentives at the local level is vital. Once

greater awareness of the programme has been achieved, this should be followed by more ambitious

demands to develop SPAB programming and implementation in a more systematic way.

b. The presence of NGOs is a vital catalyst for SPAB implementation

The presence of NGOs acts as a catalyst that accelerates the adoption and implementation of

disaster education. Champion schools in multi-pillar SPAB implementation that participated in the

national and regional FGDs testified that the role of NGOs is important in capturing schools’ interest

in adopting SPAB as an integral part of routine teaching–learning processes (see Box 3). The

evaluation findings suggest that NGOs play a critical role in securing the interest and commitment of

school communities and local governments. This can be observed consistently in Aceh, Central

Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta (see Box 4).

Another example of efforts to ensure the continuity of the SPAB programme is the process of

formulating a SPAB curriculum in Sikka Regency, as carried out by Yayasan Flores Sejahtera (SANRES)

and Plan Indonesia. SPAB implementation is carried out constantly in targeted schools that have

received SPAB ‘socialization’ and education on disaster-safe schools by the Sikka branch of SANRES.

The role of CSOs that have a multi-level structure – such as Muhammadiyah, which owns numerous

schools in almost all provinces of Indonesia – is of strategic partner. In 2020, BNPB forged a formal

partnership with Muhammadiyah and the Hizbul Wathan Scout Movement (an organization under

the auspices of Muhammadiyah). The aim was to conduct a pilot project in four regencies/cities in

collaboration with Hizbul Wathan. This would target the appointment of 40 Scouts to facilitate SPAB

implementation, each of whom would then target 100 more students.

82

Box 3. NGO support for SPAB implementation at a champion school

School’s independence in implementing the SPAB programme can be an outcome of productive

interaction among multiple parties including NGOs and local government. Ernaningtyastuti, the head

teacher of Muhammadiyah Insan Kreatif Kembaran (MIKK) primary school, Bantul, shared this view:

“Manifestation of Disaster-safe School can be self-funded, and we must not wait for any parties to

start SPAB. SPAB can also be carried out by collaborating with other parties and making use of other

relevant local actors and in this context, we collaborate with KYPA [Komite Yogyakarta untuk

Pemulihan Aceh], a local NGO in Yogyakarta. We regularly implement SPAB without disrupting

teaching–learning activities because it can be done as extra-curricular activities; and the key to

success for this initiative requires solidarity of all school community members and collaboration with

external parties. The challenge we face during the implementation of SPAB can be addressed with

gotong royong [communal work] as a school community. Activities can be conducted in short time

with good intensity and supported by enthusiasm of school community members.”

c. School accreditation system as a ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factor in SPAB adoption

The school accreditation system has become a push factor in the adoption of the SPAB programme,

including the integration of disaster education in schools. The design of both push and pull measures

in regard to SPAB adoption needs to be done creatively and based on evidence.

School accreditation, using eight operational standards of education, is often carried out at schools

by a school supervisor. In the Special Capital Region of Jakarta, the presence of a supervisor is

considered an important variable in encouraging SPAB adoption in schools. The school supervisor

often functions as an enforcement officer, demanding compliance with the accreditation system.

In East Nusa Tenggara, there is evidence that schools that are not receiving any SPAB programme

intervention (from either NGOs or government), decided to develop disaster education as well as

disaster preparedness activities because the accreditation process requires proof that the school has

implemented the principles of the safe school. For instance, Yasinta Sogen, the head teacher of

Kupang Montessori School, stated that her school has prepared a compliance process for school

accreditation because the standards call for a checklist of the following five aspects: “availability of

tools, evacuation routes, evacuation maps, assembly point signs, and disaster prevention.”

Experience from a school for children with disabilities in Kupang City suggests that accreditation can

be seen as a punitive measure, because SPAB requirements – which the school cannot always meet

– are included in the accreditation checklist. Schools are at risk of not being accredited because they

cannot comply with both disaster-friendly and disability-friendly accessibility; no evacuation route

83

can take into account all types of disability.

Box 4. The NGO’s role in SPAB implementation: Stories from the East Nusa Tenggara Community

Association for Disaster Management

• The Community Association for Disaster Management initiated the SPAB programme in 2012,

involving several pilot schools in South Central Timor Regency, working in partnership with Plan

Indonesia. Since 2015, the programme has involved the regional office and other relevant

partners. Many activities regarding SPAB implementation have yet to be conducted, but those

initiatives actioned to date have delivered quite satisfactory outputs in East Nusa Tenggara.

• In conducting activities, the Community Association collaborates with several key district offices,

such as the Department of Education and Culture, District Office of the Ministry of Religious

Affairs, Department of Public Works and Housing, and BPBD, to discuss plans for SPAB in East

Nusa Tenggara.

• Many more activities are yet to be conducted owing to the large area to be covered. In East Nusa

Tenggara, the Department of Education and Culture, District Office of the Ministry of Religious

Affairs and others have devised an educational module for disaster prevention and risk

reduction. This learning module, created especially for primary schools, was devised by

government in collaboration with teachers (from Kupang City, Kupang Regency and South

Central Timor Regency).

• The learning module is being used by partners such as ChildFund in targeted schools, reaching a

total of more than 100 schools.

• A monitoring tool devised by the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School – with involvement

from regional offices; partners; teachers from Kupang City, Kupang Regency and South Central

Timor Regency; and the Provincial Government of East Nusa Tenggara – has been funded by Plan

Indonesia. This monitoring tool has been tested in several places and is now undergoing a

finalization process. A local academic has observed the results of Pillar 1 implementation, while

the results of Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 implementation – adjusted to the local context – can be

observed by all of the community. The module is currently available from the National

Secretariat, and has been used in South Central Timor Regency as well as in other regencies,

though with limited resources. In-depth physical development activities have not been

established, but socialization activities have been held as part of capacity building activities with

schools.

• During a hearing with the Regional House of Representatives of South Central Timor Regency,

84

the Community Association asked the Department of Education and Culture whether or not the

SPAB programme had been followed up for continued implementation. Also, during a hearing

with Commission IV of the Regional House of Representatives, which has been engaged in this

issue, the Community Association asked the Department of Education and Culture, the

Department of Public Works and Housing and BPBD to formulate a plan to construct schools in

South Central Timor that are physically safe from disaster using the dedicated Special Allocation

Fund. The commitment from the stakeholders has encouraged the Community Association to

continue to help school community members to realize their right to feel safe and comfortable

at school.

• In 2016, the Department of Education and Culture issued a circular letter regarding the SPAB

programme to all heads of department in the regencies/cities, but its implementation requires

further investigation.

• Kupang City, Kupang Regency, South Central Timor Regency and various regencies/cities on

Flores Island and Sumba Island have approved an initiative on SPAB that receives assistance

from ChildFund. In fact, several regencies/cities have conducted a capacity-building programme

at the school level, for instance, to form a disaster alert team at schools. The data gathered have

yet to be analysed in full because they fail to show how many schools or teachers participate in

this initiative. There has been an attempt to organize the data among relevant institutions, but

the data finalization process has yet to be carried out.

• The Joint Secretariat of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa of East Nusa Tenggara Province has

identified the red, yellow and green hazard risk zones in the province and mapped these

accordingly. This is a major improvement on the situation in 2008.

d. The development of provincial- and district-level learning modules

The development of SPAB-related learning materials by multiple parties in the regions can be

considered an overlapping activity. Based on consultation with province-level stakeholders,

however, the research team found that the process of developing training material in collaboration

with champion teachers of disaster education is a positive process. This is because the opportunity

to develop these modules is an opportunity to learn as well as to improve regional capacity.

The challenge, however, lies in how local government and stakeholders of the Joint Secretariat can

continuously upgrade or update such modules to include the latest knowledge and good practices.

85

4.4.5. Innovation

Innovations can take the form of products, processes or systems. There is a variety of innovations

related to implementation of Pillar 3 through the SPAB programme:

• Adoption of a self-supporting disaster risk reduction programme by schools is a possibility

and should be acknowledged as a ‘business model’ for sustainable SPAB implementation.

MIKK primary school in Bantul has been able to form a disaster alert team that is assigned to

perform the tasks related to Pillars 1, 2 and 3. MIKK also develops an annual work plan that

is updated regularly with clear performance targets. MIKK is a champion school and its

adoption of DRRE and SPAB is seen as endogenous as the school is not assisted by an

international NGO. MIKK has, however, built good collaboration with a local NGO in

developing a self-supporting SPAB programme.

• One experience from the Special Capital Region of Jakarta suggests that there is a knowledge

transfer mechanism among schools that can be developed as a model of SPAB

implementation to complement other, predominantly top-down models. For example, Hati

Kudus Primary and Secondary School in Jakarta has conducted disaster simulation exercises

and invited other schools to observe them, to provide a benchmark or reference that can be

adjusted to individual school conditions. Such a strategy of involving other schools (including

schools for children with disabilities) represents a knowledge-sharing activity that can be

used to help implement Pillars 2 and 3.

• Another innovative strategy is to deliver messages (materials) repeatedly and consistently.

In Aceh, there is a practice of establishing associations (paguyuban) of schools, which come

together to conduct a joint disaster simulation exercise once a year on National Disaster

Preparedness Day, 26 April.

• The existence of Joint Secretariats at the provincial and district level can be a catalyst for the

local adoption of the SPAB programme. A provincial-level Joint Secretariat can serve as an

agent of change, especially in encouraging change at the regency/city level.

• Partnership and cooperation among Joint Secretariats at the district level and NGOs is a key

factor in accelerating the adoption and implementation of the SPAB programme in schools.

Champion schools that implement multiple pillars of CSS serve as an example of how

collaboration between local government and NGOs can help to make SPAB an integral part

of teaching–learning processes. This can be seen in almost all areas in Aceh, Central

Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara, the Special Capital Region of Jakarta and the Special Region of

Yogyakarta.

86

• Disaster education or DRRE can be carried out at the household level using games and

alternative learning tools. The various learning media related to DRRE that have emerged in

Indonesia since the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 offer hope. Few of them are targeted at

families, although the PREDIKT range of games and learning tools, developed by the PREDIKT

team – of which co-founded by Avianto Amri who is part of the research team– has received

many awards as an innovative model of disaster education for families in Indonesia.


Implementation gaps related to teaching and administrative loads need to be addressed for DRRE

to be effectively integrated into schools. This research consistently found gaps at school level that

need to be resolved. First, there are still basic competencies missing compiled by the Ministry of

Education and Culture for delivery of DRRE. Heavy teaching loads for teachers make them feel that

their administrative and academic loads are already too high. When new learning materials are

added to this load, such as for disaster education, teachers have to rethink how to cope with the

demands. And when disaster education learning materials are not as simple and straightforward as

they could be, this creates a new burden for teachers and students.

Another implementation gap concerns the use of innovative learning media for disaster education in

remote areas – sometimes the physical and digital infrastructure is simply not in place to allow this.

Furthermore, limited human resources capacity – especially the capacity of teachers in remote areas

in relation to SPAB implementation – has become a fundamental problem over the last decade or so.

To overcome such implementation gaps calls for an agenda that more systematically encourages

individual school communities to promote DRRE independently.55

“The challenge of SPAB implementation includes teachers’ load in synergizing disaster-

related education into existing learning materials. Many teachers felt that they don’t have

any relevant capacity because those who are usually assigned are PE [physical education] or

sport teachers or teachers appointed by school principals. Other challenges are teachers’

unequal commitment and confidence in promoting SPAB implementation.”

–Researcher, based in Aceh province

Head teachers have discretionary power to approve or reject the SPAB agenda. Experience shows

that school leadership is a vital variable in ensuring SPAB implementation in schools.

Implementation of the SPAB programme can only be achieved by schools if there is commitment

55 Nurdin, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction in Education and the Secondary High School Science Curriculum’.

87

from the school leadership and management to do so. Leadership is key to SPAB adoption by

schools.

School budget capacity for SPAB implementation is crucial. Disaster risks at school are real for

students and teachers, and it takes budget and non-budget commitments from the local Department

of Education and Culture for each school to implement the SPAB programme. Budget allocation is a

problem that schools often find it difficult to raise. This was confirmed by policymakers at both the

local and central government level. In the Special Capital Region of Jakarta, the Education Office has

not routinely included SPAB needs in the School Activity and Budget Plan (Rencana Kegiatan dan

Anggaran Sekolah).

DRRE financing at the school level is considered important, but it is not the main variable in ensuring

the sustainability of disaster education. In the Special Capital Region of Jakarta, while independent

integration of DRRE into schools is seen as a possibility, teachers see that “what is the most

important is teachers’ awareness of the urgency of DRRE. Low awareness resulted in unsustainable

PPRB [Disaster Risk Reduction Education]”.

National coordination of DRRE and SPAB interventions is important to avoid the overlapping of

interventions among the many organizations involved in the process of establishing DRRE.

Overlapping is understood as either a ‘waste of resources’ or a redundancy. Because of the resource

limitations that affect SPAB implementation, more effective coordination will ensure a more even

distribution of interventions across disaster-prone areas.

There is a need to integrate interventions across CSS pillars, particularly those for Pillars 2 and 3.

For example, the concept of constructive alignment, used to treat DRRE (Pillar 3) as an extra-

curricular activity that aims to develop cognitive and motor skills, can be combined with disaster

simulation exercises in the classroom and evacuation drills (Pillar 2). In her PhD research, Anggaryani

(forthcoming) found that there is a risk that disaster simulation exercises emphasize the hysteria

aspect of drills more than the precise risk knowledge to be learned.

Optimism bias (complacency) is a phenomenon that requires further research. The experience of

Inpres Saint Yosef primary school in Sikka Regency provides an example of optimism bias: The school

independently tried to jointly implement Pillars 2 and 3 during the period 2016–2017 continuously

on a weekly basis. Because the stakeholders did the activities at school routinely, they felt safer and

more confident – but as a result, they started to reduce the activities. It is important to study this

phenomenon to uncover whether it is indeed the result of optimism bias (complacency) caused by

overconfidence, or due to the fatigue phenomenon.

88

Dedicated attention must be paid to the integration of DRRE with special education, as well as to

the inclusion agenda. Disaster education for children and adolescents with learning disabilities

demands special consideration because these individuals require a lot of repetitions in learning

scenarios. Generally, in schools, accessibility for students with special needs and disabilities is

inadequate to enable them to experience the disaster education process in full. This was observed in

both East Nusa Tenggara and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta.

An inclusive approach needs to be applied across all variables, including gender, disability, education

level and equal opportunities to be actively involved in the SPAB programme. Additional notes from

the FGD show that child participation in SPAB implementation is still partial. For example:

“During simulation, students were involved but not all of them – it’s only

students’ representatives.”

– Teacher, Central Sulawesi

Some key informants reported that the SPAB programme strategy has, in general, been ineffective in

inclusively mobilizing all students.

A child-centred DRRE agenda is required. The researchers observed that the approach of local

government, especially BPBD, tends to be to ‘preach’ disaster knowledge to students. The approach

remains ‘teacher-centric’ or ‘trainer-centric’, with schools and/or children treated as passive

recipients of knowledge.

This attitude was demonstrated by one FGD participant when discussing the event of ‘dakwah

bencana’ (disaster preaching) held by BPBD at schools in East Sumba Regency, East Nusa Tenggara:

“What we have done, in the National Disaster Preparedness Day, we conducted earthquake

evacuation drill at schools from elementary to senior high schools, and we also conducted

disaster simulations on earthquake, cyclone/typhoon, etc.”

– BPBD staff based in East Nusa Tenggara province

89

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion

This evaluation is the first research study to comprehensively analyse the three pillars of CSS at a

macro level (i.e., national level) as well as at a micro level (i.e., schools). The following key findings

emerged from this research.

Innovations of SPAB implementation

The establishment of the National Secretariat of Disaster-safe School and the Joint Secretariats of

Disaster-safe School/Madrasa can be seen as an institutional innovation to catalyse and strengthen

coordination, collaboration and cooperation among multiple stakeholders. The National Secretariat

also facilitates improved resource mobilization (i.e., funding, human resources, knowledge and tools)

and capacity building. The National Secretariat also initiated collaboration with external parties to

incorporate into schools existing programmes such as School Scouts, Disaster Preparedness Cadets,

the Indonesian Youth Red Cross and the Hizbul Wathan Scout Movement to expand the coverage of

SPAB promotion.

Civil society and central government have achieved important outcomes such as policy advocacy at

both the national and local level – in particular, the 12 national regulations on disaster management

enacted since 2007.

Institutional progress also includes the development of the school accreditation system to include

SPAB-related indicators, which push schools to comply with the SPAB agenda.

In October 2020, BNPB and the Ministry of Education and Culture together launched an application

to monitor and supervise implementation of the SPAB programme. If this goes ahead, the two

government bodies will play an important part in mapping those schools in each region that have

implemented, and are still implementing, the SPAB programme.

SPAB implementation can also be achieved through alternative pathways such as CBDRR, through

frameworks such as Disaster Preparedness Village (Kampung Siaga Bencana) or Disaster-resilient

Village (Desa Tangguh Bencana), and also FBDRR. Initiatives such as Disaster-resilient Family

(Keluarga Tangguh Bencana) provide an entry point to include schools in programme interventions.

Recognizing champion schools and teachers, and facilitating SPAB-related festivals and competitions

are also important ways to inspire and motivate more schools to implement the SPAB programme.

Unequal achievement of Pillars 1, 2 and 3 at different levels of education

90

Schools that are directly supervised by the Ministry of Education and Culture, especially primary

schools, have been the key adopters of the SPAB programme. Overall, SPAB remains scarcely

implemented in early childhood education, at upper secondary level and in vocational schools.

Implementations of the equivalent programme for madrasas (SMAB) as well as SPAB

implementation in non-formal education settings (i.e., learning activity centres and community

learning activity centres) remains rudimentary. The focus of SPAB implementation has typically been

skewed towards Pillar 2 and Pillar 3; fewer institutions and actors have engaged with Pillar 1.

The quality of the SPAB programme depends on the capacity of teachers. Consequently, the capacity

building of teachers is critical to the implementation of the SPAB programme. Technical guidance

and strategy for teachers and other education personnel needs to be structurally, systematically,

massively, and sustainably implemented and disseminated. There is a need to use methods that can

improve teachers’ confidence to conduct SPAB activities, including to deliver disaster education

flexibly and independently.

SPAB actors are predominantly from central government and CSOs

For more than a decade, SPAB actors have predominantly been based in central government and

CSOs. Local government and the private sector should assume more important roles in the

programme. This evaluation found that head teachers have a significant role in sustaining SPAB

activities on the ground in schools, while local governments can play an important part in extending

both the scope and replication of the programme.

Central government has provided policies, various guidelines and good practices that support the

SPAB programme. Unfortunately, local governments have not taken on board innovations in school

risk assessment to inform policy decisions regarding the placement of new schools or post-disaster

school reconstruction. It appears that local government remains ignorant of school risk mapping.

Inclusion of regions and schools remains erratic

Current policy has prioritized implementation of the SPAB programme in 3T regions (frontier,

outermost and disadvantaged regions) and in post-disaster regions, to recover disaster-safe school

facilities and infrastructure. An inclusive approach to programme implementation has not been

taken, however. This is needed in particular to ensure SPAB adoption in special education and the

involvement of children and adolescents with special needs and disabilities in disaster education and

other SPAB activities.

Based on the results of the pillar by pillar analysis, this evaluation offers recommendations for each

pillar, as follows.

91

5.2. Recommendations for Pillar 1

5.2.1. Recommendations at the national level

Progress of SPAB implementation in schools depends on the ability of central government to build

an effective monitoring and evaluation system. Participation by schools in the national effort to

monitor and evaluate SPAB implementation is essential. Hence, at the national level, the formulation

of regulations needs to be complemented by a monitoring and evaluation system that can be scaled

down for use at the school level, where data are more accurate and reliable.

Regulations, standards and codes of school safety (e.g., SNI 1726 on seismic design, Ministry of

Education and Culture SPAB regulations) as well as guidelines related to SPAB already exist, but

aggressive communication of disaster risks and policies and more ambitious implementation plans at

the local level are recommended. This includes the effective communication by central government

of existing information and data, such as through the integration of DAPODIK data and InaRISK

mapping.

Efforts to increase capacity are crucial, especially the formation of national and local expert systems

pertinent to Pillar 1 implementation. These expert systems, which are vital to encourage the

strengthening of synergies among stakeholders involved in Pillar 1 activities, should be integrated

into the Joint Secretariats at the provincial and district level. This will also support the strengthening

and sustainability of data collection and assessment related to school facilities and infrastructure –

whether to determine building quality and safety or to serve as the basis for implementing

retrofitting and maintenance or the issuance of a school building Certificate of Worthiness.

At the national level, there is a need to ensure the fuller adoption of hazard mitigation management

codes and national safety standards. This includes ensuring that schools meet the criteria and

procedures for safe school facilities and infrastructure that can cope with multiple hazards, such as

flood, tornado, landslide, volcanic eruption and tsunami.

Product and process innovations related to the structural safety of school facilities and infrastructure

must be continuously developed and improved. These innovations may make use of the latest IT

and/or build upon existing mechanisms such as the MONEV SPAB application and other new apps

like VISUS and STEP-A.

Strategies for the monitoring and evaluation of Pillar 1 implementation can be linked to a solid

implementation plan that includes short-, medium- and long-term targets for realizing Pillar 1.

92

5.2.2. Recommendations at the local level

In the context of regional autonomy and the decentralization of disaster governance, national-level

SPAB policies and regulations need to be ‘activated’ or adopted by local government through the

drafting of new regulations at the provincial and district level. NGOs and central government can

facilitate local processes that lead to the enactment of local-level SPAB regulations. These

regulations should enable local governments to set up local institutional mechanisms to support the

SPAB programme, including incentives to sustain efforts to implement Pillar 1.

The presence of Joint Secretariats of Disaster-safe School/Madrasa can act as a catalyst for effective

SPAB implementation. The establishment of a new Joint Secretariat by a local government should be

accompanied by coordination and collaboration with the actors involved in Pillar 1, including the

experts, professional associations, and academics.

Local governments should also put more efforts and resources into ensuring compliance with

building codes and the enforcement of Certificates of Worthiness.

5.2.3. Recommendations at the school level

At the school level, head teachers and other school leaders need to optimize the use of BOS funds

and other alternative financing to support the realization of disaster-safe school infrastructure.

Self-implementation of the SPAB programme needs to be encouraged by school leaders, with the

support of teachers, parents and students.


5.3.1. Recommendations for central government

Central government agencies such as the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Religious

Affairs and BNPB need to have a comprehensive strategic implementation plan and road map with

ambitious but plausible targets. Revision of the SPAB road map for the period 2020–2024 is

necessary. The Regulation of Minister of Education and Culture no. 33/2018 can be tweaked and

adapted to local needs and contexts. In addition, the Ministry of Education and Culture and BNPB

should coordinate with the Ministry of Internal Affairs to make the SPAB programme a compulsory

policy framework; this should include the mandatory establishment of Joint Secretariats of Disaster-

safe School/Madrasa by local governments at both the provincial and district level.

93

A more ambitious and steady allocation of annual budget to finance the SPAB agenda nationwide is

imperative. A national pool of SPAB programme funds should be made available, which local

governments can access to help pay for infrastructure and activities to strengthen SPAB

implementation.

Greater innovation, including in the use of IT, is needed to disseminate information and build

capacity on DRRE. SPAB learning modules, technical guidelines and other child-friendly materials can

be developed and distributed to schools. In addition, strategic partnership needs to be developed

among multiple stakeholders, for example, the Ministry of Education and Culture, BNPB, the

Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Red Cross Society of Indonesia,

Basarnas, Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia, the Indonesian Mosque Council and religious organizations

that manage schools.

5.3.2. Recommendations for local governments

Local governments, through the Education Office, the District Office of the Ministry of Religious

Affairs and BPBD, need to formulate policies according to the needs and context of their respective

regions. SPAB implementation plans should be developed based on local needs and priorities. More

direct assistance should be given to schools, whether regularly or continuously; this includes

allocation of budget for the development of facilities, for training and for outreach work. Schools can

also be incentivized to implement the SPAB programme through various creative activities such as

joint disaster simulation exercises, competitions, consultation mechanisms, training of educators

and child-centred activities.

Open collaboration is also recommended with other, non-state actors, including NGOs, appropriate

professional institutions (e.g., Teachers Association of the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesian

Teachers Association, Indonesian Independent Teachers Federation) and various private actors.

To sustain SPAB implementation, training of teachers and members of the school leadership is highly

recommended.

5.3.3. Recommendations for schools

The school leadership and management can be more cooperative with all members of the school

community, including the school committee and parents, and also the wider community. Head

teachers need to prepare and issue a decree that stipulates the formation of a disaster alert team as

well as school SOPs for what to do before, during and after a disaster event. The SOPs should cover

94

the development of simulation and evaluation plans and the instalment of evacuation signage.

Schools should take a proactive approach to remind local governments that their support and

facilitation of SPAB implementation is required. Stronger bonds with parents and communities are

needed to achieve the SPAB programme objectives at school, at home and in the community.

Schools need to carry out a disaster risk assessment that includes a hazard assessment and risk

mapping, and identification of disaster preparedness needs and equipment in line with the existing

hazards and local context. Schools need to ensure that all members of the school community can

access knowledge and information about the various hazards and disaster risks.

All members of the school community, including the school committee and parents, should be

encouraged to participate in disaster simulation exercises. The simulation can be done

independently or in collaboration with another organization such as BPBD, the fire department, the

police department, the military, the Red Cross Society of Indonesia or another NGO with SPAB

expertise.

5.3.4. Recommendations for non-government institutions and NGOs

Support from non-government institutions and NGOs in implementing the SPAB programme is, of

course, very much needed, whether provided to government ministries or agencies, or directly to

schools. Support from NGOs most often takes the form of technical assistance (e.g., assisting

government and schools in formulating policies, modules and technical guidelines) and capacity

development. In addition, support can also be provided for technological innovation, with the aim of

achieving more equitable dissemination of information and knowledge. NGOs can also participate in

strengthening monitoring and evaluation frameworks, both at the national and local level as well as

directly with schools.


5.4.1. Recommendations for central government

Linking the MONEV SPAB application with decision-making at the national, local and school level is

crucial. The monitoring and evaluation agenda has emerged as a priority for stakeholders at both the

national and local level. The challenge is how a monitoring and evaluation mechanism like MONEV

SPAB can be implemented such that it becomes a tool for immediate decision-making, which in turn

empowers local governments and schools.

95

The MONEV SPAB system can also be further developed by adding a mechanism to track data from

school capacity assessments. Knowing which teachers are already trained or experienced in SPAB

implementation can, for example, provide a bank of experiences on which to draw to inform

updates to the SPAB programme design.

5.4.2. Recommendations for local governments

Local governments need to develop a systematic work plan for SPAB implementation, by switching

from the targeted schools approach to an approach that can cover all schools and is comprehensive.

Children and adolescents are mobile and may move between schools – so even those students who

have previously been exposed to the SPAB programme may not necessarily remain in safe areas.

Local governments (whether at the provincial or district level) need to encourage the development

of a knowledge transfer mechanism for regular use by schools. This should be effectively moderated

and used to share and promote innovations for SPAB implementation in line with local needs.

To overcome the lack of teacher understanding regarding DRRE and the inability to effectively

integrate DRRE into learning, a SPAB-related learning ecosystem should be created for teachers in

each province. Both the Center for Development and Empowerment of Teachers and Other

Education Personnel Institution (Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan Tenaga

Kependidikan or P4TK) and the Educational Quality Assurance Institution (Lembaga Penjaminan

Mutu Pendidikan) should be encouraged to be involved in this process. Regional members of the

Consortium for Disaster Education can also encourage local governments to create permanent

solutions to increase teachers’ capacities in relation to DRRE.

Local governments also have an important role to play in encouraging integration of the SPAB and

FBDRR agendas. Here, the approach of promoting DRRE among families should lead to parents

demanding safe schools for their children. The local Education Office and Joint Secretariat of

Disaster-safe School/Madrasa need to periodically and proactively take the initiative to carry out

comprehensive evaluations in all disaster management integration lines in the region’s schools.

5.4.3. Recommendations for schools

Schools play an important role in periodically updating the DRRE curriculum content, and adopting it

in lesson plans, so that teaching continues to align with the current risk, hazard and vulnerability

context. For example, climate change has already brought about many changes in the nature of

hazards and vulnerabilities around the world. Natural hazards that affect Indonesia, such as

96

hurricane and cyclone, may change in their characteristics and patterns. As a result, school risk

profiles should also be updated and students made aware of the changes.

A special agenda is needed to strengthen schools’ involvement in educating communities to

anticipate and prepare for disasters and crises. With so many observers and implementers of school-

based disaster education at work in Indonesia, standards for learning/educational materials need to

be compiled and harmonized.

Schools need to create champions at three levels. First, at the school leadership level. Second, at the

level of teachers. And third, at student level. Experience suggests that school leaders exercise

discretion regarding the implementation of disaster management. According to teachers who

participated in the research, head teachers who has been trained on the SPAB programme (provided

by the local government leadership) were expected to be responsive to this information.

Schools also need to envisage various financing scenarios for SPAB implementation, using a range of

channels. For example, it is important that a school understands how it can use BOS funds for SPAB

activities and how such use can be permitted by central government. In theory, BOS funds can be

used to support SPAB-related efforts to increase teacher capacity, improve school facilities and

infrastructure, and raise awareness of disaster risk reduction among the school community. Schools

can also use alternative sources of funding such as village funds or the private sector.

97

REFERENCES

Adiyoso, Wignyo, and Hidehiko Kanegae, ‘The Effect of Different Disaster Education Programs on Tsunami Preparedness among Schoolchildren in Aceh, Indonesia’, Disaster Mitigation of Cultural Heritage and Historic Cities, vol. 6, July 2012, pp. 165–172.

Anggaryani, Mita, ‘School-based DRR Program in Disaster-prone Areas: A case of Yogyakarta’

(PhD thesis), Australian National University, Canberra (forthcoming). Amri, Avianto, ‘Building Disaster-resilient Households through a School-based Education

Intervention with Children and Their Families’ (PhD thesis), Macquarie University, Sydney, 2020.

Amri, Avianto, ‘Challenges in Implementing Disaster Risk Reduction Education: Views from the

frontline in Indonesia’ (Master’s thesis), Macquarie University, Sydney, 2015.

Amri, Avianto, Disaster Resilient Education: Achieving Disaster-safe Schools in Indonesia, National Disaster Management Agency, Ministry of Education and Culture and National Secretariat of Disaster-Safe School, 2017.

ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative (ASSI). (2020). ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative: Enhancing The

Enabling Environment For Education Continuity In Multi-Hazard Settings In ASEAN. ASEAN

Safe Schools Initiative.

https://www.preventionweb.net/files/69899_assiresearchoneducationcontinuityin.pdf

Back, Emma, Catherine Cameron and Thomas Tanner, Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Taking stock and moving forward, Children in a Changing Climate – Research, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK, 2009.

Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, ‘Data Dan Informasi Bencana Indonesia (DIBI)’, 2019,

<http://dibi.bnpb.go.id>, accessed 1 August 2020.

Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana. “Data Informasi Bencana Indonesia (Dibi),” 2019.

http://dibi.bnpb.go.id/DesInventar/profiletab.jsp?countrycode=id&lang=ID&datalng=LL.

Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, Panduan Teknis Fasilitasi SPAB Bagi Fasilitator

Pemula: Edisi fasilitasi kelompok anak anak BNPB 2020. Untuk Indonesia yang tangguh bencana, BNPB, 2020.

Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timor, Rencana Strategis 2019–

2023, Kupang, 2019. Beritagar.id, ‘Fakta Musibah Kebakaran di DKI Jakarta’, 19 October 2017,

<https://beritagar.id/artikel/infografik/musibah-kebakaran-di-dki-jakarta-dalam-angka>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Burnham, Joy J., et al., ‘Examining Children’s Fears in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina’,

Journal of Psychological Trauma, vol. 7, no. 4, 2008, pp. 253–275.

http://dibi.bnpb.go.id/

https://beritagar.id/artikel/infografik/musibah-kebakaran-di-dki-jakarta-dalam-angka

98

CNN Indonesia, ‘Bencana Puting Beliung Paling Sering Terjadi di RI Pada 2019’, 27 December 2019, <www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20191227180652-199-460519/bencana-puting-beliung-paling-sering-terjadi-di-ri-pada-2019>, accessed 29 April 2021.

CNN Indonesia, ‘Gempa di Indonesia Meningkat dalam 5 Tahun Terakhir’, 1 December 2019,

<www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20191201065329-199-453026/gempa-di-indonesia-meningkat-dalam-5-tahun-terakhir>, accessed 28 April 2021.

Damsar and Indrayani, ‘Local Wisdom Based Disaster Education in Minangkabau Society’, MATEC

Web of Conferences, vol. 229, 2018. Deputy for Child Development, Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection,

A Guide to Child-friendly School, Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection, 2015. Available at: <https://sekolahramahanak.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/juknis-final-3-2-16-1.pdf>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Desfandi, Mirza, Kearifan Lokal “Smong” Dalam Konteks Pendidikan: Revitalisasi nilai sosial-

budaya simeulue, Syiah Kuala University Press, Banda Aceh, 2020. Directorate of Disaster Risk Reduction, Don’t Panic! Good lessons from disaster, National

Disaster Management Agency, 2019. Available at: <https://bnpb.go.id/uploads/24/siaga-bencana/buku-pembelajaran-spab-indo.pdf>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Djalante, R., & Thomalla, F. (2012). Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in

Indonesia: Institutional challenges and opportunities for integration. International Journal

of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 3, 166–180.

https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901211245260

Dr. Udrekh, Direktorat Sistem PB-BNPB. (2021, February 15). Pengembangan InaRISK untuk

Edukasi Kebencanaan. https://bnpb.go.id/berita/monitoring-dan-evaluasi-program-spab-

di-aceh-besar

Fadli, Ardiansyah, ‘BI: Kerugian akibat banjir Jakarta awal 2020 capai Rp1 triliun’, Alinea.id, 28

February 2020, <www.alinea.id/bisnis/bi-kerugian-akibat-banjir-jakarta-awal-2020-capai-rp1-triliun-b1ZIr9rWp>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth, ‘A Typology of Reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and

associated methodologies’, Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 2009, pp. 91–108.

Habibullah, Habibullah, ‘Kebijakan Penanggulangan Bencana Berbasis Komunitas: Kampung Siaga

Bencana Dan Desa/Kelurahan Tangguh Bencana’, Sosio Informa, vol. 18, no. 2, 2013, pp. 133–150.

Haynes, Katharine, and Thomas M. Tanner, ‘Empowering Young People and Strengthening

Resilience: Youth-centred participatory video as a tool for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction’, Children's Geographies, vol. 13, no. 3, 2015, pp. 357–371.










99

Ihsanuddin, ‘Fakta Lengkap Kasus Pertama Virus Corona di Indonesia’, Kompas, 3 March 2020, <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/03/03/06314981/fakta-lengkap-kasus-pertama-virus-corona-di-indonesia?page=all>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Islami, Princess Mozart Della, Herman Lusa and Dalifa Dalifa, ‘Pengaruh Bahan Ajar Muatan Lokal

Bencana Alam di Bengkulu Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa di Kelas V’, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Dasar, vol. 1, no. 3, 2018, pp. 199–206.

Jaringan Dokumentasi dan Informasi Hukum (JDIH) Jakarta. (n.d.). Peraturan Gubernur Nomor

187 Tahun 2016 tentang Penyelenggaraan Sekolah dan Madrasah Aman Bencana.

Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta.

https://jdih.jakarta.go.id/uploads/default/produkhukum/PERGUB_NO.187_TAHUN_.201

6_.pdf

Johnson, V., Ronan, K., Johnston, D., & Peace, R. (2014). Implementing disaster preparedness education in New Zealand primary schools. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23, 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2013-0151

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, ‘Data Referensi Pendidikan’, Kemdikbud,

<https://referensi.data.kemdikbud.go.id/index11.php>, accessed 25 July 2020. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, ‘Kemendikbud Selenggarakan Jambore Pandu Sekolah

Model Tahun 2019’, Kemendikbud, March 2019, <www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2019/03/kemendikbud-selenggarakan-jambore-pandu-sekolah-model-tahun-2019>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Pendidikan Tangguh Bencana: “Mewujudkan Satuan

Pendidikan Aman Bencana di Indonesia”, Kemendikbud, Jakarta, 2019. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan and Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, ‘Diklat

Sekolah Aman Bencana Untuk Satuan Pendidikan’, Pusdatin Kemendikbud, 2021, <https://simpatik.belajar.kemdikbud.go.id/user/spab>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Kitzinger, Jenny, ‘Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups’, BMJ, vol. 311, no. 7000, 1995,

pp. 299–302. Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, ‘UNESCO Resmikan Sekolah Siaga Bencana di Maumere’,

LIPI, 25 February 2009, <http://lipi.go.id/berita/unesco-resmikan-sekolah-siaga-bencana-di-maumere/4151>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Liputan6.com, ‘Dukung Sekolah Libur Akibat Covid-19, Mendikbud Luncurkan Portal Rumah

Belajar’, 15 March 2020, <www.liputan6.com/news/read/4202236/dukung-sekolah-libur-akibat-covid-19-mendikbud-luncurkan-portal-rumah-belajar>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Mitchell, Tom, Thomas Tanner and Katharine Haynes, ‘Children as Agents of Change for Disaster

Risk Reduction: Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines’, Working Paper No. 1, Children in a Changing Climate – Research, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK, 2009.

National Disaster Management Agency, ‘Acceleration of SPAB Implementation in Indonesia’

(Percepatan Implementasi SPAB di Indonesia), PowerPoint presentation, 2020.



https://referensi.data.kemdikbud.go.id/index11.php








100

National Disaster Management Agency, Technical Guide to Disaster-safe School Facilitation for

Beginner Facilitators: Children’s group facilitation edition, National Disaster Management Agency, 2020.

Nurdin, Nurmalahayati, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction in Education and the Secondary High School

Science Curriculum in Indonesia’ (PhD thesis), University College London, London, 2019. Oktari, Rina Suryani, et al., ‘A Conceptual Model of a School–community Collaborative Network

in Enhancing Coastal Community Resilience in Banda Aceh, Indonesia’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 12, 2015, pp. 300–310.

Ollendick, Thomas H., ‘Reliability and Validity of the Revised Fear Survey Schedule for Children

(FSSC-R)’, Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 21, no. 6, 1983, pp. 685–692. Ollendick, T. H., J. L. Matson and W. J. Helsel, ‘Fears in Children and Adolescents: Normative

data’, Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 23, no. 4, 1985, pp. 465–467. Parker, Andrew, and Jonathan Tritter, ‘Focus Group Method and Methodology: Current practice

and recent debate’, International Journal of Research & Method in Education, vol. 29, no. 1, 2006, pp. 23–37.

Pemerintah Aceh, Peraturan Gubernur Aceh 48 Tahun 2010 Tentang Rencana Aksi Daerah

Pengurangan Risiko Bencana Aceh Tahun 2010–2012. Pemerintah Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah, ‘Pergub No. 10 Tahun 2019 Tentang Rencana Rehabilitasi

dan Rekonstruksi Pascabencana’, Palu, 2019. Peters, Micah D. J., et al., ‘Guidance for Conducting Systematic Scoping Reviews', International

Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, vol. 13, no. 3, 2015, pp. 141–146. Puspadiningrum, Delvia, Endang Widi Winarni and Hasnawati Hasnawati, ‘Ekstrakurikuler

Pramuka Terintegrasi Siaga Bencana Gempa Bumi Terhadap Keterampilan Tanggap Bencana Siswa SD’, Jurnal PGSD: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, vol. 10, no. 2, 2017, pp. 73–78.

Reed, Sheila, and Dominique Blariaux, ‘Evaluation of UNICEF’s Disaster Risk Reduction

Programming in Education (2013–2018) in East Asia and the Pacific’, n.p, 2020. Available at: <www.unicef.org/evaluation/reports#/detail/16576/evaluation-of-unicefs-disaster-risk-reduction-programming-in-education-in-east-asia-and-the-pacific>, accessed 29 April 2021.

Provinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, ‘Rekapitulasi Data Banjir Dki Jakarta Dan

Penanggulangannya Tahun 2020’, Jakarta, 2020. Sakurai, Aiko, et al., ‘Exploring Minimum Essentials for Sustainable School Disaster Preparedness:

A case of elementary schools in Banda Aceh City, Indonesia’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 29, 2018, pp. 73–83.

Sakurai, Aiko, et al., ‘The 11th Years Assessment on School Safety and Disaster Education at the

Public Elementary Schools in Banda Aceh after the 2004 Aceh Tsunami: Preliminary



101

findings’, Paper presented at the National Symposium on Tsunami Disaster Mitigation 2015, Banda Aceh, 21–22 December 2015.

Shiwaku, K., Shaw, R., Kandel, R., Shrestha, S., & Dixit, A. M. (2006). Promotion of Disaster

Education in Nepal: The Role of Teachers as Change Agents. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24, 403–420.

Sulistyaningrum, Eny, ‘Human Capital Outcomes for Children: The impact of school subsidies and

natural disasters’ (PhD thesis), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 2013. Tanner, T. (2010). Shifting the Narrative: Child-led Responses to Climate Change and Disasters in

El Salvador and the Philippines. Children & Society, 24(4), 339–351.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00316.x

Taylor, Heather Lynne, ‘Children’s experiences of flooding in Surakarta, Indonesia’ (PhD thesis),

Massey University, Wellington, 2011. Tuswadi, Takehiro Hayashi, ‘Disaster Management and Prevention Education for Volcanic

Eruption: A case of Merapi area primary schools in Java Island, Indonesia’ (PhD thesis), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, 2014.

United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Humanitarian Situation Report No. 4, 12–25 November 2018’,

UNICEF Indonesia, Jakarta, 2018. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan

Indonesia and Yayasan Puter Indonesia, ‘Cerita dari Maumere: Membangun Sekolah Siaga Bencana’, 2009.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). (2010). Indonesia strengthens bid to

make schools and hospitals safer. https://www.undrr.org/news/indonesia-strengthens-

bid-make-schools-and-hospitals-safer.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and Plan International, Children’s Action for Disaster Risk Reduction: Views from children in Asia, UNDDR and Plan International, Bangkok, 2012.

World Bank, Advancing Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance in ASEAN Member States:

Framework and options for implementation. Volume 1. Main report, World Bank, Washington, D. C., 2012.

national evaluation of the disaster-safe school programme

Documents

Transcript of national evaluation of the disaster-safe school programme