NICSS Post KAP Report 2019

2019
April 2019
National Disaster Risk
Reduction Centre Nepal
End Line Rapid ‘Knowledge Attitude
and Practice’ Assessment

END LINE KAP ASSESSMENT 2019
ii | P a g e
Acknowledgement
NDRC team extends its heartfelt gratitude to Community School Management Committee
Federation Nepal for their continuous support during the study period. We highly
appreciate the patience and time provided by our respondents. We are equally grateful to
the Federation’s district focal persons who helped us communicate with the respondents
and made the field work possible. We extend our sincere thanks to District Coordination
Committee, local governments and schools for their extensive support in carrying out field
work.
Shyam Jnavaly
Executive Director
National Disaster Risk Reduction Centre, Nepal
Phone: 01-4482738
Email: ndrcnepal2007@gmail.com
Website: www.ndrcnepal.org

iii | P a g e
Acronyms
CSS Comprehensive School Safety
CSSMP Comprehensive School Safety Minimum Package
DM Disaster Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
HVCA Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment
KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practice
MoEST Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
NDRC National Disaster Risk Reduction Centre
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations
SIP School Improvement Plan
SMC School Management Committee
PTA Parents Teachers Association
UNICEF United Nations Children Fund

iv | P a g e
Contents
Acknowledgement.............................................................................................................................................ii
Acronyms...........................................................................................................................................................iii
List of figures ......................................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................................vii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Objective........................................................................................................................................................ 1
3. Study Method................................................................................................................................................ 1
3.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 Sampling................................................................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Data collection and analysis ................................................................................................................ 3
3.4 Ethical consideration............................................................................................................................. 3
3.5 Limitations............................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Findings........................................................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 KAP of students..................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 KAP of SMC and PTA representatives...........................................................................................13
4.3 KAP of local government representatives.....................................................................................25
5. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................35
6. Annexes........................................................................................................................................................36
Annex 1: Photographs...............................................................................................................................36
Annex 3: Questionnaire for local government....................................................................................37
Annex 4: Questionnaire for SMC...........................................................................................................42
Annex 5: Questionnaire for students....................................................................................................48

v | P a g e
List of figures
Figure 1: Difference between hazard and disaster.................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Perceived “vulnerable” groups..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Perceived gaps for making school facilities inclusive ............................................................... 5
Figure 4: Activities done to make the school a safe learning facility..................................................... 5
Figure 5: Facilities available at the time of emergency ............................................................................. 6
Figure 6: Participation in disaster drills........................................................................................................ 7
Figure 7: Status of HVCA at school ............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 8: Students participation in HVCA................................................................................................... 8
Figure 9: Meeting points and evacuation areas in case of disasters ...................................................... 8
Figure 10: Search and rescue materials stored in schools ...................................................................... 9
Figure 11: Search and rescue materials stored in schools ....................................................................10
Figure 12: Perception regarding parties responsible for carrying out DRR activities.....................10
Figure 13: School action plan for DRR......................................................................................................11
Figure 14: Ease of communication between students and teachers ...................................................11
Figure 15: Complaint/ feedback mechanism.............................................................................................12
Figure 16: Perception of school’s safety....................................................................................................13
Figure 17: Knowledge about comprehensive school safety..................................................................14
Figure 18: Towards minimizing disaster risks ..........................................................................................15
Figure 19: Role of schools in minimizing disaster risks..........................................................................15
Figure 20: Attitude: Collaboration between school and community for disaster risks..................16
Figure 21: Availability of disaster and GESI focal teachers....................................................................16
Figure 22: Current efforts for disaster risk reduction (DRR)..............................................................18
Figure 23: Attitude towards drill exercises..............................................................................................18
Figure 24: Knowledge on Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (HVCA)..............................19
Figure 25: Mobilization of engineer for structural assessment.............................................................19
Figure 26: Attitude towards non-structural assessment .......................................................................20
Figure 27: Non-structural assessment practices .....................................................................................21
Figure 28: School contingency plan ............................................................................................................21
Figure 29: Availability of code of conduct for child protection ...........................................................22
Figure 30: Attitude towards CSS Minimum Package..............................................................................22
Figure 31: Adequacy of capacity development programs......................................................................23
Figure 32: Safety situation of school...........................................................................................................23

vi | P a g e
Figure 33: School safety related educational activities in school .........................................................24
Figure 34: Inclusion of school safety topics in SMC-PTA interaction.................................................24
Figure 35: Support/ resource provided by local government for school safety...............................25
Figure 36: Inclusion of school safety and resilient education in curriculum......................................25
Figure 37: Knowledge about CSS................................................................................................................26
Figure 38: Adequacy of programs related to capacity development ..................................................27
Figure 39: Assigning CSS focal teacher in school ....................................................................................27
Figure 40 Assigning GESI focal teacher in school....................................................................................28
Figure 41: Adequacy of budget for school safety related capacity development.............................28
Figure 42 Adequacy of budget for safe school structures.....................................................................29
Figure 43: Estimated percent of safe school within the local government........................................30
Figure 44: Improvement of school safety record keeping/EMIS at local level ..................................30
Figure 45: Frequency of school safety specific monitoring ...................................................................31
Figure 46: Participation of government in programs (interaction, drills)...........................................31
Figure 47: School as a Zone of Peace (SZOP) declaration by the government...............................32
Figure 48: Local government’s school contingency plan........................................................................32
Figure 49: Utility of Comprehensive School Safety Minimum Package and Implementation
Guideline....................................................................................................................................................33
Figure 50: Inclusion of school safety topics in the SMC-PTA interaction program ........................33
Figure 51 Support/resources provided by the local government for school safety........................34
Figure 52: Inclusion of school safety and resilient education in school curriculum ........................34

vii | P a g e
Executive Summary
The schools of Nepal are vulnerable to multiple disasters. In this context, National Disaster
Risk Reduction Centre Nepal and United Nations Children Fund are providing technical
assistance to Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of Nepal to initiate a national
level campaign for school safety. The campaign for comprehensive school safety (CSS) is
carried out in fourteen districts with field level support from Community School
Management Committee Federation Nepal. In the process, rapid baseline “Knowledge,
Attitude and Practice” study was undertaken in October to establish benchmarks for
students, school management committees, parents and teachers, and local government staff.
In March, the end line study was carried out to measure success of the program.
The survey revealed that the stakeholders’ knowledge of school safety has increased by
more than 50% compared to the baseline survey. It has also resulted in improvement of
attitude towards improving learning conditions to achieve comprehensive school safety. It
was reported that the different activities such as CSS action plan preparations, inter-school
speech and drawing competition, rally and orientations to local governments among other
were crucial in increasing awareness regarding disaster risk reduction. 88.10% respondents
from SMC/PTA (against baseline 50.75%) had improved their understanding on CSS. 60%
representatives from the local government (against 28% in baseline) were able to
demonstrate their understanding of CSS through specific answers. 78.69% students (against
baseline 51.52%) had improved their understanding on difference between disaster and
hazard.
There has been increase in actions for school safety. 78.05% said they had first aid materials.
68.29% claimed that the school building was made to withstand disasters. 50.82% said
preparedness plans were made and evacuation routes identified. 40% said that DRR was
included in learning activities (37.88%) and search and rescue materials stocked. 30% said
they conducted mock drills and 3% said they had installed siren for early warning. This
shows increasing trend in different preparedness activities. When asked if the schools had
conducted hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessment, only 29.27% (compared to 74.24%
in baseline survey) responded negatively. 56.10% was aware about such assessment
compared to only 37.88% in the baseline. The increase in number may be attributed to
HVCAs were also conducted at schools as part of the CSS campaign.
With increase in CSS knowledge, School Management Committee (SMC) and Parents-
Teachers Association (PTA) members seems to have taken steps to make their schools
safer. They seemed positive towards collaboration between school and community for
disaster risks. Unlike in the baseline survey, none of the respondents disagreed to the
statement and only 2.38% remained neutral whereas the remaining respondents were
positive. More than half (55.22%) of the respondents had said they did not have focal
teachers in the baseline survey. That figure was reversed in the end line survey. 69.05% said
that both focal teachers were available at school. Cent percent respondents claimed drill
was very important to ensure school safety. Some claimed to have planned to include drills

viii | P a g e
4 times a year as recommended by the Guideline in the next annual school calendar. Enquiry
was made to understand non-structural assessment. While more than four fifth of the
respondents (82.09%) admitted no such practices were prevalent in the baseline survey, that
figure reduced to 38.10% in the end line survey. The recent support to conduct HVCA and
prepared CSS action plans at schools may have resulted in the change. Whether code of
conduct for child protection was available or not was queried. 83.33% (baseline - 52.24%)
gave affirmative answers while 5. 67% admitted to not formulating such code of conduct.
Others said that they were in the process of finalizing the code. This shows that many
schools are preparing child protection code of conduct. When asked if school safety topics
were included in SMC-PTA interactions, 56.43% (baseline- 28%) said it did. 16.67% said they
were involved in it while another 16.52% said it did not include school safety topics. 8% said
interactions were school safety centred while 2.38% did not know. It shows that school
safety is slowly being prioritized in SMC-PTA interactions.
Most respondents from the local government admitted to knowing about the legal
framework. 60% of the respondents (baseline 30%) were able to give specific answers. Local
governments seemed positive towards assigning a separate CSS focal teacher and GESI focal
teachers in schools as suggested in the Minimum Package. Cent percent respondents said
budget for CSS was inadequate. This realization is the first step towards increasing support
to improve school safety. Respondents explained that more training and awareness
programs were required for the representatives and the community to internalize the issue
of school safety and allocate adequate budget for it. They also stressed the importance of
collaborating with I/NGOs for programs focused on CSS. When asked if there was any
room for improvement for school record keeping/EMIS at local level, 71.43% of the
participants (baseline 52.38%) said there was lots of room whereas 28.57% said that there
was moderate room for improvement. The change from the baseline may be due to
increased awareness regarding the importance of data management for school safety
through different district level awareness activities as part of the program.
Frequency of school safety specific monitoring from the government seemed to have
moderately increased to 71.43% (baseline 61.90%). Participants were asked about the local
government’s school contingency plan. 86 % said such plans were available while 12.86%
responded negatively. According to the respondents, the government has well owned the
issue and is preparing to finalize the new plans which normally take time. When asked about
the utility of Comprehensive School Safety Minimum Package and Implementation Guideline,
86.50% said such documents would be very useful indicating positive perception and
possible adoption and implementation of the documents. In gist, some improvements are
seen in knowledge, attitude and practice of the stakeholders. Additional support is needed
to expand the current initiatives.

1 | P a g e
1. Introduction
The program “Ensuring resilience in education system through dissemination of the
Comprehensive School Safety (CSS) Master Plan and implementation of the CSS Minimum
Package” is carried out by National Disaster Risk Reduction Centre (NDRC) Nepal and
UNICEF to provide technical assistance to Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
(MoEST). One of the five outputs of the program is to “increase knowledge of students,
teachers, school management committees and parents about the CSS Minimum Package”. In
this context, a “Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP)/baseline” study was undertaken to
establish the benchmarks of the knowledge of students, school management committees,
parents and teachers, and local government staff about the Comprehensive School Safety
Minimum Package (CSSMP) in October, 2018. Setting benchmarks at the beginning of the
program helped to monitor and measure the impact of project in the targeted areas. This
end line KAP survey was conducted in March, 2019. The assessment was carried out in two
of the earthquake affected districts in Nepal to gauge the effectiveness of the campaign.
2. Objective
The main objective of the assessment was to establish baseline for the program. The specific
objectives were:
i. To know the level of knowledge of target audience regarding comprehensive school safety
ii. To know the attitude of target audience towards comprehensive school safety
iii. To know the existing practices of comprehensive school safety
3. Study Method
3.1 Study Area
The program is implemented in 14 districts of Nepal that were most affected in the
earthquake of 2015. Two of those 14 districts were chosen for the survey:
• Dolakha
• Sindhuli
The districts are also shown in the map below.

2 | P a g e
3.2 Sampling
The main units of analysis in this study were students, School Management Committee
(SMCs), teachers, parents and the local government since the program aims to work closely
with them. During the baseline KAP survey, one local government and three schools were
chosen for each of the three districts. A basic, a secondary and a private school were
selected based on the meetings with local government and district education coordination
unit. The same schools and local governments were sampled during the end line KAP
survey. Details of the sample size for schools and local government are shown in the tables
below.
Sampling of students
Description Total no. of students Remarks
Girls - 3
Boys - 3
Student with disability -1
Seven Where student with disability was
not available, a student from
Dalit/excluded group was chosen
Sampling of School Management Committee (SMC)/ Parents-Teachers
Association (PTA) representatives
Description Total no. of students Remarks
Focal teachers [1 CSS/Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) and 1 Gender Equality
and Social Inclusion (GESI) focal teacher] -
2
SMC chair -1
Head teacher – 1
Others – (parents
(One Female compulsory )
Seven Where focal teachers
were not available,
potential teachers for
such positions were
chosen by the Head
teacher
Sampling of local government representatives
Description Total no. of participants
Mayor/Deputy Mayor/Chief Administrative Officer – 1
Education Officer/Education Committee – 1
Disaster Management Committee/DRR focal person – 1
Ward Chair/ Member - 1
Female Ward Member -1
Technical person- Engineer – 1
Technical person- Resource Person – 1
Seven
Total participants per district:
14*3 (schools) +7 (Local Government) = 49

3 | P a g e
3.3 Data collection and analysis
A study team carried out the assessment in each district from March 18-25, 2019. Separate
meetings were carried out with the local governments and district education coordination
unit in all three districts to identify schools to conduct the survey. Meetings notes were
kept to help analyze the gathered data. Separate questionnaires were used for students,
SMC/ teachers/ parents representatives, and local government representatives (Annex 3).
Data collected were analyzed using Microsoft Excel.
3.4 Ethical consideration
The study was subject to certain ethical considerations. All participants reported written
acceptance regarding their participation in the study. Research method complied with
NDRC’s organizational policies. Permission of school head teacher was also sought before
asking questions to students apart from receiving their personal written consent.
Participants were fully informed the objectives of the study and were reassured that their
answers would be treated as confidential.
3.5 Limitations
Sample size was constrained owing to program resource and time limitations.
4. Findings
4.1 KAP of students
1. Difference between hazard and disaster
Students knowledgeable in the difference between disaster and hazard have increased more
than half to 78.69% from the baseline figure 51.52%. Different knowledge building activities
as part of the CSS campaign and the curiosity of students after the base line study may have
contributed in increasing student’s knowledge.
Figure 1: Difference between hazard and disaster
78.69%
21.31%
0% 0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Yes No Don’t know No response
Difference between hazard and
disaster

4 | P a g e
2. Perceived “vulnerable” groups
When asked who the “vulnerable” groups were, 58.54% identified the young ones, the
elderly, pregnant and lactating mothers. 53.66% people living in risky areas. 46.34% identified
children who do not go to safe schools. 31.71% identified all of the above as vulnerable
group (an increase from 27.73 %). This shows that the students have improved knowledge
about what groups could be vulnerable during disasters and how their vulnerabilities could
be addressed.
Figure 2: Perceived “vulnerable” groups
3. Perceived gaps for making school facilities inclusive
Students identified some challenges in making their school inclusive. Choosing multiple
answers was allowed in the questionnaire. 95% students (against baseline 84.85%) claimed
that the schools needed to have disabled friendly facilities. 75% stated that ramps needed to
be built to improve accessibility. 7.32 % had other opinion; in gist- Disabled friends should be
treated well. The increase in percentage indicates that increased number of students have
realized why and how to make their facilities inclusive.
58.54%
21.95%
53.66%
46.34%
31.71%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Young,elderly,PWDs,
pregnantandlactating
women
Peopleandfamilieswithno
jobs
Peoplelivinginriskyareas
Thosewhodonotgotosafe
schools
Allofabove
Idon’tknow
Others
Noresponse
Perceived “vulnerable” groups

5 | P a g e
Figure 3: Perceived gaps for making school facilities inclusive
4. Activities done to make the school a safe learning facility
The students were asked about the activities done at school to make the school safe.
Multiple answers were allowed. 78.05% said they had first aid materials. 68.29% claimed that
the school building was made to withstand disasters. 50.82% said preparedness plans were
made and evacuation routes identified. 40% said that DRR was included in learning activities
(37.88%) and search and rescue materials stocked. 30% said they conducted mock drills and
3% said they had installed siren for early warning. This shows increasing trend in different
preparedness activities. However, more needs to be done, particularly in activities such
mock drills and installation of siren.
Figure 4: Activities done to make the school a safe learning facility
75.00%
95.00%
7.32%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Build ramps Disable
friendly school
facilities
Others Don’t know No response
Perceived gaps for making school
facilities inclusive
68.29%
40.00%
78.05%
50.82%
40.00%
50.82%
30.00%
3.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Schoolbuildingtowithstand
disasters
SchoolhasSearchandrescue
materials
Schoolhasfirstaidmaterials
Developschoolpreparedness
plan
DRRisincludedinour
learningactivities
Identifiedevacuationroutes
andassemblyarea
Conductschoolmockdrill
Installedsirensforearly
warning
Others(specify)
Idon’tknow
Activities done to make the school a
safe learning facility

6 | P a g e
5. Facilities available at the time of emergency
Students were asked what facilities would be available to them at the time of emergency.
75.61% students said clean drinking water and dustbins would be available, 58.54% said
classroom would be available to them, and 56.10% said first aid kits would be available. 55%
said clean toilets would be available followed by 51.22% who said WASH/menstrual hygiene
facilities. Some added to the list of options saying “playground for kids” would also be
available. The slight increase in percentage compared to baseline survey indicates that
schools are putting effort to ensuring better facilities at the time of emergency.
Figure 5: Facilities available at the time of emergency
6. Participation in disaster drills
Compared to the baseline survey, where as many as 62.12% students said they had not
participated in any disaster drill in their school, only 49.80% said so in the end line survey.
Only 38% responded positively and 12.20% said they had participated once. The increase in
percentage shows that schools are slowly introducing drills in the annual calendar.
55.00% 51.22%
75.61%
56.10% 58.54%
0.00% 0.00%
7.32%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Cleantoilets
WASHfacilities/menstrual
hygienefacilities
Cleandrinkingwater,
Dustbin/trashcans
Firstaidkits
Classroomstocontinue
studies
Noneoftheabove
Idonotknow
Others
Facilities available at the time of
emergency

7 | P a g e
Figure 6: Participation in disaster drills
7. Status of HVCA at school
When asked if the schools had conducted in hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessment,
only 29.27% (compared to 74.24% in baseline survey) responded negatively. 56.10% was
aware about such assessment compared to only 37.88% in the baseline. The increase in
number may be attributed to HVCAs were also conducted at schools as part of the CSS
campaign.
Figure 7: Status of HVCA at school
8. Students participation in HVCA
45.39% students surveyed had participated in the hazard, vulnerability and capacity
assessment compared to only 22.73% in the baseline survey. Such assessment is a must to
prepare disaster management plan at school. This shows that students are slowly becoming
aware of HVCA. It is important to incorporate such assessment in the annual academic
activities and involve students in the process.
38.00%
49.80%
12.20%
0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Yes No Once a
year
Twice a
year
3 times a
year
4 times a
year
I don’t
know
Participation in disaster drills
56.10%
29.27%
15%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Yes No I don’t know No response
HVCA at school

8 | P a g e
Figure 8: Students participation in HVCA
9. Meeting points and evacuation areas in case of disasters
When students were tested on their information about the evacuation area and assembly
points in the school, 63% could give affirmative statements. As compared to 37.88% of the
baseline figure, only 19.51% denied knowing about meeting points and evacuation areas.
While this is a positive change, schools should orientate all the students and make public the
evacuation routes and assembly points.
Figure 9: Meeting points and evacuation areas in case of disasters
10. Search and rescue materials stored in schools
Students were asked about the storage of search and rescue materials in school. There was
a slight increase in the storage practice in school. 35.85% said the materials were stored
while 46.97% said they were not stored. 17.97% said the school possessed such materials
but they were not informed where while the rest had no answer. Everyone in the school
should know where crucial items such as the search and rescue materials are stored. It
indicates that schools need to own search and rescue materials and that they need to
45.39%
50.34%
4.27%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Yes No I don’t know No response
Students participation in HVCA
63.83%
16.66% 19.51%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Yes, teachers
students know
very well where
the meeting point
is
Yes, but not all
students or
teachers knows
the meeting
points
I don’t know
about meeting
points and
evacuation areas
No response
Meeting points and evacuation areas
in case of disasters

9 | P a g e
inform where the materials are stored to everyone and ensure they are easily accessible
when needed.
Figure 10: Search and rescue materials stored in schools
11. Activities to prepare school for disasters
Students identified some activities their school needs to do to prepare for disasters.
Choosing multiple answers and adding their own answers were allowed. According to the
respondents, the school needs to prepare warning system (73.71%), gather resource and
train human resources on search and rescue/first aid/evacuation (56.34%), conduct
simulation/drills (55.82%), help teachers and adults plan for disasters (55.61%), prepare
evacuation route (48.54%), make hazard and risk maps (47.22%) and others – students
should be taught about disasters and hazards. The increase in percentage in each option
shows that the students have become a lot more aware about disaster preparation
measures in their schools.
35.85
44.67
17.97
1.51
0
10
20
30
40
50
Yes No Yes, but I don’t
know where
No response
Search and rescue materials stored in
schools

10 | P a g e
Figure 11: Search and rescue materials stored in schools
12. Perception regarding parties responsible for carrying out DRR activities
Students were asked who were responsible for carrying out DRR activities to ensure school
safety. Choosing multiple answers and adding their own answers were allowed. Compared
to baseline survey where only 39% identified all teachers, students, parents, governments
and others as relevant stakeholders, 63.90% identified all of them in the end line survey.
Students added “civic society” and “I/NGOs” and "local community" to the "others" list.
Debate, rally, wall painting, CSS action planning and other awareness activities related to
CSS may have spurred the student's awareness regarding stakeholders.
Figure 12: Perception regarding parties responsible for carrying out DRR activities
47.22% 48.54%
73.17%
55.82% 55.61% 56.34%
9.76%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Makehazardandriskmaps
Preparingevacuationroute
Preparingwarning
Practicedrills/simulations
Helpteachersandadults
planfordisasters
Gatherresourcesandtrain
humanresourceonSARand
FA
Others(specify)
Noresponse
Activities to prepare school for
disasters
48.78% 51.22% 51.22%
43.90%
14.63%
63.90%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Perception regarding parties
responsible for carrying out DRR
activities

11 | P a g e
13. School action plan for DRR
When asked if the school had action plan for DRR, a whopping 53.27% (compared to
baseline 36.36%) said yes. Compared to the baseline 63.34%, only 12.15% said they had no
idea about such plan. Schools need to orientate all the students about the action plan for
disaster risk reduction and include as many students as possible in the process.
Figure 13: School action plan for DRR
14. Ease of communication between students and teachers
When students were asked if they felt comfortable offering suggestions to their teachers for
school improvement, 88.49% said yes and 11.51% no. Students must feel comfortable
sharing their views with teachers.
Figure 14: Ease of communication between students and teachers
15. Complaint/feedback mechanism
Students were asked how they reported the incidents of harm, bullying and discrimination.
46.10% said they talked to their favourite teacher, 30.83% (compared to the baseline
53.27%
9.76%
12.55%
9.32%
2.95%
12.15%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
YesandIknowaboutit
Yesandeveryoneknows
aboutit
Yesandsomepeopleknow
aboutit
Yesandbutnoteveryone
knowsaboutit
Nowedonothaveanaction
planonDRR
Idon’tknow
Noresponse
School action plan for DRR
88.49%
11.51% 0.00% 0%
0.00%
50.00%
100.00%
Yes No Who would hear
the suggestions of
us students?
No response
Ease of communication between
students and teachers

12 | P a g e
16.67%) said they had a separate teacher assigned for such issues, 16% students said they
had access to complaint/suggestion box where they could report their problems
anonymously. 4.88% didn't know how to respond. Some students gave their own answers:
• I will talk with principal and vice-principal”
• “Teachers or guardian”
• “Consult with teachers”
The result shows that the number of teachers assigned for the purpose has gone up. Yet,
most pupils still preferred to talk with their favourite teacher instead of the assigned teacher
which may indicate that the assigned teacher needs further capacity enhancement to win the
trusts of students.
Figure 15: Complaint/ feedback mechanism
16. Perception of school’s safety
Students were asked about the safety situation of their school. While most students thought
their school was not risky (53.03%) during the baseline survey, this changed in the end line
survey to 48.55% only. Participation in the HVCA may have increased the students'
understanding of what a safe school consists. However, they added that the preparation of
CSS action plan has made them hopeful that the school's situation will improve.
30.83%
46.10%
16.00%
2.19%
4.88%
0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Yes,wehaveaseparate
teacherassignedtooversee
suchproblems
Ijusttalktomyfavoriteteacher
Wehavea
complaint/suggestionbox
wherewecanputacrossour
problemsanonymously
Others
Idon’tknow
Noresponse
Complaint/feedback mechanism

13 | P a g e
Figure 16: Perception of school’s safety
4.2 KAP of SMC and PTA representatives
1. Knowledge about comprehensive school safety (CSS)
Percentage of people with knowledge about CSS increased by more than half from 50.75%
in the baseline survey to 88.10% in the end line survey. Respondents explained their
knowledge by giving specific answers. Since most answers were similar, a few selected
points are given below:
• It revolves around the three pillars- safe structure, good management and curriculum
• Some components include safe playground, disabled-friendly facilities, linkage with Red Cross, first
aid and counseling service, child club, SZOP etc.
• CSS Plan for school safety
• It’s a long term plan to ensure school safety, to keep the school safe from all kinds of hazards”
• It’s about protecting schools from all kinds of natural disaster
• Coordination between schools and the community
The figures show that a large section of the school management and parents have
significantly increased knowledge in CSS. Yet, it is essential that 100% stakeholders
understand the concept and ideas of CSS for it to be fully implemented.
19.01%
30.00%
48.55%
0.00%
2.44%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Vulnerable Risky Not Risky I don’t know No response
Perception of school’s safety

14 | P a g e
Figure 17: Knowledge about comprehensive school safety
2. Knowledge government legal framework regarding school safety
When asked about the government legal framework regarding school safety, only a couple
of relevant answers (22%) were received in the baseline survey whereas that figure
increased to 53.75% in the end line survey. Since most answers were similar, a few selected
points are given below:
• “I know about that SSDP has been developed to root out the problem of any types of disaster or
to cope up with it”
• CSS Minimum Package (CSSMP) and School Safety Policy
• SSDP and CSS Implementation guideline
• SSDP has been prepared and applied in all schools
• I know about CSSMP and its indicators
• Psychosocial first aid/ counseling is important, which is covered in CSS Implementation guideline
• “Disaster Management Act”
• “I know about SZOP, I know that all activities in the school should be child friendly”
• SSDP, Master Plan Minimum Package…and recently Implementation Guideline
The answers indicate that knowledge on government legal framework regarding school
safety is expanding. More awareness programs are required so that all stakeholders are
aware of important legislative documents.
3. Attitude
Respondents were asked various questions to test their attitude towards school safety.
Towards minimizing disaster risks:
Compared to the baseline, percentage disagreeing has drastically reduced and percentage
agreeing have increased. When asked if disaster risks could be minimized through the efforts
of school and local government, 64.29% strongly agreed and 33.43% agreed. 1.78% were
neutral and only 0.5% disagreed (see graph).
88.10%
9.52%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Yes No
Knowledge about CSS

15 | P a g e
Figure 18: Towards minimizing disaster risks
Role of schools in minimizing disaster risks:
Compared to the baseline, percentage disagreeing/ strongly disagreeing has drastically
reduced to zero and percentage agreeing has increased. When asked if they agreed that
schools had a major role in addressing the impact of disasters, 61% strongly agreed and
36.62% simply agreed while 2% were neutral. This shows that the stakeholders are well
aware of their responsibility.
Figure 19: Role of schools in minimizing disaster risks
Collaboration between school and community for disaster risks:
Compared to the baseline, percentage disagreeing/ strongly disagreeing has drastically
reduced to zero and percentage agreeing has increased. Participants were asked if they
agreed that community and school should collaborate to reduce disaster risk at school and
64.29%
33.43%
1.78% 0.50% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
Attitude: Towards minimizing disaster
risks
61.00%
36.62%
2% 0.00% 0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
disagree
Attitude: Role of schools in
minimizing disaster risks

16 | P a g e
community. 61.90% agreed strongly, 35.72% simply agreed and 2.38% was neutral. This
shows that the respondents are positive towards collaboration.
Figure 20: Attitude: Collaboration between school and community for disaster risks
4. Availability of disaster and GESI focal teachers
Representatives were asked if focal teachers were available at school. More than half
(55.22%) of the respondents had said they did not have focal teachers in the baseline survey.
That figure was reversed in the end line survey. 69.05% said that both focal teachers were
available at school. 12% said that only GESI focal teacher was present and 10% said only
disaster focal teacher was present. Some respondents gave opinions apart from the
questionnaire’s options:
• We are in the process of allocating both teachers from the next session
• Junior Red Cross and Child club are also present
• SMC manages additional facilities as per requirement
It shows that most schools have understood the need to assign DRR and GESI focal
teachers.
Figure 21: Availability of disaster and GESI focal teachers
61.90%
35.72%
2.38% 0.00% 0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
disagree
Attitude: Collaboration between
school and community for disaster
risks
10.00% 12.00%
69.05%
0.00%
8.95%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Only Disaster
focal teacher
Only GESI
focal teacher
Both None Others (please
specify)
Availability of disaster and GESI focal
teachers

17 | P a g e
5. Status of SIP and preparation process
Stakeholders were asked about the status of SIP and preparation process. Specific answers
were received. Since most answers were similar, a few selected points are given below:
• We have prepared CSS Action plan recently. This will be added as annex while updating the SIP
next year
• “It’s prepared annually. Students, PTA, parents and SMC are involved”
• We have recently formed the SMC and remaining SIP is done accordingly
• SIP status is weak. Recently CSS Action Plan has been made which has made us hopeful. But
implementation is still a challenge
• With CSS action plan, half the work is done
• Till now activities were being carried out without any proper planning. But recently CSS Action
Plan has been prepared…
• Regarding the status of SIP, Improvement activities are taking place gradually. SMC, parents,
students and representatives of child clubs were involved while making CSS Action Plan recently
• School has recently started keeping inventory, managing database. School is improving gradually
• The school is doing its best, resources support are needed from other agencies
• SIP is updated annually and prepared every 5 years. We include Students, PTA, parents and SMC
6. Current efforts for disaster risk reduction (DRR)
Respondents were inquired about their current efforts for DRR. Choosing multiple answers
and adding their own answers were allowed. There was increase in percentage in all options
compared to the baseline. 65% said HVCA was conducted, 62.50% said evacuation routes
and maps were prepared, 57.14% said disaster management committee was prepared and
another 54.29% said disaster management plan was incorporated into SIP. 53% respondents
said building code compliance was ensured, 50.48% said roster was prepared for
coordination and collaboration and another 50% said community interactions were
organized and 16.67% said they developed early warning system. 4.76% said no such
initiatives had taken place. Specific answers received were also noted:
• “Newly constructed buildings follow building code”
• "we have plans to follow the code of conduct, ensuring the construction of new infrastructure”
• “we have CCTV camera”
This shows that endeavours for DRR have been slowly on the rise. There is still space to
boost current efforts.

18 | P a g e
Figure 22: Current efforts for disaster risk reduction (DRR)
7. Attitude towards drill exercises
Respondents were asked if they thought drill exercises were important. Interestingly, cent
percent respondents claimed that such exercises were very important. Some respondents
added that training was important to initiate drill exercises.
Figure 23: Attitude towards drill exercises
8. Knowledge on Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (HVCA)
Respondents were asked if they were familiar with HVCA. While more than half (61.19%) of
them denied such knowledge in the baseline survey, the figure was reversed in the end line
survey with 16.67% claiming to know they were familiar. 30.95% still don’t feel confident
65.00%
57.14% 54.29%
62.50%
16.67%
50.48% 50.00% 53.00%
4.76%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00% ConductedHVCA
Establishedschool
DMC
InbuiltDMplaninto
SIP
Developed
evacuationroute…
Developedearly
warningsystem
Builtcoordination
andprepareda…
Organized
community…
EnsuredBuilding
Codecompliance
None
Current efforts for disaster risk
reduction (DRR)
100%
0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Very important Not important Important but not
indispensable
Attitude towards drill exercises

19 | P a g e
about HVCA. This shows that schools need capacity development training to enhance their
knowledge of HVCA. Others specified that they needed training and technical support
before they could conduct HVCA single-handed at schools.
Figure 24: Knowledge on Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (HVCA)
9. Mobilization of engineer for structural assessment
When asked if there had been structural assessment through the mobilization of engineer to
assure the school’s safety, 64.38% said yes while 30.86% said no. Another 4.76% said that it
was the government's job. The earthquake of 2015 led many schools to ensure structural
safety. However, the figures indicate that engineers at the local government and their
supervisors need to exert further effort to ensure structural safety.
Figure 25: Mobilization of engineer for structural assessment
66.67%
30.95%
2.38%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Yes No Others (please specify)
Knowledge on Hazard, Vulnerability
and Risk Assessment (HVCA)
64.38%
30.86%
4.76%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Yes No That is
government’s job
Others (please
specify)
Mobilization of engineer for
structural assessment

20 | P a g e
10. Attitude towards non-structural assessment
Respondent’s attitude towards non-structural assessment was tested and was found to have
improved compared to the baseline. 90.48% said it was very important while the rest were
not clear. More awareness is needed for non-structural assessment.
Some respondents added to the available options:
• “Local government needs to support us more for assessments through training and resource
allocation”
• “Government should also take care of private schools, not just community schools ”
• “Schools need to be trained on non-structural assessment”
Figure 26: Attitude towards non-structural assessment
11. Non-structural assessment practices
Enquiry was made to understand non-structural assessment. While more than four fifth of
the respondents (82.09%) admitted no such practices were prevalent in the baseline survey,
that figure reduced to 38.10% in the end line survey. The recent support to conduct HVCA
and prepared CSS action plans at schools may have resulted in the change. However, for
long term sustainability, more needs to be done to foster non-structural assessment
practices in schools.
90.48%
0%
9.52%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Very important Not important No idea
Attitude towards non-structural
assessment

21 | P a g e
Figure 27: Non-structural assessment practices
12. School contingency plan
The status of school contingency plan was enquired. 67.16% said that no such plans had
been made in the baseline survey whereas the figure reversed in the end line survey with
71.42% claiming such plans had been made. This clearly shows that preparing school
contingency plans has become a priority for schools.
Figure 28: School contingency plan
13. Availability of code of conduct for child protection
Whether code of conduct for child protection was available or not was queried. 83.33%
(baseline - 52.24%) gave affirmative answers while 5. 67% admitted to not formulating such
code of conduct. Others said that they were in the process of finalizing the code. This
shows that many schools are preparing child protection code of conduct.
47.62%
38.10%
16.67%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Yes No We do not have
capacity for that
Others (please
specify)
Non-structural assessment practices
71.42%
28.57%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
School contingency plan

22 | P a g e
Figure 29: Availability of code of conduct for child protection
14. Attitude towards CSSMP
In order to understand the stakeholders’ attitude towards CSSMP, they were asked if it
would be useful to schools. 95.24% said it would be useful whereas 2.38% said no. This
shows that a significant majority of the stakeholders view the package positively.
Figure 30: Attitude towards CSS Minimum Package
15. Adequacy of capacity development programs
The respondents were asked if the current capacity development programs related to
school safety for teachers and staff were enough. 88.10% claimed that it was not enough
while the rest said it was enough. This shows that capacity development programs related
to school safety is in huge demand.
83.33%
5.67%
11%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Availability of code of conduct for
child protection
95.24%
2.38% 0.00% 0% 0%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Yes No Neutral Useless Others (please
specify)
Attitude towards CSS Minimum
Package

23 | P a g e
Figure 31: Adequacy of capacity development programs
16. Safety situation of school
When asked about the safety situation of their school, 54.76% levelled it as risky, 38.10% as
not risky and 7.14% as vulnerable. HVCA conducted at school may have helped SMC/PTA
better understand the status of their schools compared to the previous opinion in baseline
which was not based on any assessment.
Figure 32: Safety situation of school
17. School safety related educational activities in school
Respondents were asked if educational activities related to school safety was conducted in
the school. 66.67% (baseline-38.81%) gave affirmative answers. 14.29% claimed to have
school safety centred ECA. The recent support for conducting ECA related to school safety
provided under the program may be attributed to the change in response.
11.90%
88.10%
0%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Adequacy of capacity development
programs
7.14%
54.76%
38.10%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Vulnerable Risky Not risky I don’t know No response
Safety situation of school

24 | P a g e
Figure 33: School safety related educational activities in school
18. Inclusion of school safety topics in SMC-PTA interaction
When asked if school safety topics were included in SMC-PTA interactions, 56.43%
(baseline- 28%) said it did. 16.67% said they were involved in it while another 16.52% said it
did not include school safety topics. 8% said interactions were school safety centred while
2.38% did not know. It shows that school safety is slowly being prioritized in SMC-PTA
interactions.
Figure 34: Inclusion of school safety topics in SMC-PTA interaction
19. Support/ resource provided by local government for school safety
Respondents were asked if local government provided enough support/resource for school
safety. Only 30.95% (baseline- 58.21%) said no while the rest said some support was
provided. Some complained that “government doesn’t support private schools”. As much as
42.86% said some support was provided for school safety. This shows that while support
provided is increasing, schools expect more support from local governments.
26.19%
66.67%
14.29% 11.90%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
ECA does
not include
school
safety
topics
ECA also
includes
school
safety
topics
We have
school
safety
centered
ECA
I’m involved
in school
safety
exercises
I don’t
know
No
response
School safety related educational
activities in school
16.52%
56.43%
8.00%
16.67%
2.38% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
It does not
include
school
safety
topics
It also
includes
school
safety
topics
It is school
safety
centered
I’m involved
in school
safety
exercises
I don’t
know
No
response
Inclusion of school safety topics in
SMC-PTA interaction

25 | P a g e
Figure 35: Support/ resource provided by local government for school safety
20. Inclusion of school safety and resilient education in curriculum
When asked if school safety and resilient education was included in the curriculum, 45.24%
said it was included in some subjects. 30.95% said classes were based on curriculum only
where as 14.29% said curriculum including such issues was prepared. This indicates that
while the current change is in positive direction more needs to be done to ensure that
components of school safety and resilient education are included in the curriculum.
Figure 36: Inclusion of school safety and resilient education in curriculum
4.3 KAP of local government representatives
1. Knowledge about CSS
Compared to baseline KAP, where only 28% were able to verify their knowledge by giving
specific answers although 76.19% claimed to know it, 60% of the respondents out of 78.57%
who claimed they knew were able to give specific answers in the end line KAP survey. Since
many answers were similar, selected specific answers were:
• “three pillars of CSS are safe structures, disaster management and resilient education”
30.95%
16.67%
42.86%
2.38%
9.52%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
No Support is
provided
but not for
school
safety
Yes, some
support is
provided for
school
safety
We have
received
support and
completed
activities
I don’t
know
No
response
Support/ resource provided by local
government for school safety
19.05%
45.24%
30.95%
14.29%
0% 0%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
No Yes, in some
subjects
Classes are
based on
text books
Curriculum
prepared
I don’t
know
No
response
Inclusion of school safety and
resilient education in curriculum

26 | P a g e
• It is about creating safe learning environment for Students through structural, management and
curricular changes
• "We have to ensure student safety, from the minute they leave home until they come back”
• “Infrastructure, proper management, student safety”
• “It means inclusive education, facilities and management”
It indicates that the government representatives have improve their knowledge of CSS.
Figure 37: Knowledge about CSS
2. Knowledge about government legal framework
Most respondents admitted to knowing about the legal framework. 60% of the respondents
(baseline 30%) were able to give specific answers. Since most answers were similar, selected
specific answers were:
• “SSDP, Master Plan etc.
• The CSS implementation guidelines contains important issues such as SZOP, gender friendly toilet,
complaint/feedback box”
• “Government has started efforts to prepare action plan for DRR ”
• Fear free learning environment
• I’ve learned that Guidelines and indicators have been prepared
• CSS Implementation Guideline recently endorsed which says schools should have CSS action plan
• “DRR, Risk Reduction and Management Act”
• “DRR/M Act, Building Code, Communication Act etc.”
• “Disaster Management Act, at the central level and the local level”
• “CSS Implementation Guideline which speaks of structural and non-structural issues”
3. Adequacy of programs related to capacity development
Participants were asked about the adequacy of programs related to capacity development.
All respondents agreed that the current capacity development programs were inadequate.
This shows that more capacity development programs related to school safety are needed.
78.57%
21.43%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Yes No
Knowledge about CSS

27 | P a g e
Figure 38: Adequacy of programs related to capacity development
4. Assigning CSS focal teacher in school
Participants were asked if it was important to assign a separate CSS focal teacher in schools.
While 9.52% thought it was not important in the baseline survey, all cent percent agreed it
was important in the end line survey. Some specific comments were also received:
• “it will take some time before all schools have assigned the focal teacher”
• “The government policy says it is mandatory so we are working towards it. But it will take some
time”
This indicates that the local governments are positive towards assigning a separate CSS focal
teacher in schools as suggested in the Minimum Package.
Figure 39: Assigning CSS focal teacher in school
5. Assigning GESI focal teacher in school
The importance of assigning a GESI focal teacher in schools was questioned. While 4.76%
thought it was not important in the baseline survey, all cent percent agreed it was important
0%
100%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Yes No Other
Adequacy of programs related to
capacity development
100.00%
0.00% 0% 0%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
indispensable
Others
Assigning CSS focal teacher in school

28 | P a g e
in the end line survey. This shows that the local governments are positive towards assigning
a separate GESI focal teacher in schools as suggested in the Minimum Package.
Figure 40 Assigning GESI focal teacher in school
6. Adequacy of budget for school safety related capacity development
Cent percent respondents (baseline 90.48%) agreed that the current budget allocation for
school safety related capacity development was inadequate. This shows that greater budget
needs to be allocated for school safety related capacity development.
Figure 41: Adequacy of budget for school safety related capacity development
7. Adequacy of budget for safe school structures
Cent percent respondents (baseline 85.71%) said that the current budget allocation to
develop safe school structures was not enough. This shows that greater budget needs to be
allocated to ensure school structures are safe.
100.00%
0.00% 0% 0%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
indispensable
Others
Assigning GESI focal teacher in school
0.00%
100.00%
0%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Yes No Other
Adequacy of budget for school safety
related capacity development

29 | P a g e
Figure 42 Adequacy of budget for safe school structures
8. Local government’s challenges and mitigation measures for budget allocation in CSS-DRR
Participants were asked about the local government’s challenges and mitigation measures for
budget allocation in CSS-DRR. 43% respondents gave specific answers hinting that there has
not been adequate discussion and discourse prioritizing budget allocation for CSS-DRR.
Since most answers were similar, selected specific responses received are given below:
• First of all, the elected government representatives need training so they understand the
importance of CSS. Second, community needs to internalize its importance and raise the issue
during the annual planning process so that adequate budget is allocated in it.
• Inadequate budget
• CSS less prioritized
• “Challenges- Lack of enough budget, lack of quality work. Mitigation- there should be criteria on
safe schools, increased participation of community and parents”
• Less knowledge on CSS, and less support from federal and provincial governments
• Make disaster management committee active
• Government coordination and collaboration with I/NGOs would lead towards solution
9. Estimated percent of safe school within the local government
When requested to give an estimated range of safe schools within the local government,
50% respondents estimated that about 30-60% schools were safe while 42% estimated that
less than 30% schools were safe. Only 7.14% estimated that 60-90% schools were safe. The
changes in the result from the base line may be due to recent changes in school support and
awareness regarding what school safety is owing to district level CSS campaign.
0.00%
100.00%
0%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Yes No Other
Adequacy of budget for safe school
structures

30 | P a g e
Figure 43: Estimated percent of safe school within the local government
10. Improvement of school safety record keeping/EMIS at local level
When asked if there was any room for improvement for school record keeping/EMIS at
local level, 71.43% of the participants (baseline 52.38%) said there was lots of room whereas
28.57% said that there was moderate room for improvement. Some respondents added to
the options:
• “Policies alone are not enough, more needs to be done for implementation”
• “It’s possible. We are taking baby steps”
The change from the baseline may be due to increased awareness regarding the importance
of data management for school safety through different district level awareness activities as
part of the program.
Figure 44: Improvement of school safety record keeping/EMIS at local level
The findings show that a lot more needs to be done to improve EMIS at local level.
42.86%
50.00%
7.14%
0
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
<30% 30-60% 60-90% >90%
Estimated percent of safe school
within the local government
71.43%
28.57%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Lot of room Moderate No room
Improvement of school safety record
keeping/EMIS at local level

31 | P a g e
11. Frequency of school safety specific monitoring
When asked if there were frequent monitoring by the local government to see the situation
of school safety, 71.43% (baseline 61.90%) said that there was only moderate level of
monitoring whereas equal percentages (14.29%)% said the monitoring was satisfactory and
unsatisfactory respectively. This indicates the increase in the frequency of school safety
specific monitoring to schools by the local government.
Figure 45: Frequency of school safety specific monitoring
12. Participation of government in programs (interaction, drills)
When asked about the government’s participation in school safety related programs
(interaction, drills), 50% categorized it as moderate and 42.86% as frequent. Some opined
that work priorities and mismanagement at the government was to be blamed for subpar
level performance. This shows that government’s participation can be upped in school
programs (interaction, drills).
Figure 46: Participation of government in programs (interaction, drills)
14.29%
71.43%
14.29%
0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Satisfactory Moderate Unsatisfactory Others
Frequency of school safety specific
monitoring
42.86%
50.00%
0.00%
7%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Quite often Moderate Unsatisfactory Others
Participation of government in
programs (interaction, drills)

32 | P a g e
13. School as a Zone of Peace (SZOP) declaration by the government
Local government representatives were asked if the schools were declared as a zone of
peace. 35.71% (baseline 19.05%) said it had been done whereas 64.29% said no such
initiative was taken. Some opined:
• “we are in process”
• “We understand SZOP and of course the local government is acting towards it with support from
local leaders”
This shows that many local governments still need to declare SZOP.
Figure 47: School as a Zone of Peace (SZOP) declaration by the government
14. Local government’s school contingency plan
Participants were asked about the local government’s school contingency plan. 86 % said
such plans were available while 12.86% responded negatively. Some gave other opinions:
• “The government is ready for it. It is just a matter of time”
• “It’s ready, it will be announced soon”
• “We have realized its importance. It takes time. Our effort is ongoing”
This shows that the government is slowly shifting towards preparedness.
Figure 48: Local government’s school contingency plan
35.71%
64.29%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Yes No
School as a Zone of Peace (SZOP)
declaration by the government
86.00%
12.86%
1.14%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Yes No Other
Local government’s school
contingency plan

33 | P a g e
15. Utility of Comprehensive School Safety Minimum Package and Implementation Guideline
People were asked about the utility of Comprehensive School Safety Minimum Package and
Implementation Guideline. While 86.50% said such documents would be very useful 9%
doubted it and 4.5% remained neutral. It shows that the documents are viewed positively in
general. However, some effort is needed to promote the Minimum Package and
Implementation Guideline.
Figure 49: Utility of Comprehensive School Safety Minimum Package and Implementation Guideline
16. Inclusion of school safety topics in the SMC-PTA interaction program
It was asked if school safety related topics were discussed in the SMC-PTA interaction
program. 85.72% (against baseline 38.10%) said it covered such topics, 7.14% ECA covered
such topics while the rest had no idea (see graph). This shows that more effort has been
upped to include school safety related topics in the SMC-PTA interaction program.
Figure 50: Inclusion of school safety topics in the SMC-PTA interaction program
86.50%
9.00% 4.5% 0%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Very useful No Neutral Others
Utility of Comprehensive School
Safety Minimum Package and
Implementation Guideline
0.00%
85.72%
7.14% 7.14%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
It does not
include school
safety topics
It includes
school safety
topics
We have
school safety
centered ECA
I don’t know No response
Inclusion of school safety topics in
the SMC-PTA interaction program

34 | P a g e
17. Support/resources provided by the local government for school safety
Respondents were inquired about the support/resources provided by the local government
for school safety. 57.14% said support was provided while 42.86% said that the support was
provided but not for school safety. This shows that local governments have become
conscious about providing support to schools for school safety.
Figure 51 Support/resources provided by the local government for school safety
18. Inclusion of school safety and resilient education in school curriculum
Local government representatives were asked if school safety and resilient education was
included in school curriculum. 42.86% said no adding that efforts were underway to make
the curriculum more inclusive of school safety issues but that it took time. 35.71% replied
that it was included in some subjects while 14.29% said classes were simply based on text
books. 7.14% said they had prepared curriculum for it in addition to textbooks while
another. It shows that inclusion of area and context specific issues in curriculum for resilient
education is an ongoing process.
Figure 52: Inclusion of school safety and resilient education in school curriculum
0.00%
42.86%
57.14%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
No Support is
provided
but not for
school
safety
Yes, some
support is
provided for
school
safety
Support
provided
and
completed
activities
I don’t
know
No
response
Support/resources provided by the
local government for school safety
42.86%
35.71%
14.29%
7.14%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
No
Yesinsome
subjects
Classesare
basedontext
books
Inadditionto
textbooks,we
haveprepared
curriculumforit
Idon’tknow
Noresponse
Inclusion of school safety and
resilient education in school
curriculum

35 | P a g e
5. Conclusion
The survey found that the stakeholders’ knowledge of school safety has increased by more
than 50% compared to the baseline survey. It has also resulted in improvement of attitude
towards improving learning conditions to achieve comprehensive school safety. It was
reported that the different activities such as CSS action plan preparations, inter-school
speech and drawing competition, rally and orientations to local governments were crucial in
increasing awareness regarding disaster risk reduction. 88.10% respondents from SMC/PTA
(against baseline 50.75%) had improved their understanding on CSS. 60% representatives
from the local government (against 28% in baseline) were able to demonstrate their
understanding of CSS through specific answers. 78.69% students (against baseline 51.52%)
had improved their understanding on difference between disaster and hazard. The
improvement in knowledge is reflected by current practices as well. For instance, the
number of respondents confirming the availability of both disaster and GESI focal teachers
was negligible in the baseline survey but increased to 69.05% in the end line survey. More
than half of the respondents in schools were unfamiliar with hazard, vulnerability and
capacity assessment, whereas in the end line, 66.67% claimed to have knowledge about it.
Thanks to the newfound awareness regarding school safety, attitude has been improved and
positive changes have been made in practice as well. Unlike in the base line survey, none of
the respondents harboured doubts about the utility of the Minimum Package and
Implementation Guideline and were quite positive of its usefulness. 57.14% confirmed that
disaster management committees had been established recently. While many respondents
said they did not have disaster management and contingency plans in the baseline, 65% in
the end line survey claimed that they had conducted HVCA based on which they could
improve their SIP. In terms of risk resilient education, 66.67% (baseline-38.81%) said ECA
included school safety topics. Schools seem to have well incorporated the topic of school
safety into their ECA, thanks to different ECA support activities. Inclusion of school safety
topics in SMC-PTA interactions has increased to 56.43% from the baseline of 28%.
Community interaction sessions play a vital role in transferring DRR and climate change
knowledge and information through School. Compared to the baseline, stakeholders
interviewed had developed better understanding of the different indicators of the Minimum
Package. However, stakeholders claimed that more training was needed for schools to
conduct HVCA and prepare action plans without additional technical support. Some
representatives had qualms that private schools were not as supported as the community
schools. They also demanded further support from the local government to improve
curriculum and support in improving structural facilities and material support. In conclusion,
stakeholders have improved their knowledge of CSS which are being reflected in their
practices. Additional support is required to expand knowledge and enhance practice for
CSS.

36 | P a g e
6. Annexes
Annex 1: Photographs
Filling questionnaire with a local government
representative
Questionnaire with a parent
Student filling questionnaire Questionnaire with SMC/PTA
Questionnaire with local government
representative
Local representative answering questions

37
Annex 3: Questionnaire for local government
“Ensuring resilience in education system through dissemination of the Comprehensive School Safety (CSS)Master Plan
and implementation of the CSS Minimum Package “
Rapid KAP Study
cfwf/e"t ;j]{If0f
A joint initiative of UNICEF and NDRC Nepal to provide technical assistance on Comprehensive School Safety to the
Nepal Government
Taking a verbal consent and confidentiality from the respondent(s):We are collecting data for CSS Project. The report of this
study will not directly quote to any of the participants in the study and do any harm in their personal lives. This survey will take about 30
minutes of your time. All data/information collected using this questionnaire is protected under the law of Government of Nepal and will
not be used for any purpose other than the statistical analysis.
उ�रदाताको सहम�त: हामीले “j[xt ljBfno ;'/Iff” प�रयोजनाको ला�ग सव��ण ग�ररहेका छ�| यस सव��णको
अिन्तम प्र�तबेदनमा तपाई वा तपाइको प�रवारको गोप�नएता भंग हुने कु नै प्रकारको भनाइ रा�खने छैन र
भ�बष्य मा प�न कु नै प्रकारको हा�न हुने छैन | यस सब��णको दौरान संकलन ग�रएका सबै तथ्यांकहरु नेपाल
सरकारको �नयम अनुसार सुर��त रहने छन् | यो तथ्यांकको �वश्लेषण गनर् बाहेक अन्य कु नै प्रयोजनको ला�ग
प्रयोग ग�रने छैन |
Are you interested to participate in this study and reply the questions in relation to you and your family? (YES|
NO).
के तपाई यो सव��णमा सहभागी हुन चाहनुहुन्छ? (चाहन्छु / चाहन्न )
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
:yfgLo ;/sf/sf k|ltlglw;Fusf] k|||ZgfjnL
Respondent Information:
Name:
gfd:
Sex: 1. Male 2. Female 3.
Others
lnË: k'?if dlxnf cGo
Age: 1. 18-40 2.41-60 3. Above 61
pd]/:!*–$) $!–^) ^! dfly
Disability : 1. Yes (please specify) 2. No
ckf+utf 5 -pNn]v ug{'xf];_ 5}g
Ethnicity: 1. Brahman/ Chhetri2. Janajati 3. Dalit 4. Others
Hffthflt != a|fDx0f÷If]qL @= hghflt #= blnt$= cGo
District: 1. Sindhuli 2. Dolakha 3. Gorkha
lhNnf != l;Gw'nL @= bf]nvf #= uf]vf{
Rural municipality/ Municipality:
ufpFkflnsf/gu/kflnsf
Ward
j8f:
Name of locality:
6f]nsf] gfd
Instructions:
lgb]{zg
• Please circle your answers
pQ/nfO{uf]nf] nfpg]
• If you do not have a response regarding the question, please circle “no response”
k|Zgsf] s'g} hjfkmgeP, “k|ltlqmof 5}g”nfO{ uf]nf] nfpg]

38
CSS Minimum Packagae
j[xtljBfno ;'/IffGo"gtdpkfosf] Kofs]h
1. Do youknow about comprehensive school safety?
j[xtljBfno ;'/Iffaf/] ;'Gg' ePsf] 5<
a. Yes (specify)
5 (उल्लेखगनुर्होस)....
b. No
5}g
2. Do you know about any government legal framework regarding school safety (SSDP,
Master Plan and Minimum Package etc)? Please specify
ljBfno;'/Iffaf/] ag]sflgod, sfg'gx? Aff/] s]xL yfxf 5< pNn]v ug'{xf]; .
3. Do you think current capacity development programs related to school safety for
teachers and staff is enough?
lzIfs / ljBfno Joj:yfkgnfO{ clxn] rNg] ljBfno ;'/Iff;Fu ;DalGwt Ifdtf ljsf; sfo{qmdx? kof{Kt 5 t<
a. Yes
छ
b. No
5}g
c. Others (please specify)
अन्य (उल्लेखगनुर्होस)
4. Do you think it is important to assign separate focal person for CSS/DRR in local
government?
:yfgLo ;/sf/df ljBfno ;'/Iff, ljkb Joj:yfkg;DalGw ;Dks{ JolQm /fVg' slQsf] h?/L 5 <
a. Very important
w]/} dxTjk"0f{ 5
b. Not important
dxTjk"0f{ 5}g
a.Important but not
indispensable
dxTjk"0f{ t/ geO{ gx'g] rflxFxf]Og
b. Others (please specify)
अन्य (उल्लेख गनुर्होस)
5. Do you think it is important to assign separate focal teachers for CSS/DRR and GESI
issues in schools?
ljBfnox?df ljBfno ;'/Iff÷ljkb ;DalGw / n}ËLs ;dfgtf tyf ;fdflhs ;dfj]zLtf ;DalGw ;Dks{ lzIfsx?
/fVg' slQsf] h?/L 5 <
a. Very important
w]/} dxTjk"0f{ 5
b. Not important
dxTjk"0f{ 5}g
c.Important but not
indispensable
d. Others (please specify)
6. Do you think the budget allocated for capacity development for school safety in this
fiscal year is enough?

39
of] cfly{s jif{df, lzIff If]qdf ljBfno ;'/Iff÷ljkb ;DalGw Ifdtf ljsf; sfo{qmdsf] nflu 5'6ofOPsf] ah]6
kof{Kt 5 t<
a. Yes
छ
b. No
5}g
7. Do you think the budget allocated in this fiscal year to support schools to develop
safe structures is enough?
of]cfly{s jif{df, ljBfnox?nfO{ ;'/lIft ;+/rgfagfpg ;xof]unflu 5'6ofOPsf] ah]6 kof{Kt 5 t<
d. Yes
छ
e. No
5}g
f. Others (please specify)
8. What could be the local government's challenges and mitigation measures to ensure
adequate budget allocation in comprehensive school safety/ DRR? Please specify
j[xtljBfno ;'/Iffsf lglDt kof{Kt ah]6 5'6ofpg :yfgLo ;/sf/nfO{ s] s] r'gf}tL cfpg ;Snf / tL s'/fx?sf]
;dfwfg s] x'g ;Snf<
9. Among all the schools within this local government, what percentage do you
estimate is both structurally and non-structurally safe from disaster perspective?
:yfgLo ljBfnox? dWo] slt k|ltzt hlt ljBfnox? ;+/rgfTds tyf u}/ ;+/rgfTdsb'j} lx;fan] ;'/lIft 5g <
a. < 30%
<#)Ü
b. 30 - 60%
#) - ^)Ü
c. 60 – 90%
^)Ü - ()Ü
d. > 90%
> ()Ü
10. Is there a room for improvement regarding school safety record keeping/ EMIS at
local level?
:yfgLo :t/dfsltljBfnox? ;'/lIft 5g clgslt 5}gg, ljBfno ;'wf/ of]hgfslQsf] k|efjsf/L 5g cflb s'/fsf]
/]s8{÷;"rgf k|0ffnL /fVg] s'/fdf;'wf/ Nofpg] 7fpF slQsf] 5<
a. Lot of room
Jofks 5
b. Moderate
l7s}
c. No room
5}g

40
11. How would you rate the local government's frequency of school safety monitoring in
schools?
:yfgLo :t/af6 ljBfnox?dful/g] ljBfno ;'/Iffultljlwsf] cg'udgsf] ;ªVofslQsf] ;+tf]ifhgs 5<
a. Satisfactory
;+tf]ifhgs 5
b. Moderate
l7s}
c. Unsatisfactory
;+tf]ifhgs 5}g
12. How frequently does a government participate in programs (interaction, drills)
organized by school
ljBfnon] cfof]hgfug]{ljBfno ;'/Iffultljlwsf] sfo{qmdx?df:yfgLo ;/sf/sf] k|ltlglwsf] ;xeflutf s:tf] 5<
a. Quite often
;+tf]ifhgs 5
b. Moderate
l7s}
c. Unsatisfactory
;+tf]ifhgs 5}g
13. Has the local government made any declaration of School as a Zone of Peace
(SZOP) public?
:yfgLo ;/sf/n] ljBfnozflGt If]q 3f]if0ff ;fj{hlgs u/]sf] 5<
a. Yes
छ
b. No
5}g
14. Does the local government have a school contingency plan for educational continuity
in case a disaster strikes?
ljkb k/L xfn]sf] v08dfz}lIfslg/Gt/tfsf] nflu:yfgLo ;/sf/sf] e}k/L of]hgf5 <
a. Yes
छ
b. No
5}g
15. The federal government has prepared a minimum package for comprehensive school
safety with indicators for local government as well. Preparation of Implementation Guideline
for local government is also under process. Do you think such package and guideline would
be useful for local government?
;/sf/n] j[xtljBfno ;'/IffGo"gtdpkfosf] Kofs]htof/ kf/]sf] 5 h;df :yfgLo ;/sf/sf] nflu ;"rsklg
/flvPsf] 5. To:t} Kofs]hsf s'/f nfu' ug{ sfo{fGjoglgb]{lzsf:yfgLo ;/sf/ / ljBfnosfnflulgb]{lzsfklgaGb} 5
. of] Kofs]h / lgb]{lzsf:yfgLo ;/sf/sf] nfluslQsf] pkof]uLxf]nf<

41
a. Very useful
sfd nfU5
b. No
sfd 5}g
c. Neutral
t6:y
cGo -pNn]v ug'{xf];_
16. Are school safety related topics discussed in the SMC - PTA interaction program of
the school?
ljBfnoJoj:yfkg ;ldlt / cleefjs / lzIfs ;+3sf] e]nfdfljBfno ;'/Iff ;DalGw 5nkmn x'g] u/]sf]
5<
a. ECA does not include
school safety topics
cltl/Qmls|ofsnfk x'G5g t/
ljBfno ;'/Iff ;DalGwxf]Og
b. ECA also includes
school safety topics
cltl/Qmls|ofsnfkljBfno
;'/Iff ;DalGwklg x'G5g
c. We have school safety centered
ECA
cltl/Qmls|ofsnfkljBfno ;'/Iff s]lGb|t
x'G5g
d. I’m involved in school safety exercises
ljBfno ;'/Iff ;DalGwcEof;df ;xefuL 5'
e. I don’t know
yfxf 5}g
f. No response
k|ltls|of 5}g
17. Does the local government regularly provide support/resources for school safety?
s] :yfgLo kflnsfaf6 ljBfno ;'wf/sf] nflu ;|f]t ;xof]u lgoldtpknAwx'g] u/]sf] 5<
a. No
ljBfnonfO{ ;xof]u ub}{gg
b. Support is provided
but not for school
safety
;xof]u t x'G5 t/
ljBfno ;'/Iffsf]
nfluxf]Og
c. Yes, some support is provided for
school safety
ljBfno ;'/Iffsf] nflu s]xL ;xof]u x'G5
d. We have received support and completed
activities
;xof]u eOsfo{ ;DkGgePsf] 5
e. I don’t know
yfxf 5}g
f. No response
k|ltls|of 5}g
18.Is school safety and resilient education included in school curriculum?
s] ljBfnosf] z}lIfsls|ofsnfkdfljBfno ;'/Iff / ljkb pTyfgzLnlzIff ;dfj]z ul/Psf] 5<
a. No
5}g
b. Yes in some subjects
s]xLljifo k9fO{ x'g] u/]sf] 5
c. Classes are based on text books
kf7ok':tsdfcfwfl/t k9fO{ x'g] u/]sf] 5
d. In addition to text books, we have
prepared curriculum for it
kf7ok':tsafx]s cltl/Qm kf7oqmdagfO{ k7gkf7g
x'g] u/]sf] 5
e. I don’t know
yfxf 5}g
f. No response
k|ltls|of 5}g
tkfO{n] xfdLnfO{ ;do lbgePsf]dfwGojfblbg rfxG5f}

42
Annex 4: Questionnaire for SMC
“Ensuring resilience in education system through dissemination of the Comprehensive School Safety (CSS)Master Plan and
implementation of the CSS Minimum Package “
Rapid KAP Study
आधारभूत सव��ण
A joint initiative of UNICEF and NDRC Nepal to provide technical assistance on Comprehensive School Safety to the
Nepal Government
Taking a verbal consent and confidentiality from the respondent(s): We are collecting data for CSS Project. The report of this
study will not directly quote to any of the participants in the study and do any harm in their personal lives. This survey will take about 30
minutes of your time. All data/information collected using this questionnaire is protected under the law of Government of Nepal and will
not be used for any purpose other than the statistical analysis.
Are you interested to participate in this study and reply the questions in relation to you and your family? (YES
| NO).
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (SMC)
lzIfs;Fusf] k|||ZgfjnL
Name:
gfd:
Sex: 1. Male 2. Female 3. Others
lnË:k'?ifdlxnf cGo
Age: 1. 18-40 2.41-60 3. Above 61
pd]/:!*–$) $!–^) ^! Dfly
Disability : 1. Yes (please specify) 2.No
ckf+utf 5 -pNn]v ug{'xf];_5}g
Ethnicity: 1. Brahman/ Chhetri2. Janajati 3. Dalit 4. Others
Hffthflt != a|fDx0f÷If]qL @= hghflt #= blnt$= cGo
District: 1. Sindhuli 2. Dolakha 3. Gorkha
lhNnf != l;Gw'nL @= bf]nvf #= uf]vf{
Ward
j8f:
Name of locality:
6f]nsf] gfd
Name of School:
ljBfnosf] gfd
Instructions:
lgb]{zg
pQ/nfO{uf]nf] nfpg]
• If you do not have a response regarding the question, please circle “no response”
k|Zgsf] s'g} hjfkmgeP, “k|ltlqmof 5}g”nfO{ uf]nf] nfpg]

43
CSS Minimum Package
j[xtljBfno ;'/IffGo"gtdpkfosf]Kofs]h
16. Do youknow about comprehensive school safety?
j[xtljBfno ;'/Iffaf/] ;'Gg' ePsf] 5<
b. Yes (specify)
5 )उल्लेख गनुर्होस(....
b. No
5}g
17. Do you know about any government legal framework regarding school safety (SSDP,
Master Plan and Minimum Package etc)? Please specify
ljBfno;'/Iffaf/] ag]sflgod, sfg'gx? Aff/] s]xLyfxf 5<pNn]v ug'{xf]; .
18. Your role as a stakeholder in school safety:
;'/lIftljBfnosfnflu;/f]sf/jfnfsf] x}l;otdftkfO{sf]e"ldsf:
S
N
Statement
ljj/0f
Strongl
y agree
ztk|ltz
t ;xdt
Agr
ee
;xd
t
Neut
ral
t6:y
Disag
ree
c;xd
t
Strongl
y
disagre
e
ztk|ltz
tc;xdt
a. The impacts of disasters can be minimized
through the efforts of school and government
organizations
ljkbsf] k|efjnfO{ ljBfno / ;/sf/L lgsfosf] ;femf
k|of;af6 Go"gLs/0f ug{ ;lsG5
b. Schools have a major role in addressing the
impact of disasters, especially for children
�बषेशत :बालबा�लकामा kg]{�वपदको प्रभाव न्यूनीकरण गनर्
ljBfnosf]d'Voभू�मका हुन्छ
c. Community and school should collaborate to
reduce disaster risk at school and community.
ljBfno र समुदायमा हुने �वपदको जो�खम न्यूनीकरण गनर्
ljBfnoर समुदायको सहकायर् हुनु जरु�र हुन्छ
19. Are there Disaster focal teacher and GESI focal teacher in the school?
ljBfnodfljkb ;DalGw / n}ËLs ;dfgtftyf ;fdflhs ;dfj]zLtf ;DalGw ;Dks{ lzIfs x'g'x'G5 <
a. Only Disaster focal
teacher
ljkb ;DalGwdfq
b. Only GESI focal
teacher
n}=;=;f=; ;DalGwdfq
c. Both
b'j}
d. None
5}g
e. Others (please specify)

44
20. What is the SIP preparation/update status of this school? Who is involved in the
preparation/update process?
o; ljBfnodf, ljBfno ;'wf/ of]hgfsf] cj:yf s] 5< of]hgfagfpg] jfcBfjlwsug]{ k|ls|ofdfsf] sf] ;dfj]z
x'G5g <
21. What has your school done to reduce the risk of disaster?
�वपदको जो�खम न्यूनीकरण गनर् तपाइको ljBfnon]के के गरेको छ?-Ps eGbf a9L pQ/dflrGxnufpg ;Sg'x'G5_
a. Conducted Hazard
Vulnerability and capacity
assessment
जो�खम ,संकटासन्नाता र �मताको
मुल्यांकन गरेको छ
b. Established school
disaster management
committee
ljBfnoljkb Joj:yfkg
;ldlt :yfkgf u/]sf] 5
c. Developed disaster
management plan and integrated
into School Improvement Plan
ljBfnoljkb Joj:yfkg of]hgfagfO{
ljBfno ;'wf/ of]hgfdf ;dfj]z u/]sf] 5
d. Developed school evacuation
route and map
ljBfno �नकास मागर् प�हचान ग�र
नक्सांकन गरेको छ
e. Developed early
warning system
पुवर् सूचना प्रणाल� �वकास
गरेको छ
f. Build coordination among
stakeholders for DRR activities
and prepared a roster
�वपद व्यवस्थापनका सरोकारवाला �नकाय
संग समन्वय u/L ;Dks{ ;"rLtof/ kf/]sf]
5
g. Organizedcommunity-
schoolinteraction program to
increase awareness
hgr]tgfclej[l4sf] nfluljBfno–
cleefjscGt/lqmofsfo{qmdcfof]hgf
h. Ensured that the school buildings follow the
Building Code
ljBfnosfejgx? ejg ;lx+tfcg';f/ lgdf{0f
ul/Psf] 5
i. None
के �ह प�न गरेको
छैन
j. Others (please specify)
अन्य )उल्लेखगनुर्होस(
22. How important is it to organize disaster safety drills?
ljkbsf a]nf ;'/lIft /xgk"j{ cEof; u/fpg' slQsf] h?/L 5 <
a. Very important
w]/} dxTjk"0f{ 5
b. Not important
dxTjk"0f{ 5}g
c.Important but not indispensable
23. Are youfamiliar in carrying outHVCA in the school?
तपाईलाई जो�खम संकटसन्नाता र �मताको �वश्लेषण गनर् आउछ?
a. Yes
आउछ
b. No
आउदैन

45
अन्य (उल्लेखगनुर्होस(
24. Has there been any structural assessment through the mobilization of engineer to assure
the school’s safety?
of]ljBfnoslQsf] ;'/lIft 5 hfFrug{sf] nfluk|fljlwssf] kl/rfngdf ;+/rgfutn]vfhf]vfEfPsf] 5 <
a. Yes
5
b. No
5}g
c. That is government’s
job
Tof] ;/sf/sf] sfdxf]
d. Others (Please specify)
25. How important is non-structural assessment for school safety?
ljBfno ;'/lIftagfpg u}/ ;+/rgfTdsljZn]if0fug'{ slQsf] h?/L 5 <
a. Very important
w]/} dxTjk"0f{
b. Not important
dxTjk"0f{ 5}g
c. No idea
Yffxf 5}g
26. Has there been any non-structural assessment for school safety?
ljBfnodfklxn]u}/ ;+/rgfTdsljZn]if0f ul/Psf] 5<
a. Yes
5
b. No
5}g
c. We do not have capacity for that
s;/L ug]{ hfgsf/L ePg
e. Others (please specify)
27. Does the school have a school contingency plan for educational continuity in case a
disaster strikes?
ljkb k/L xfn]sf] v08dfz}lIfslg/Gt/tfsf] nfluljBfnodf e}k/L of]hgfag]sf] 5 <
d. Yes
छ
e. No
5}g
28. Does the school have code of conduct for child protection?
ljBfnodfafnaflnsfsf] ;+/If0fsf] nflucfrf/;lx+tfag]sf] 5<
a. Yes
छ
b. No
5}g
29. The government has prepared a minimum package for comprehensive school safety.
Do you think it would be useful for schools?

46
;/sf/n] j[xtljBfno ;'/IffGo"gtdpkfosf] Kofs]htof/ kf/]sf] 5 . of] Kofs]hljBfnox/sf] nfluslQsf]
pkof]uLxf]nf<
b. Very useful
sfd nfU5
b. No
sfd 5}g
d. Neutral
t6:y
e. There many such tools. They only distract school management from regular school activities
o:tf ;fdfu|L w]/} ag]sf 5g . ;xof]u eGbfsIff ;~rfngdfafwf k'¥ofp5
30. Do you think current capacity development programs related to school safety for
teachers and staff is enough?
lzIfs / ljBfnoJoj:yfkgnfO{clxn]rNg] Ifdtfljsf; sfo{qmdx? kof{Kt 5 t<
d. Yes
छ
e. No
5}g
31. What is the safety situation of your school?
tkfO{sf] ljBfnosf] ;'/Iffsf] cj:yf s:tf] 5<
a. Vulnerable
;ªs6u|:t 5
b. Risky
hf]lvdo"Qm 5
c. Not Risky
hf]lvdd"Qm 5
d. I don’t know
yfxf 5}g
e. No response
k|ltls|of 5}g
32. Are educational activities related to school safety conducted in the school?
ljBfnodfljBfno ;'/Iff ;DalGw z}lIfsls|ofsnfkx? x'g] u/]sf 5g<
a. Extracurricular activities(ECA) does not
include school safety topics
cltl/St ls|ofsnfk x'G5g t/
b. ECA also includes school safety
topics
cltl/St
ls|ofsnfkljBfno ;'/Iff
;DalGwklg x'G5g
c. We have school safety centred ECA
cltl/St ls|ofsnfkljBfno ;'/Iff s]lGb|t
x'G5g
e. I don’t know
yfxf 5}g
f. No response
k|ltls|of 5}g
18. Are school safety related topics discussed in the SMC - PTA interaction program of
the school?
ljBfnoJoj:yfkg ;ldlt / cleefjs / lzIfs ;+3sf] e]nfdfljBfno ;'/Iff ;DalGw 5nkmn x'g] u/]sf]
5<
a. ECA does not include school safety
topics
cltl/Qmls|ofsnfk x'G5g t/
b. ECA also includes school safety
topics
cltl/Qmls|ofsnfkljBfno
;'/Iff ;DalGwklg x'G5g
c. We have school safety centered ECA
cltl/Qmls|ofsnfkljBfno ;'/Iff s]lGb|t
x'G5g
e. I don’t know
yfxf 5}g
f. No response
k|ltls|of 5}g

47
19.Does the local government regularly provide support/resources for school safety?
s] :yfgLokflnsf af6 ljBfno ;'wf/sf] nflu ;|f]t ;xof]u lgoldtpknAwx'g] u/]sf] 5<
a. No
ljBfnonfO{ ;xof]u ub}{gg
b. Support is provided but not for
school safety
;xof]u t x'G5 t/
ljBfno ;'/Iffsf]
nfluxf]Og
c. Yes, some support is provided for school safety
ljBfno ;'/Iffsf] nflu s]xL ;xof]u x'G5
d. We have received support and completed activities
;xof]u eOsfo{ ;DkGgePsf] 5
e. I don’t know
yfxf 5}g
f. No response
k|ltls|of 5}g
20. Is school safety and resilient education included in school curriculum?
s] ljBfnosf] z}lIfsls|ofsnfkdfljBfno ;'/Iff / ljkb pTyfgzLnlzIff ;dfj]z ul/Psf] 5<
a. No
5}g
b. Yes in some subjects
s]xLljifo k9fO{ x'g] u/]sf] 5
c. Classes are based on text books
kf7ok':tsdfcfwfl/t k9fO{ x'g] u/]sf] 5
d. In addition to text books, we have prepared curriculum for it
kf7ok':tsafx]s cltl/Qm kf7oqmdagfO{ k7gkf7g
x'g] u/]sf] 5
e. I don’t know
yfxf 5}g
f. No response
k|ltls|of 5}g
tkfO{n] xfdLnfO{ ;do lbg'ePsf]dfwGojfblbg rfxG5f} .

48 | P a g e
Annex 5: Questionnaire for students
“Ensuring resilience in education system through dissemination of the Comprehensive School
Safety (CSS) Master Plan and implementation of the CSS Minimum Package “
Rapid KAP Study
cfwf/e"t ;j]{If0f
A joint initiative of UNICEF and NDRC Nepal to provide technical assistance on Comprehensive
School Safety to the Nepal Government
Taking a verbal consent and confidentiality from the respondent(s): We are collecting data for CSS
Project. The report of this study will not directly quote to any of the participants in the study and do any harm
in their personal lives. This survey will take about 30 minutes of your time. All data/information collected using
this questionnaire is protected under the law of Government of Nepal and will not be used for any purpose
other than the statistical analysis.
Are you interested to participate in this study and reply the questions in relation to you and your family? (YES
| NO).
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN
ljBfyL{;Fusf] k|||ZgfjnL
Name:
gfd:
Grade:
sIff
Sex: 1. Male 2. Female
3. Others
lnË: k'?if dlxnf
cGo
Age group 1. 5-10 2. 11-15
3. 16-20
pd]/: %–!) !!–!%
!^–@)
Disability: 1. Yes (please specify)
2. No
ckf+utf 5 -pNn]v ug{'xf];_
5}g
Ethnicity: 1. Brahman/ Chhetri 2. Janajati 3. Dalit 4. Others
Hffthflt != a|fDx0f÷If]qL @= hghflt #= blnt $= cGo
District: 1. Sindhuli 2. Dolakha
3. Gorkha
lhNnf != l;Gw'nL @= bf]nvf
#= uf]vf{
Ward
j8f:
Name of locality:
6f]nsf] gfd
Name of School:
laBfnosf] gfd
Instructions:
lgb]{zg

NICSS Post KAP Report 2019

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to NICSS Post KAP Report 2019

Similar to NICSS Post KAP Report 2019 (20)

More from Ndrc Nepal

More from Ndrc Nepal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NICSS Post KAP Report 2019