9-10 September 2019, Greenwich, London

IMPROVING THE SAFETY AND RESILIENCE OF SCHOOLS:

A DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH
Hayley GRYC1 & Katherine COATES2

Abstract: Arup has over a decade of global experience providing technical and strategic support
to large-scale educational infrastructure programs. We describe a methodology, based on this
experience, that informs the development of risk reduction strategies for school infrastructure and
provides a framework for recommendations and investment prioritisation. We also describe
several common themes, challenges and opportunities that emerged across the range of
geographies and contexts covered. Key steps in the methodology include: understanding the
natural hazards in the country; establishing a baseline for existing school infrastructure (exposure
and vulnerability); understanding the country’s institutional and regulatory framework relating to
operation, planning, design and construction of schools; understanding the financial environment;
and understanding future educational planning needs. Key recommendations for improvement
and investment were: integrated collection and management of data related to school exposure,
vulnerability, and functionality; increased emphasis on vulnerability reduction through planning
and funding the maintenance of school buildings; school designs and design manuals that
address natural hazard risk and are appropriately communicated; recognizing the role and
capabilities of local communities in school construction and management; and clarity for roles
and responsibilities in the institutional and regulatory environment.

Introduction
The impacts of natural disaster events on schools – student and teacher casualties, damage to
infrastructure and longer-term societal disruption – are severe. Damage and collapse of school
infrastructure, and the casualties they cause, violate society’s expectation that children will be
safe at school. It is estimated that approximately 175 million children per year are affected by
natural disasters. Recent natural disasters with severe impacts on education include the 2008
Sichuan earthquake which is estimated to have killed over 10,000 children and destroyed 7,000
classrooms and the 2010 Haiti earthquake which is estimated to have killed 4,700 students and
teachers, destroyed 5000 schools (Bastidas & Petal, 2012). and caused disruption to the
education of 1.5 million children (OCHA Services, 2015). There is also an incentive to not only
invest in safer schools but also in the resilience of schools as this can provide continuity of
education after a disaster.
Minimising disruption to education after a natural disaster also helps reestablish normality for
children and allows parents to return to their livelihoods more quickly (OECD, 2004). It has been
demonstrated that implementing risk reduction measures before disaster strikes is the most
effective way to reduce losses, and that critical infrastructure such as schools should be
prioritized. Justifying this investment can be a challenge as governments must also fulfil day-to-
day needs such as the provision of healthcare, education and security (Kenny, 2009). Hence,
there is an incentive for countries to diagnose the level of risk to their school infrastructure so that
governments and other stakeholders can make informed decisions around risk to existing
schools, and can implement targeted measures to construct and maintain safer schools in the
future.
The methodology presented here is situated in the context of a number of global frameworks for
risk reduction in the education sector. The Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction (UN,
2015), which has been adopted by 148 countries around the world (UNISDR, 2018), applies to
all sectors but encompasses improving school safety and minimizing disruption to education as
key components. Other frameworks focus specifically on the education sector. Table 1 below
describes these frameworks, as well as guidance documents that address them.

1
Associate Director, Arup, London, UK, hayley.gryc@arup.com
2
Director, KSA Consulting, London, UK
 GRYC & COATES

The diagnostic approach taken in these frameworks varies. The methodology for measuring
progress against CSS indicators developed by GADRRES (2015b) includes a questionnaire and
stakeholder consultation; this approach is high level and covers all three Pillars of the CSS
Framework. The diagnostic approach in (GADRRES, 2015a) is similar, with an emphasis on
engaging with communities as part of the process. SESI’s assessment phase has a narrower and
more technical focus.
Reference Scope
Comprehensive School Safety Framework Framework arranged around three “Pillars”:
(CSS) (UNISDR, 2017) Pillar 1 – safe learning environments
Pillar 2 – disaster risk education
Related guidance, targets, and indicators Pillar 3 – standards for education in the post-
can be found in (GADRRES, 2015b) disaster context
UN’s School Earthquake Safety Initiative Vulnerability assessments and retrofits for
(SESI) (UNCRD, 2009) school buildings.
Global Roadmap for Safer Schools Safe learning environments
(GFDRR/World Bank, 2015)
(UNICEF, 2010) Disaster risk education
(INEE, 2012) Minimum standards for education in the post-
disaster context
(GADRRES, 2015a) Community-based safe school construction
Table 1. Frameworks and Guidance Documents for the Education Sector.

The diagnostic approach described in this paper follows the principles of the Sendai Framework:
it is multi-sectoral, puts emphasis on stakeholder engagement and combines technical and
societal/economic/policy considerations. It can be executed rapidly – typically in four to six weeks
from initiation to reporting – and provides practical information about key issues and priorities for
action and investment. The diagnostic method uses a holistic approach, recognising that damage
and collapse of schools is merely a symptom of a number of underlying causes. These relate to
the construction environment, capacity and capability, regulatory environment, institutional
environment and financial environment.
This paper is organised as follows: first, the aims and objective of the diagnostic approach are
described, followed by the methodology for diagnosing risk for schools as well as the framework
for recommendations to reduce risk. Then, a number of case studies are presented and discussed
to highlight selected common findings and considerations. Finally, the paper summarises the
approach and explores key themes that emerged the case studies presented.

Aims and objectives

The aims of the diagnostic approach are: to understand the current level of natural hazard risk to
educational infrastructure, to understand the future needs for the provision of new schools or
adaptation of existing schools and to understand the country or region’s institutional, regulatory
and financial context for managing, planning and delivery safer educational infrastructure.
The specific objectives are: (1) to understand the range of hazards and drivers of risk that may
compromise the planning, design, construction, repair and retrofitting, and operation and
maintenance of schools, (2) to understand the exposure and vulnerability of existing schools in
the country or region (including common construction typologies and the condition of schools)
and planned school designs that will be constructed, (3) to understand the current safer school
implementation practices in the country or region which relate to school design and construction,
disaster preparedness, repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting (4) to understand the institutional
environment and regulatory framework within which school infrastructure is planned, designed,
constructed, operated, maintained, repaired and retrofitted, and (5) to make prioritised
recommendations in key areas for stakeholders to plan investments in educational infrastructure
risk reduction.

Methodology
The diagnostic approach comprises the following main steps: a desktop study, field work including
in-county data collection and stakeholder consultations, an analysis of the data and
communications of the findings and recommendations.

2
 GRYC & COATES

Desktop study
A desktop study to understand hazards and risks in the country or region, the vulnerability and
exposure to these hazards, past, existing or planned school infrastructure programmes, the
current regulatory environment and institutional structures for the delivery and maintenance of
schools. It also includes a review of existing (model) school designs, local construction/retrofitting
guidance and local building codes and regulations that apply to school construction, maintenance
and rehabilitation.
In-Country Visit and Stakeholder Consultations
An in-country visit is performed to undertake consultations with key stakeholders as well as
conduct rapid visual surveys of a selected representative sample of schools in the country or
region. In this phase, information is collected to gain an understanding of the roles and
responsibilities in delivery and management of school infrastructure as well as the current
technical and institutional challenges and potential for collaboration with specific organisations.
The visit also collects data on the exposure and vulnerability of schools; the different
construction typologies that exist; and any prioritised schools of high importance for planned
use as emergency shelters. Key stakeholder consultations include: national-level government
departments such as ministries related to disaster risk management and education as well as
NGOs/INGOs and local professionals (architects, engineers and contractors) involved in
schools reconstruction, repair and retrofitting, academia, private sector and local communities.
In some cases, this approach can be carried out remotely with stakeholders and using past
reports and physical assessment data, if available.
Analysis
An analysis of the data and findings is performed to inform recommendations for prioritized risk
reduction actions and investments. The analysis seeks to understand: the existing school
infrastructure and related in-country management of data for schools, the construction
environment and financial environment in which school infrastructure is planned, designed,
constructed and operated.
Communication of Findings and Recommendations
Lastly, the findings are communicated to key stakeholders in the form of a report together with
stakeholder workshops and presentations. Feedback from stakeholders can be gathered and
incorporated at this time.

Selected Case Studies

This diagnostic approach has been carried out in over 20 countries globally for partners such as
the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the UK Department for International Development
(DFID). This section gives selected case studies for the diagnostic approach that highlight
common challenges and opportunities as well as contextual differences in different countries for
addressing school risk reduction.
Malawi: rapid unplanned construction and lack of building regulation
A diagnostic study was undertaken in Malawi by Arup on behalf of the World Bank’s Global
Program for Safer Schools in 2018 (Arup, 2018a) to make recommendations for prioritised
investment opportunities. Malawi is exposed to a variety of natural hazards, notably floods,
strong-winds and cyclones, earthquakes, landslides and drought. The combination of the hazards
present, with the vulnerability of people, the economy and the physical assets results in a high
level of risk for Malawi’s population and infrastructure In particular for school infrastructure and
education.
The study concluded that the implementation of schools over the last 20 plus years has been
defined by the difficulties associated with the unplanned introduction of free primary education in
1994. As a result, primary enrolments increased considerably; jumping from 1.9 million in 1993/94
to 2.9 million the following year and a further increase of 75% between 1993 and 2007. Rapid
construction of schools followed. Between 2012 to 2017 there was an overall increase of 28.5%
in the number of permanent classrooms. Primary school level came to be characterized by poor
school infrastructure, inadequate numbers of qualified teachers and inadequate teaching and
learning materials.

3
 GRYC & COATES

The supply of school infrastructure continues to grow nationwide due to the increasing demand
but there is limited planning of how this will be achieved. There is also limited consolidated data
on existing schools, including the number of classroom blocks, the construction typology and
condition. Recent hazard studies in the region have raised awareness amongst policy makers of
the hazard risk. However, the integration of the hazard risk into construction practices is very
limited resulting in highly vulnerable and exposed schools.

Figure 1: Dzanjo Primary School, Phalombe, Malawi

Schools across the country are located on exposed at-risk sites, as evidenced by damaged
caused in the recent Tropical Cyclone Idai in March 2019. This is further compounded by
insufficient site selection and planning. Four key construction typologies were found to exist
including: unreinforced burnt brick, concrete or soil block masonry. School buildings are typically
single storey with timber truss roofs, all displaying varying degrees of structural vulnerabilities.
Where model school designs exist, they tend to be a “one size fits all” approach, with little or no
adaption to the site or region. Any adaption is dependent on the involvement of designers who
turn to international standards, which are not always appropriate for Malawi. The prevalence of
community-based construction without technical input, the lack of construction supervision to
ensure quality materials and quality workmanship, as well as lack of maintenance leading to
degrading in the capital stock are worsening the issue.
The study found that there is no coherent policy, legal and regulatory framework to enable safer
school construction. Planning regulations are not uniform or consistently present throughout
Malawi and the Malawi Building Code is still in process of being established. Some draft guidance
material was being developed at the time of the study, which included the Minimum Standards
for Higher Education and the National Norms and Guidelines for Primary School Construction,
Rehabilitation and Maintenance in Malawi. As a response to the gap in the regulatory
environment on the construction of schools, the World Bank have been supporting Ministry of
Education Science and Technology (MoEST) in the development of a draft guidance document
entitled “Safer Schools Construction Guidelines” (SSCG). However, none of these documents
have yet to include any guidance that addresses the combination of natural-hazard risk.
The institutional, professional and regulatory bodies and stakeholders required to enable safer
school construction in Malawi exist. However, their effectiveness is limited due to lack of capacity
and insufficient coordination between stakeholders. The implementation of school construction
is largely decentralised to local government authorities and the roles and responsibilities at
decentralised level are not clear, and their capacities also limited. Currently there is strong
political backing to strengthen the institutional environment for the delivery of safer schools,
building on from the recovery and reconstruction efforts following the 2015 floods and the recent
tragedy of a school that collapsed in the Zomba area in June 2018. This has resulted in significant
investments in school infrastructure, school assessments and policy work planned over the next
2-3 years by some donors. This will now be amplified due to the recent impact of Tropical Cyclone
Idai.
The diagnostic study recommended two strategic long-term drivers to guide the safer school
agenda in Malawi: strengthening and enabling the decentralised actors and consolidating and
regulating the implementation environment. Further recommendations were highlighted in a
Roadmap which highlighted immediate and short-term actions for the Government of Malawi
(GoM) to mitigate further unsafe practices and mid and longer-term actions that GoM should

4
 GRYC & COATES

promote, in partnership with a broad platform of actors, to address the roots of unsafe construction
practices.
Following this study, Arup, supported the MoEST to advance school infrastructure safety to
finalise and adopt the Safer Schools Construction Guidelines (MoE, 2019). Further support was
provided to the World Bank in April 2019 to support the development of a Rapid Impact and Needs
Assessment of educational infrastructure following Tropical Cyclone Idai.
Armenia: managing, adapting and improving existing school infrastructure
A diagnostic mission was carried out in Armenia by Arup on behalf of the World Bank as part of
their Global Program for Safer Schools in 2016 (Arup, 2016a). The diagnosis found that 75% of
schools were operating under capacity and that 90% of schools were constructed during the
Soviet era and required retrofitting. From the government NACET database, it was estimated that
approximately 650,000 children were enrolled in school. Unlike countries dominated by demand
for new school facilities, the main challenge identified by the diagnosis was how to manage,
maintain and adapt Armenia’s existing portfolio of schools. This would involve both scaling up the
current government School Safety Improvement Program (SSIP) to cover all schools by 2030 and
forming a financial, regulatory and technical strategy to systematically assess, prioritise and
implement retrofitting and adaptation of existing schools.

Figure 2: School No 122 (Alexander Block) with Soviet unreinforced masonry ‘Midis’
construction located in Yerevan, Armenia

Armenia is subject to earthquakes, landslides and flooding with earthquakes posing the highest
risk but flooding and landslide events occurring more frequently. There is an awareness of the
risk in the country and selected risk studies have been performed by international and in-country
technical bodies. In addition, wide variation in seasonal temperatures can accelerate the
deterioration of buildings.
Armenian building codes and standards are adapted from Russian SNiP Norms and are generally
fit for purpose but would benefit from updating to bring them in-line with international standards.
Seismic hazard maps and design regulations for construction were introduced in 1995 but
measures to address natural hazard risks are not yet fully incorporated into the planning process.
The regulations also do not provide practical site selection, construction or retrofitting guidance
and no guidance specific to school construction. Quality assurance is devolved to multiple
stakeholders which inhibits the ability to enforce planning and building regulations. Evidence was
found of non-conforming school construction which suggests either a lack of understanding of
how to interpret and implement the Norms or a lack of enforcement.
The diagnosis found that unreliable baseline data existed for schools and a systematic program
of school assessments would be required to identify vulnerability, priorities and opportunities for
consolidation. If comprehensive assessments are carried out in future, a strategy for managing
and sharing data on assessments and functional needs should be developed. Four construction
typologies were identified with the majority of schools (90%) built before 1990 exhibiting poor
seismic performance. Structural systems included brittle unreinforced masonry (for example, the
‘Midis’ system) and non-seismically detailed pre-cast concrete construction.

5
 GRYC & COATES

Schools are generally operated and maintained by the head teacher. As part of an extremely
decentralised system, overall responsibility is shared and overlaps between the Ministry of
Education and Science, local authorities and community groups. The diagnosis identified a
number of gaps in knowledge and capacity throughout the implementation process. The design
and construction industry is heterogonous with limited capacity to retrofit effectively and at the
scale required.
To fund improvements to schools, government allocates between 5 to 10 million USD per year
for school rehabilitation, but this does not include seismic retrofitting. Separate to this, over the
period from 2016 to 2030 there were plans to fund the retrofit of 150 schools (estimated to cost 1
million USD per school) out of the 3773 vulnerable schools identified by the SSIP. The funding
for operations and maintenance (approximately 300 USD/child) also comes from the state
government but is insufficient and therefore increases the vulnerability of aging school buildings.
In conclusion, the diagnosis recommended: conducting an assessment to determine how to
reduce overcapacity and avoid retrofitting excess school buildings, developing site planning
guidelines which incorporate hazard exposure mapping, developing a rapid visual assessment
methodology to assess the vulnerability of buildings and developing guidelines and training for
retrofitting existing schools. In addition, a comprehensive cost benefit analysis would help
prioritise schools to target and associated funding requirements. In order to effectively carry out
the SSIP, roles and responsibilities should be clarified for coordinating, prioritising and
implementing investments in safe school infrastructure.
Afghanistan: meeting the demand for new school infrastructure as institutions transition
A remote diagnostic assessment was carried out for schools in Afghanistan by Arup on behalf of
the World Bank as part of their Global Program for Safer Schools in 2016 (Arup, 2016b). The
assessment was carried out through documentation review and remote stakeholder
consultations. Afghanistan has a number of unique challenges: remote and hard to access
locations, lack of centralized control, political turbulence and insecurity. These all serve to impair
delivery of safer school infrastructure. The country has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world
(35%). It has rapidly increased access to basic education since 2001 but is still lacking in the
capacity to deliver basic education (MoEIRA, 2016). There was a 900% increase in enrolment
over 15 years to more than nine million children in 16,400 schools and 13,000 new schools have
been established since 2001. But there is a gap in the provision of educational infrastructure: half
of current schools operate without buildings (classes take place outside or in tents) and it was
estimated that 20,000 additional new schools will be needed by 2030.
Afghanistan’s geography and climate is varied: ranging from harsh mountainous terrain in its
central region to the north-east, to more fertile valleys with denser settlements and areas of desert
in the southern region. It is subjected to numerous natural hazards including earthquakes (with
higher hazard in north-east), flooding, landslides, rock falls, snow avalanches and drought.
Earthquakes occur less frequently than other hazards but cause the most deaths. The diagnosis
found awareness of risk was high but there was a limited understanding of how to address risks
through site selection and mitigation, building design or construction.
An in-country database for monitoring school construction contains some high-level information
on building vulnerability and exposure, but it is insufficient to inform a comprehensive risk
assessment or retrofitting program. Common construction typologies are vulnerable to
earthquakes and strong winds and include unreinforced brick masonry, stone rubble masonry
mud brick (adobe) in rural areas and cast-in-place concrete frame buildings with infill masonry
walls in urban areas. Schools often have heavy roofs with layers of earth for insulation which
increases vulnerability to earthquakes. Factors which further increase the risk to schools include
poorly siting, poor construction quality and lack of maintenance. The majority of schools are
located in the highly hazardous north east region of the country.

6
 GRYC & COATES

Figure 3: Chapri Seya Kooh School, Sarobi, Afghanistan (World Bank/DM, 2018)

There is an acute lack of technical and professional capacity at all stages of the implementation
process. Until 2017, the Ministry of Education Infrastructure Services Department (ISD) was
responsible for schools, but due to limited capacity and logistics, the community-based School
Management Shuras (SMS) played a significant role in site selection, assessment, and
construction quality monitoring. A suite of 17 model school designs exists with multiple variations
but may not provide an appropriate level of seismic performance and key construction information
is missing from the construction drawings. Since 2017, the ISD has been disbanded and the
construction of new school infrastructure now sits with the the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and
Development (MoRRaD).
The regulatory framework is still developing under the Afghan National Standard Authority
(ANSA) and enforcement remains a challenge. There is no mandate for the MoE to comply with
the Afghanistan structural code which was introduced in 2014. MoRRaD has developed a more
practical Building Manual which includes schools that is used more widely. Construction of
schools is delivered through two primary implementation routes; Community Contract (by the
Shuras) and National Central Bidding (carried out by contractors). Until 2017, ISD engineers were
responsible for quality assurance, and technical and management support, but this was hindered
by the number and location of schools, and security concerns. For the contractor route, the quality
of construction is generally better, but budgetary challenges can affect the quality or completion
of the school building.
At least 5,000 schools have been built since 2001 by a variety of agencies. However, the volume
of schools being implemented ‘off budget’ outside the Ministry of Education make it extremely
difficult to ascertain the real volume and costs. Costs are estimated to be between 27,000 and
75,000 USD per school by various agencies. The availability and price of materials varies widely
by region which makes budgeting a challenge.
The diagnosis in 2016 recommended: conducting a national survey of school infrastructure as
part of a safer school infrastructure programme to identify needs for new infrastructure, retrofitting
requirements of existing infrastructure and investment gaps, reviewing and revising model school
designs with regional variations that incorporate vernacular and modern methods, developing
guidance for site selection, quality assurance, and project implementation for new schools and
performing risk analysis, prioritisation and cost benefit analysis for retrofitting existing schools.
Based on the recommendations of the diagnosis, the World Bank is currently carrying out a
program of technical and financial assistance in Afghanistan to improve the safety of new and
existing schools. As part of this, Arup performed a review of quality assurance processes across
the implementation cycle of schools in January 2019. This was done through a workshop with
key stakeholders using a quality assurance self-assessment tool to develop a comprehensive
strategy for quality in school construction (Arup, 2019).
Nepal: achieving safer schools in a high-risk geography with limited capacity
A diagnosis study was undertaken in Nepal by Arup (Arup, 2018b) to understand the vulnerability
of existing school facilities and contributing factors of risk to inform the implementation of the

7
 GRYC & COATES

DFID funded Nepal Safer Schools Project (NSSP) which plans to reconstruct and retrofit over
150 schools in Western Nepal over the next four years.
Nepal is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world and is subjected to earthquakes,
landslides, flooding and droughts. The country is located in a region of high seismicity, with steep
and rugged mountain topography and extreme weather relating to intensive monsoon rainfall:
approximately 80 percent of the country is vulnerable to multiple natural hazards. In 2015 the
Gorkha earthquake destroyed over 20,000 classrooms and heavily damaged 12,000 classrooms
in the Kathmandu valley. In comparison, the West of Nepal has not had a major earthquake since
1505 but current studies estimate there is potential for an earthquake up to magnitude 8.9.
The Nepali institutional environment is in a state of flux as it goes through a federalisation process.
The 2015 Constitution restructured the state into three levels of governance: federal, province
and local, which are given autonomy, with the devolution of powers and functions. Local
government is positioned to take significant responsibility for school safety, but their effectiveness
will vary depending on the capacity and capabilities that exist. Most local governments appear to
be in ‘wait and see’ mode pending clarity from provincial government.

Figure 4: Steel frame and unreinforced masonry school in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal (Arup,
2015)

Nepal has approximately 38,000 schools, with over 82,000 individual buildings, of which 75% are
public and the remainder private. Private schools are largely located in urban areas. The supply
of schools is considered sufficient and schools have the capacity to sustain the demand for pupil
enrolment, though the capacity of existing schools (ratio of classroom space to student numbers)
is unknown as classroom space varies considerably by school and enrolment data may be
inflated. The demographic trend indicates an increase of children moving into secondary
education, however the Education Management Information System (EMIS), Census, and UNDP
data on school enrolment, attendance, and dropout disagree. Nepal is one of the least urbanised
and fastest urbanising countries in Asia. It is recommended that areas with increasing population
growth, where the demand for future safe schools will be highest should be the focus of future
interventions.
The study found that most school buildings in Nepal are reported to require either retrofitting or
reconstruction, with the clear majority not currently meeting minimum safety standards. In the
Terai, in southwest Nepal, over 75% of schools are masonry construction, with a small amount of
reinforced concrete frame construction. In the hill and mountain regions over 75% of schools are
stone masonry. Schools are often built by communities, using locally raised funds and often with
volunteer labour, without following any standards. Schools, particularly in rural areas, lack any
structural or seismic design and have not adhered to any guidelines in terms of size or comfort.
Coupled with poor construction quality, they fail to provide a safe environment conducive to
learning.
In large urban areas, such as Kathmandu and Pokhara, detailed hazard maps exist that inform
land planning and site selection. Municipalities do not have detailed guidance on land planning
and site selection, and their planning requirements are high level and inadequate for the level of
exposure to hazards in Nepal.

8
 GRYC & COATES

Recognising that there is limited engineering and construction capacity to “build back better”, the
Department of Education (DoE) has developed ten pre-approved model school designs since
2015. There is difference of opinion on whether these pre-approved designs are of a good
standard, with some actors relying on them and some choosing to redesign them. Therefore, the
cost of classrooms can vary between 12,000 and 25,000 USD.
Municipal Engineers are responsible for issuing Building Permits. Checking the compliance of
buildings with the Nepal National Building Code (NBC) is now included in the permit process,
however in many cases corruption hinders the effectiveness of implementing regulations in
practice. The NBC was published in 1994 and is based on the Indian building codes (MoPPW,
1994). There is consensus that it requires updating, a process which has begun. A key omission
is that retrofit design is not covered within the Nepal Building Code and there is no formal approval
process for building retrofit, however the DoE have formed an approval process for the
construction of new schools.
The School Sector Development Plan (SSDP) for 2016-2023 (2016) sets out the Government’s
education policy. This includes the requirement to strengthen school level disaster management
and resilience and improve preparedness, as well as, undertaking multi-hazard risk assessment
and mapping for disaster management, although it isn’t clear who is responsible for this. The
“Implementation Guidelines” for the “Comprehensive Safe School Masterplan Minimum Package”
has been drafted by Ministry of Education, UNICEF and Save the Children (2018).
Construction quality is widely considered to be poor largely due to shortages in skilled
construction workers. Generally, quality of materials is considered good, but availability is poor.
Prices of building material throughout Nepal fluctuate depending on time of year which can have
big impacts on the quality of schools if contingencies have not been allowed for in construction
budgets. Furthermore, corruption has been reported during past school infrastructure
programmes.
This study was undertaken during the Inception Phase of the NSSP and presented a range of
recommendations to be included in the Implementation Phase of the program. These include but
were not limited to: engaging with all three tiers of government; focus capacity building efforts at
the municipal level (this may need to be reviewed on a case by case basis due to the diversity of
local government); develop construction and retrofit construction manuals and guidance for use
by the local government and SMSs; operationalise a quality assurance strategy in order to
mitigate risks in construction; and assist local government to develop and use a risk prioritisation
combined with a series of selection criteria to identify the highest priority schools for future
investment.

Summary
An approach has been presented to perform rapid diagnosis of risk to school infrastructure in a
region or country. To illustrate the approach in practice, four case studies have been presented
for a variety of geographies and contexts. It can be seen that to assess and improve school safety,
a holistic approach must be taken - beyond focussing on the technical aspects or condition state
of school buildings – but also on the societal, institutional and economic context related to
provision of school infrastructure.
Several common themes have been highlighted in the case studies presented:
Functional considerations and planning for future needs in the delivery of education is a key driver
for risk reduction strategy and priorities. For example, in Armenia, recommendations focussed on
understanding the condition and use of existing schools, the management of data and how to
adapt and improve existing school buildings. As part of this, ensuring there is adequate funding
and capacity to maintain existing schools is essential but often neglected in policy and planning.
Frequently, communities take charge of school maintenance and their engagement in the process
is required. In Afghanistan, where there is a strong demand for new schools, risk can reduced
more effectively by using lessons from past school programs to inform improved designs and
guidelines for new school construction. Planning decisions and school designs should be
reviewed by technically qualified professionals to ensure they take the local natural hazard risks
into account, are well communicated, use locally available materials and match local construction
capabilities. This is particularly challenging in countries with high levels of natural hazard risk such
as Nepal or Afghanistan when materials for seismically resistant buildings are limited in rural and
remote areas and schools are built by the community. Lastly, effective risk reduction for schools
9
 GRYC & COATES

is often hampered by lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities among the different actors and
stakeholders involved.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the World Bank and DFID for their support with the undertaking of this
work and permission to publish the results.

References
Arup, 2016a. GFDRR Global Program for Safer Schools: Armenia Mission Report, Issue 2,
dated 23 February 2016.
Arup, 2016b. GFDRR Global Program for Safer Schools: General Diagnosis of School
Infrastructure in Afghanistan, dated 22 September 2016.
Arup, 2018a. GFDRR Global Program for Safer Schools: Malawi Mission Report, Roadmap to
Safer Schools, dated 30 August 2018.
Arup, 2018b. Nepal Safer Schools Project (NSSP): Diagnostic of School Infrastructure Baseline.
Arup, 2019. World Bank Technical Support for School Infrastructure Delivery in Afghanistan:
Technical Quality Assurance Review Note, Issue 2, dated January 7 2019.
Bastidas, P. and Petal, M., 2012. Assessing School Safety from Disasters A Global Baseline
Report, UNISRD.
Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction & Resilience in the Education Sector (GADRRES),
2015a. Towards Safer School Construction: A community-based approach. Global Alliance
for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector.
Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction & Resilience in the Education Sector (GADRRES),
2015b. CSS Targets and Indicators and Concept Note for Phase Two.
INEE, 2012. Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery.
ICED, 2018. Construction Capacity Framework.
Kenny, C., 2009. Why Do People Die in Earthquakes: The Costs, Benefits and Institutions of
Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries.
OCHA Services, 2015. Archived Information for Gorkha Earthquake Response 2015 April 25.
OECD, 2004. Keeping Schools Safe in Earthquakes, Proceedings of the ad hoc Experts’ Group
Meeting on Earthquake Safety in Schools.
Malawi Ministry of Education, 2019. Safer School Construction Guidelines.
Ministry of Education of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (MoEIRA), 2016. National Education
Strategic Plan (2017 – 2021).
Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MoPPW), 1994. Nepal National Building Code NBS
105: 1994): Seismic Design Of Buildings In Nepal.
Department of Education, 2016. School Sector Development Plan 2016 – 2023.
United Nations (UN), 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
UNCRD, 2009. Reducing Vulnerability of School Children to Earthquakes: A project of School
Earthquake Safety Initiative (SESI).
UNICEF, 2010. Using Education to Reduce Risk: An overview of disaster risk reduction and
how it is promoted through education in the SEE/CIS region.
UNISRD, 2017. Comprehensive School Safety: A global framework in support of The Global
Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector and The
Worldwide Initiative for Safe Schools.
UNISDR, 2018. “Sendai Framework anniversary: reporting underway, Geneva, 16 March 2018.
World Bank/GFDRR, 2005. Roadmap for Safer Schools.
World Bank/Development Monitors, 2018. TASIDA School Assessment Report for Chapri Seya
Kooh School.

10