The Philippines is consistently ranked among the most hazard-exposed countries in the world because of its geographical position along the Pacific Ring of Fire and the Western Pacific typhoon belt, making it highly vulnerable to typhoons, floods, earthquakes, and landslides that threaten human lives, infrastructure, and institutions. This frequent exposure brings out the urgency of strengthening disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) mechanisms (Ner et al. 2022; United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR] 2019).

Republic Act No. 10121, known as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010, offers a policy and legal basis for a multisectoral, progressive, and proactive DRRM framework. The Act restructured the National Disaster Coordinating Council into the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) and decentralised the responsibilities to the local government units (LGUs), civil society and local institutions (NDRRMC 2011). It specifically requires the incorporation of DRRM into development planning, education, infrastructure practices, and community-based programmes. Disaster risk reduction and management is operationalised in the law as four thematic areas, namely, (1) prevention and mitigation, (2) preparedness, (3) response, and (4) recovery and rehabilitation (Castillo, Deleon III & Delgado 2024).

Within this framework, the Department of Education-institutionalised DRRM became institutionalised in schools with Department of Education (DepEd) Orders 55 and 50 series of 2007 and 2011, which require schools to develop contingency plans, carry out capacity-building exercises, deploy structural and non-structural mitigation actions, and support community resilience (Dela Cruz & Ormilla 2022). The schools are not only the learning centres but also the emergency evacuation centres and other safety points in society in case of a disaster. Nevertheless, empirical evaluations indicate that there are consistent gaps in the four DRRM thematic areas. In terms of prevention and mitigation, studies indicated that schools are faced with the problems of retrofitting older infrastructure, land-use compliance, and hazard mapping because of financial and technical limitations (Baluran 2023; Tizon & Comighud 2020). Regarding preparedness, earthquake and fire drills are highly practised, but their quality, frequency, and the rate of participation differ significantly, with the poor schools in rural areas trailing in this area (Pandapatan 2024; Viado 2023). Regarding response mechanisms, it has been shown that there are few emergency resources in the form of first aid kits, functional communication systems, and updated incident command structures (Cortejo, Ignes & Bangonon 2024). The processes of recovery and rehabilitation are mostly reactive as schools have reported delays in damage assessment, psychosocial care, and classroom rehabilitation following a disaster because of administrative bottlenecks and insufficient funding (Gaudiel 2023; Lai et al. 2016). These indicate skewed adherence to the requirements of RA 10121 on school-based DRRM.

Despite these national directives and institutional mandates, systematic assessments at the city level remain scarce, particularly in Cabadbaran City in the Caraga Region, which is highly exposed to hydrometeorological and geophysical hazards such as flooding, landslides, and earthquakes associated with active fault systems (Marfito, Llamas & Aurelio 2022; Santillan, Makinano-Santillan & Cutamora 2016). While the city maintains a functional DRRM Office that coordinates with schools, no empirical investigation has yet evaluated the extent of compliance of public schools with RA 10121 across the four thematic areas, thereby constraining evidence-based policymaking and limiting the ability of school administrators and local governments to design hazard-specific interventions. This study addresses this gap by assessing the extent of DRRM implementation in public schools in Cabadbaran City, examining the capability of school administrators in performing DRRM-related functions, and analysing the relationship between implementation and administrative capacity. The findings are expected to provide empirical evidence that can support policy formulation, guide resource allocation, and strengthen institutional resilience at both the local and national levels by advancing the discourse on the intersection of administrative capacity and DRRM implementation in the education sector.

Disaster risk reduction and management in the Philippines is influenced by international and local policies. At the global scale, the Sendai Framework of Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) focuses on the four priority areas, which include: (1) the understanding of disaster risk, (2) enhancing disaster risk governance, (3) investing in disaster reduction to build resilience, and (4) strengthening a disaster preparedness to respond effectively and build back better through recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (UNDRR 2019).

Although these themes are a complete roadmap, the school level has encountered the difficulties of low-level risk awareness, the lack of integration of DRR concepts in the curriculum, resource deficit, and ineffective monitoring systems (Abregana 2025; Wisner 2020). Such gaps represent the truth that policies, despite their well-formulation, can be challenged to be converted into uniform school-based practices, particularly in communities with limited resources and those where hazards are evident.

The Republic Act No. 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 institutionalised a comprehensive DRRM system at the national level. The Act has formed the NDRRMC and requires DRRM mainstreaming in development planning, which also includes the education sector (Congress of the Philippines 2010). It states that schools, via their DRRM coordinators and administrative heads, are to embrace certain measures within the four thematic areas, which are prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and rehabilitation and recovery. This is a legal framework that will inform the instruments and evaluations design, including this study. Nevertheless, even with the provisions of the law, researchers point out such barriers to its implementation as budget restrictions, insufficient training of school staff, and uneven local government assistance (Acierto, Robas & Monte 2023; Luminarias & Liquido 2025). Thus, the investigation of the ways schools apply Republic Act 10121 in particular contexts of hazards is one of the urgent concerns.

The summary of the selected Philippine studies on the school-based DRRM implementation is given in Table 1. Baluran (2023) demonstrated that schools proactively implemented DRRM protocols that matched the four thematic areas but were different in the extent of preparedness based on the differences in resources and contextual vulnerabilities. On the same note, Viado (2023) has discovered that administrators and teachers were familiar with the DRRM policies, but there were imbalanced practices in schools due to financial constraints and irregular support by local governments. As highlighted by Pandapatan (2024), the schools followed the required drills and information dissemination during COVID-19, but the sustainability of mitigation and recovery efforts was compromised due to the limitations of school budgets, which is why schools need external assistance.

Other researchers have also pointed out the role of administrators and organisational capacity towards the formation of outcomes. Tizon and Comighud (2020) noted that the capability among administrators had a very strong relationship with the degree of implementation, whereas Gaudiel (2023) also reported that leadership competence was the determining factor in the quality of preparedness and response efforts. By this time, Cortejo et al. (2024) identified an imbalance between developing response mechanisms that were highly developed and recovery and long-term resilience, which were also poorly developed. Such results are consistent with previous studies conducted by Regis (2020), which reported that recovery programme implementation was less efficient than preventive and preparedness activities, and that disparities depended on the training exposure and education levels of members of DRRM teams.

Taken together, these studies demonstrate that while DRRM activities are present in many schools, implementation varies significantly depending on resources, administrative capability, and local hazard contexts. None of the existing research, however, has focused specifically on Cabadbaran City. The city represents a critical site for investigation due to its high exposure to hydrometeorological and geophysical hazards. Its river basin systems and mountainous terrain are the reasons that make it highly vulnerable to flooding and landslides caused by rain (Santillan et al. 2016). It is also close to the portions of the Philippine Fault Zone, which exposes it to seismic activities (Marfito et al. 2022). Although DRRM-related studies have been conducted on these Philippine areas, including Iligan City, South Cotabato, and Ifugao, because of significant disaster incidents, no scholarly work has been done on Cabadbaran despite the same or even greater exposure to hazards (Baluran 2023; Dela Cruz & Ormilla 2022; Pandapatan 2024). This lack of empirical assessment is significant because the Caraga Region ranks among the top regions in terms of disaster frequency and vulnerability, yet remains underrepresented in DRRM literature (Varela, Apdohan & Balanay 2022). All in all, this gap highlights the importance of the present study, which aims to provide a systematic assessment of DRRM implementation in Cabadbaran’s public schools and to analyse the role of administrator capability in achieving compliance with Republic Act No. 10121.

This study employed a quantitative descriptive survey design to assess the status of DRRM implementation and the capability levels of school administrators in Cabadbaran City. The approach was selected to provide a structured analysis of existing practices within schools under the Department of Education. The study focused on describing current conditions without manipulating variables, which is appropriate for evaluating policy execution and administrative preparedness.

Findings demonstrate that the implementation of DRRM in Cabadbaran City’s public schools is consistently strong across all thematic areas, with all domains rated ‘Good Implementation’. Among these, disaster preparedness emerged as the most robustly implemented area, reflecting institutional commitment to proactive planning and risk awareness. The administrators also demonstrated a commendable level of competence across all capability indicators.

The results of this study provide empirical evidence on the extent of DRRM implementation in Cabadbaran City public schools and the role of administrator capacity in shaping these outcomes. The overall findings showed that implementation across the four thematic areas of prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery and rehabilitation was consistently rated as ‘Good’ (M = 3.822, s.d. = 0.922), indicating institutional compliance with Republic Act No. 10121 but revealing critical gaps that prevent schools from reaching higher levels of resilience.

A closer examination of the thematic areas revealed strengths in preparedness (M = 3.872, s.d. = 0.996) and prevention (M = 3.822, s.d. = 0.922), which were the two highest-rated areas (see Table 2). Schools reported high performance in environmental management, skills development, and damage assessment with a mean of 4.031 (s.d. = 0.822 as shown in Table 3), suggesting that programmes requiring routine training and awareness are more easily institutionalised. These results resonate with the findings of Baluran (2023) and Viado (2023), who documented the widespread practice of preparedness activities such as drills, awareness campaigns, and training in Philippine schools. The prioritisation of preparedness reflects a tendency of educational institutions to focus on readily implementable interventions that can be carried out within existing organisational structures.

However, the study also found relatively lower ratings in response (M = 3.727, s.d. = 0.875) and recovery and rehabilitation (M = 3.651, s.d. = 1.140), the two lowest-rated thematic areas (see Table 2), particularly in temporary shelter provision, stakeholder coordination, and psychosocial well-being with a mean of 3.625 (s.d. = 1.129 as shown in Table 3). These findings mirror the conclusions of Cortejo et al. (2024), who observed that schools are effective in executing immediate response mechanisms but are less capable of sustaining long-term rehabilitation measures. Similarly, Pandapatan (2024) emphasised that financial and resource constraints limit schools’ ability to maintain programmes beyond the initial stages of disaster response. The consistently lower scores in recovery and rehabilitation in this study underscore a structural gap in DRRM implementation: while schools can respond to immediate needs, they struggle with interventions that demand long-term planning, resource mobilisation, and interagency collaboration.

The role of administrators emerged as a critical determinant of these outcomes. The results showed that administrators were rated as ‘Capable’ across all dimensions, with their strongest capacities found in institutional mechanisms (M = 3.765, s.d. = 0.867), knowledge and education (M = 3.735, s.d. = 866), and policies and procedures (M = 3.722, s.d. = 0.900). However, human resources (M = 3.702, s.d. = 0.856) and material facilities (M = 3.697, s.d. = 0.934) received the lowest ratings (see Table 4), indicating limitations in operational support. This confirms the argument of Gaudiel (2023) that administrator leadership and competence are central to the effectiveness of school-based DRRM, but also highlights the systemic resource constraints noted by Pandapatan (2024). Administrators thus embody both the strength and the vulnerability of the school DRRM system: they possess the knowledge and institutional tools but are constrained by material deficits that limit the full execution of programmes.

Most significantly, the correlation analysis revealed a strong and statistically significant positive relationship (r = 0.879, p < 0.01) between administrator capacity and DRRM implementation (see Table 5). This finding confirms that administrative capability is not simply a supportive element but a decisive factor in determining the success of DRRM. It aligns with the conceptual framework of this study, which posits that the four thematic areas of DRRM serve as independent variables while administrator capacity functions as a moderating factor. The strength of this correlation provides empirical support for the proposition that schools with more capable administrators are better positioned to translate national policy into localised action. This result validates the insights of Baluran (2023), Viado (2023), and Gaudiel (2023), who highlighted administrative leadership as a key driver of implementation, while also reinforcing the argument of Pandapatan (2024) that resource availability remains intertwined with capacity.

Overall, the discussion features three critical implications. Firstly, the emphasis on preparedness and prevention indicates partial alignment with the statutory framework, but also exposes the need to strengthen the less-developed dimensions of response and recovery. Secondly, administrator capacity is proven to be both an asset and a bottleneck, depending on whether it is supported by adequate resources. Thirdly, the strong correlation between capacity and implementation suggests that policy interventions aimed at building administrator competence and providing material support will likely yield significant improvements in DRRM outcomes.

Situating these findings within the broader literature and the statutory framework of Republic Act No. 10121, this study affirms that DRRM in schools is both a governance and a capacity-building challenge. Schools can adopt policies and conduct preparedness activities, but their resilience depends on the ability of administrators to mobilise resources, sustain programmes, and coordinate with stakeholders. These conclusions reinforce the imperative of investing in both human and institutional capacity if DRRM in the education sector is to move beyond compliance and achieve comprehensive disaster resilience.

This study assessed the implementation of Republic Act 10121 in public schools in Cabadbaran City. The assessment addressed the four DRRM areas and the administrative capacities of school leaders. Results showed that schools maintained consistent levels of implementation across prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Preparedness received the highest rating. School administrators demonstrated capacity across institutional dimensions. Human and organisational structures for disaster management operated as intended. The connection between programme execution and administrative capacity confirmed that leadership competence aligned with programme effectiveness. Schools demonstrated readiness and resilience. Gaps persisted in physical infrastructure, financing, and sustained risk reduction capacity. Findings affirmed the need to strengthen school-based disaster management through policy, governance, and institutional development. Results supported the integration of preparedness measures into long-term education planning to secure school communities.