Functionality Levels And Practices Of School-Based Child Protection Committees in Implementing Child Protection Policies in Schools

This study determined the functionality levels and implementation practices of School-Based Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in public schools of Mercedes District, Division of Camarines Norte. Specifically, it determined the CPC functionality in terms of organization and coordination, policies and guidelines, capacities and resources, service delivery, accountability, and performance; evaluated implementation practices on preventive measures, protective and remedial measures, rules and procedures in handling cases, and referral and assessment; determined differences in perceptions among school heads, teachers, and parents; and developed an intervention to enhance CPC effectiveness. The study employed a quantitative descriptive-comparative research design involving 103 respondents composed of 25 school heads, 52 teachers, and 26 parents designated as CPC members. Data were analyzed using frequency counts, percentages, weighted mean, and the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Findings revealed that School-Based CPCs generally demonstrated high functionality across all domains, with strong compliance in policy implementation, case management, coordination, and monitoring systems. However, weaknesses were identified in strategic planning, formal coordination with external agencies, learner participation mechanisms, documentation accessibility, and financial sustainability. CPC practices were rated highly in preventive measures, protective and remedial interventions, and case-handling procedures, particularly in promoting positive discipline, timely reporting, and policy enforcement. In contrast, referral and assessment practices were only slightly implemented, indicating gaps in referral systems and administrative processes. Results further showed statistically significant differences in perceptions among school heads, teachers, and parents across all areas of CPC practices. School heads generally provided more favorable ratings, while teachers reported lower levels of implementation. Parents demonstrated higher engagement, particularly in referral and assessment activities. Based on the findings, Project S.A.F.E. (Strengthening Accountability, Functionality, and Engagement for Child Protection) was developed to address identified gaps. The intervention focuses on strengthening coordination mechanisms, referral systems, stakeholder engagement, learner participation, capacity building, and resource sustainability to improve the effectiveness and long-term implementation of child protection policies in schools.

School-based Child Protection Committees, child protection policies, functionality, practices, child protection implementation, Project S.A.F.E.

1. United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) (2023). Child protection strategy 2023–2030: Protecting children from violence, exploitation, and abuse. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/documents/child-protection-strategy [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2022). Safe to learn: Global initiatives to end violence in schools. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391797 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012. DepEd Child Protection Policy. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/DO_s2012_40.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2016). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315663371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=4169219 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Weist, M. D., Splett, J. W., Halliday, C. A., Gage, N. A., Seaman, M. A., Perkins, K. A., Perales, K., Miller, E., Collins, D., DiStefano, C. (2022). A randomized controlled trial on the interconnected systems framework for school mental health and PBIS: Focus on proximal variables and school discipline. Journal of School Psychology Volume 94, October 2022, Pages 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.08.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Saptono, B. (2022). Implications of child-friendly school policies in reducing cases of violence against children in elementary schools. Jurnal Prima Edukasia, 10(1), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpe.v10i1.45816 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Stapleton, L., Lee, M. H., Qing, D., et al. (2022). Predictive systems in child welfare: Opportunities and ethical challenges. AI & Society, 37(4), 1453–1465. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.08928 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cubio, J. V., & Bagnol, F. C. (2025). Functionality levels of Child Protection Committees in schools of Tandag City Division. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(1), 112–125. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0159 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Han-Awon, R. (2025). Child protection in educational settings: A systematic review of teacher awareness and school-based interventions. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(2), 201–215. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0342 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Rogula, B., et al. (2026). Institutional safeguarding measures for children: A scoping review. International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9060098 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Evidor, P. L., & Villacruz, J. P. (2025). Child protection policy in school: A case study on implementers. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12050057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Sapul, J. C. (2022). Monitoring schemes in child protection policy implementation. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 11(12), 85–98. DOI 10.5861/ijrse.2022.322 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Clarke, D., Larroulet, P., Pailañir, D., Quintana, D. (2022). Schools as a Safety-net: The Impact of School Closures and Reopenings on Rates of Reporting of Violence Against Children. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.14612 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Stålberg, A., Söderbäck, M., Kerstis, B., Velandia, M., & Andersson, A. K. (2024). Children’s right to protection, promotion, and participation. Early Child Development and Care. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1080/13575279.2023.2298312 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Alcala, M. S., & Cornelia, M. I. (2025). Child protection in public schools: A correlational study of teachers’ awareness and responsiveness. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3(7), 321–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2025.340 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Adewale, S., & Potokri, O. (2023). Assessment of child protection policy awareness in secondary schools. EUREKA: Social and Humanities, 2, 45–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21303/2504-5571.2023.002866 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Schelenz, L., Stapf, I., & Heesen, J. (2023). Child protection in digital environments: Risks and policy responses. AI & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.12340 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Guastaferro, K., Shipe, S. L., Connell, C. M., Holloway, J. L., Pulido, M. L., & Noll, J. G. (2023). Knowledge gains from school-based child sexual abuse prevention programs: A systematic review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 32(3), 215–234. DOI: 10.1080/10538712.2023.2268618 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Wolfersteig, W., Diaz, M. J., & Moreland, D. (2022). Empowering elementary and middle school youth to speak up and be safe: Advancing prevention of child maltreatment with a universal school-based curriculum. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), Article 11856. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191911856 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Bekaert, S., Paavilainen, E., & Helminen, M. (2022). Children’s experiences of child protection services: A qualitative study. Child & Family Social Work, 27(4), 789–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106094 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Costa, M. J., & Sani, A. I. (2024). The participation of children and young people in the child protection system: A systematic review. Social Sciences, 13(10), 548.; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13100548 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ramsli, E. G., Skar, A. M. S., Skylstad, V., & Sherr, L. (2023). Child maltreatment and mental health outcomes in the Philippines. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 16(2), 233–245. DOI: 10.1007/s40653-022-00483-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Leadership Practices And Stakeholders’ Commitment in Schools’ Delivery Services
• The Synergy of Success: Organizational Management, Staff Professionalism, Transformational Leadership as Drivers of State University Productivity
• Literacy Leadership of Public Secondary School Heads and the Implementation of Reading Programs: Basis for Intervention
• Utilization and Effectivenes of Strategic Interventions in Improving Mathematics Proficiency of Learners’ At-Risk with Mathematical Difficulties
• Techno-Stress Resilience, Fiscal Management Capability, and Leadership Competence on School Governance Implementation of Educational Leaders