Functionality Levels of Child Protection Committee in Schools of Tandag City Division

Functionality Levels of Child Protection Committee in Schools of Tandag City Division

Joel V. Cubio, MST¹, Florence C. Bagnol, MPA, RPm²

¹Head Teacher 1, Purok Narra, Mabua, Tandag City, Surigao del Sur 8300, Philippines

²Education Program Specialist II, Purok Narra, Mabua, Tandag City, Surigao del Sur 8300, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0159

Received: 04 March 2025; Accepted: 15 March 2025; Published: 13 April 2025

ABSTRACT

Child protection in schools relies on the effective operation of Child Protection Committees (CPCs), which depend on structure, resources, implementation, and policy alignment (Save the Children, 2018). This study investigated the functionality of CPCs in schools across Tandag City Division during the 2024-2025 academic year to address the problem of whether CPCs are adequately organized, resourced, and performing their mandated roles. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the level of functionality of CPCs based on five key indicators: Organization and Coordination, Policies and Guidelines, Capacities and Resources, Service Delivery, and Accountability and Performance. It also sought to identify the significant gaps in CPC operations and recommend interventions for improvement. A total of 31 schools were assessed using a comprehensive functionality assessment survey and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were also conducted with selected CPC members to explore evidence-based decision-making in the design and implementation of child protection programs.

The results revealed significant variability in the functionality of CPCs with schools like Carmen Integrated School and Rosario Integrated School scoring highly indicating a well-established structures and effective child protection programs. In contrast, schools such as Awasian Elementary School and Buenavista Elementary School exhibited significant gaps in organizational coordination, resources, and service delivery, which hindered their effectiveness. The overall score of 2.26 categorized CPCs as Moderately Functional suggesting that while some schools performed effectively, there was substantial room for improvement across several indicators.

The findings highlighted the need for targeted interventions to address gaps in policy implementation, resource allocation, and service delivery. The study recommended implementing structured training programs, updating policies, enhancing resource mobilization, and improving stakeholder engagement to strengthen CPC functionality and contribute to more effective child protection systems in schools that ensure a safer and more supportive environment for children in Tandag City.

Keywords: Child Protection; Descriptive Research; Mixed Methods; School-based Assessment; DepEd Tandag City

INTRODUCTION

Child protection is a critical issue in ensuring the safety, well-being, and development of children worldwide. In response to increasing vulnerabilities, many countries have established Child Protection Committees (CPCs) at various levels to create a coordinated framework for addressing child abuse, neglect, exploitation, and violence. However, the effectiveness of these committees often hinges on their functionality, which includes their organizational structure, resources, implementation capacity, and alignment with policy frameworks (Save the Children, 2018).

The Updated Child Protection Committee (CPC) Functionality Assessment Tool was designed to evaluate the performance and operational efficiency of CPCs. It provides a systematic approach to identifying strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in CPC operations. Such assessments are essential for developing evidence-based intervention programs tailored to specific challenges ensuring that efforts to protect children are both effective and sustainable (UNICEF, 2021).

Research indicates that functional CPCs play a pivotal role in creating child-friendly communities by ensuring coordination among stakeholders, providing immediate responses to child protection issues, and facilitating long-term preventive measures (Department of Social Welfare and Development, 2020). However, the variability in CPC performance across regions underscores the need for localized assessments to inform context-specific interventions (Plan International, 2019).

In the Philippine context, the Department of Education (DepEd) has issued several orders and policies to strengthen child protection mechanisms. Notable among these is DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, known as the Child Protection Policy, which mandates the creation of Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in schools. This policy outlines guidelines for identifying, reporting, and addressing child protection issues, emphasizing the role of CPCs in ensuring a safe learning environment. Additionally, DepEd Memorandum No. 221, s. 2013 highlights the need for continuous capacity-building programs for CPC members to enhance their effectiveness in addressing child abuse and bullying cases. These directives align with the broader objective of creating child-friendly schools and communities as advocated by international frameworks like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

The study was conducted across the 31 schools in Tandag City where it plays a crucial role in implementing and assessing the effectiveness of Child Protection Committees. These schools reflected a diverse range of educational settings and varying levels of CPC functionality that offers valuable insights into their operations. The research aimed to capture the unique dynamics of local or institutionalized policies, community involvement, and the efforts of CPCs to safeguard the well-being of children.

This study aimed to analyze the results of the Updated CPC Functionality Assessment Survey and utilize the findings as the basis for designing a comprehensive intervention program and to enhance the capacity of CPCs to address complex child protection challenges effectively. The ultimate goal was to contribute to the broader agenda of ensuring every child’s right to safety and protection.

Nomenclature

Research Questions

This section presented the key research questions that guide the study focusing on the use of the current updated assessment survey for the Child Protection Committee (CPC) in identifying capacity gaps, functionality levels, and areas for improvement.

1. What are the functionality levels of school-based Child Protection Committees, particularly in terms of;

1. 1. Organization and coordination
   2. Policies and guidelines
   3. Capacities and resources
   4. Service delivery
   5. Accountability and performance?

2. To what extent did the updated assessment survey support evidence-based decision-making in the design and implementation of child protection programs, in terms of;

1. 1. Tool evaluation
   2. Evidence-based practices
   3. Data-driven decisions
   4. Impact on program design
   5. Stakeholder involvement?

3. What intervention programs were proposed based on the findings of this study?

Objectives of the Study

This study aimed to assess the Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in schools through a comprehensive evaluation using the updated assessment survey. Specifically, this research sought to achieve the following objectives:

To identify the functionality levels and capacity gaps in Child Protection Committees (CPCs) using the updated assessment survey, particularly in terms of: a. Organization and coordination; b. Policies and guidelines; c. Capacities and resources; d. Service delivery; and e. Accountability and performance.

To determine the extent to which the updated assessment survey tool supports evidence-based decision-making in the design and implementation of child protection programs, focusing on:

Evaluation of the effectiveness and applicability of the tool; Promotion of evidence-based practices in child protection; Facilitation of data-driven decisions to address identified gaps; Influence of gathered data on the overall design and enhancement of child protection programs; and Involvement of key stakeholders in the decision-making process based on assessment findings.

To propose intervention programs based on the capacity gaps and key findings identified through the updated assessment survey tool to improve the functionality and responsiveness of Child Protection Committees.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Child protection is an essential component of ensuring the well-being of children and safeguarding them from various forms of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Effective child protection systems require robust mechanisms for identifying and responding to risks, with the Child Protection Committee (CPC) playing a central role in the design and implementation of these strategies. A comprehensive assessment-based approach to strengthening CPCs is key to designing more effective intervention programs, with a focus on enhancing their capacity to prevent and address child protection concerns.

This literature review explores the role of Child Protection Committees, assessment-based intervention approaches, and best practices in designing child protection programs to improve their effectiveness and sustainability. Child Protection Committees (CPCs) are interdisciplinary bodies often formed at local, district, or national levels to coordinate child protection activities. These committees bring together stakeholders from government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community members, law enforcement, and other relevant actors to collaborate on safeguarding children’s rights.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the primary responsibility of CPCs is to ensure that children’s rights are upheld and that children are protected from harm. Their functions include: a. Coordinating and overseeing child protection efforts in the community b. Developing and implementing policies and protocols for child protection c. Providing training and capacity building for stakeholders involved in child welfare. d. Monitoring and evaluating child protection interventions and ensuring their effectiveness. e. Raising public awareness about child protection issues.

A study by Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2005) highlights that CPCs often play an essential role in bridging gaps between policy and practice ensuring that child protection measures are effectively translated into local actions. Despite their importance, CPCs often face various challenges, including limited resources, inadequate coordination among stakeholders, and insufficient training. Lange and Walton (2013) found that these barriers often hinder the CPC’s capacity to respond to child protection issues effectively. Furthermore, Peters et al. (2020) argue that ineffective CPCs contribute to gaps in service delivery, particularly in resource-poor settings.

Assessment plays a crucial role in identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in child protection systems. An assessment-based approach involves systematically gathering and analyzing data to inform the design and implementation of intervention programs. This approach ensures that interventions are evidence-based, context-specific, and aligned with the needs of the children and communities involved. A needs assessment is the first step in designing an effective intervention program. Lundy and McEvoy (2019) emphasize the importance of conducting thorough assessments to understand the specific risks and challenges children face in different contexts. These assessments can include surveys, focus group discussions, interviews, and consultations with children, families, and local stakeholders.

According to Feinstein et al. (2016), the use of participatory assessment methods, where children and families are directly involved in identifying their needs, leads to more relevant and effective interventions. These assessments should address both immediate needs (such as emergency shelter or medical care) and long-term needs (such as education, psychological support, and family reintegration). Effective child protection requires the early identification of children at risk. The work of Klein and Lasky (2014) suggests that CPCs can improve their effectiveness by implementing systematic risk assessment frameworks. These frameworks help identify children who are at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation based on environmental, familial, and social factors.

Bromfield and Holzer (2008) argue that a strong assessment-based approach also includes a well-defined process for tracking cases and monitoring outcomes. Using data-driven approaches, CPCs can prioritize cases based on severity, ensure that appropriate interventions are put in place, and monitor the long-term outcomes for children. Once a comprehensive assessment has been conducted, designing effective intervention programs is the next critical step. These programs should be informed by the findings of the assessment and tailored to meet the specific needs of children and families in different contexts.

The success of child protection interventions often depends on adopting evidence-based practices. Lipsey and Wilson (2001) assert that interventions grounded in strong evidence have better outcomes and are more likely to be sustainable. Some evidence-based interventions include: Therapeutic services for children who have experienced abuse or neglect. Family-strengthening programs that aim to address the root causes of abuse, such as poverty and family dysfunction. Community-based prevention programs that raise awareness about child rights and promote community involvement in child protection. Another key element in strengthening CPCs is building the capacity of those involved in child protection. Garcia and Booysen (2011) argue that continuous training for CPC members, including government officials, social workers, and community members, is essential for improving the quality of interventions. Training should focus on issues such as child development, trauma-informed care, and legal frameworks related to child protection.

Finally, Hussein and Moriarty (2019) highlight the importance of establishing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of child protection interventions. Regular evaluations allow CPCs to refine their strategies, identify challenges early, and ensure that children’s needs are being met. This feedback loop also ensures accountability and promotes transparency in the implementation of child protection initiatives.

Based on the literature, several best practices for strengthening CPCs and designing effective intervention programs emerge: 1. Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration: Collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including government agencies, NGOs, community leaders, and children themselves, is crucial to a successful child protection system (Pinnegar and Wright, 2014). 2. Child-Centered Approach: Interventions must prioritize the best interests of the child, ensuring that their voices are heard in the process (Lundy & McEvoy, 2019). 3. Sustainability and Local Ownership: For child protection interventions to be sustainable, it is important to build local ownership and capacity to continue these efforts even after external support ends (Moro and Diedrichs, 2016). 4. Culturally Relevant Practices: Tailoring interventions to the cultural, social, and economic contexts of the community is essential for effectiveness (Feinstein et al., 2016). 5. Integrated Services: Child protection programs should not work in isolation. Integrating services like healthcare, education, and legal support ensures comprehensive support for children in need (Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005).

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a descriptive research design that combine quantitative and qualitative methods to assess the functionality levels of Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in Tandag City schools. Data were gathered through survey assessments and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with CPC members, school administrators, students, parents, and community representatives to provide both measurable data and contextual insights for a comprehensive understanding of CPC operations.

Research Design

This study utilized a quantitative survey-based assessment. This design was used to evaluate the stage of development of the Child Protection Committee (CPC) based on structured indicators. The study sought to describe the status and level of development of CPCs by assessing various organizational, policy, resource, service delivery, and performance aspects. The scoring system was based on counting “YES” responses and converting them into numerical equivalent scores. Data was collected at one point in time to assess the CPC’s status. The tool was used to measure and determine the effectiveness or development of CPCs in different areas.

In addition to the survey-based assessment, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were incorporated into the research design to provide a qualitative perspective. FGDs allowed for in-depth discussions with key stakeholders, including CPC members, school administrators, child protection officers, and community representatives, to further explore the context behind the survey responses. These discussions provided richer insights into the challenges and successes of CPCs and helped validate the findings from the quantitative data. The combination of both quantitative and qualitative data strengthened the overall evaluation that offers a comprehensive understanding of the CPC’s development and the factors influencing its effectiveness.

Participants

The participants for this study are the thirty-one (31) schools in Tandag City which had all 96 members of the School Child Protection Committee (CPC), such as teachers, guidance counselors, and school heads as well as students who are direct beneficiaries of CPC activities. Parents were also involved to provide external perspectives on the committee’s effectiveness and impact. Purposive sampling was employed to ensure that individuals who are directly involved in or significantly affected by the CPC’s operations are included allowing for a comprehensive understanding of its roles, challenges, and overall effectiveness.

Data Collection Procedure

The data collection procedure began with the preparation of the assessment survey tool, where the research team utilizes a structured checklist to evaluate the stage of development of Child Protection Committees (CPCs). This checklist consists of five major domains: Organization & Coordination, Policies & Guidelines, Capacities and Resources, Service Delivery, and Accountability and Performance. Next, in the selection of respondents, key stakeholders such as CPC members, school administrators, child protection officers, and community representatives are identified to provide insights based on their assessment of CPC functions within their respective institutions.

The survey administration involved the distribution of the structured checklist, which may be conducted through direct interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), or self-assessment surveys, depending on the accessibility and availability of respondents. In addition to the survey-based tool, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) was held with a select group of stakeholders to gather deeper insights into the challenges, successes, and contextual factors influencing CPC development. These FGDs provided qualitative data to complement the quantitative survey results, ensuring a more holistic understanding of CPC operations. Each participant, whether in the survey or FGD was required to answer a set of yes/no questions corresponding to the checklist indicators.

Once the responses were gathered, the recording of responses involved counting the number of “YES” answers for each indicator and documenting them in the summary sheet. The scoring and categorization process followed, where the total number of “YES” responses for each indicator was matched with the reference guide to determine the equivalent score. These scores were then classified into the appropriate CPC development stage ranging from Stage 1 (lowest development) to Stage 5 (highest development). After scoring, the computation of the overall score took place by summing all the equivalent scores from the five domains and dividing the total by 12 to derive the final Overall Score, which reflected the CPC’s overall stage of development.

Lastly, the analysis and interpretation of the results identified the strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in CPC operations and child protection services. The findings from both the survey and the FGDs were integrated to provide a comprehensive assessment. The results were used to formulate recommendations for enhancing CPC effectiveness and sustainability.

Table 1. Level of functionality of a Child Protection Committee (CPC) using tools.

Data Analysis

Based on the structured checklist and scoring system, descriptive statistics was used for data analysis. The frequency and percentage of “YES” responses will be calculated for each indicator to determine how often a particular criterion is met across different CPCs. The percentage of affirmative responses were computed to assess the prevalence of each CPC development factor providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of child protection committees.

In addition to the quantitative data from the survey, the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) provided valuable qualitative data. The responses from FGDs were analyzed through thematic analysis. Key themes, patterns, and recurring issues will be identified from the participants’ discussions. This process involved coding the qualitative responses, categorizing them into themes such as challenges in coordination, resource allocation, or policy implementation, and interpreting these themes in the context of the CPC’s development stage.

Furthermore, frequency analysis was used to assess how often specific topics or concerns are raised during the FGDs. This allowed for a deeper understanding of the barriers and successes experienced by CPCs, adding nuance to the quantitative data collected.

Ethical Issues

Ethical considerations were strictly adhered to throughout the study to ensure the protection and respect of all participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants with each individual providing written consent after being fully briefed on the study’s purpose, procedures, and their role. Confidentiality was maintained by anonymizing all responses and securely storing participant information to protect their privacy. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and participants had the right to decline or withdraw from the study at any time without facing any consequences or pressure to continue. These measures aimed to uphold the highest ethical standards in research.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Identified capacity gaps in CPCs

Organization and Coordination

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Schools Based on Organization and Coordination Scores.

Legend:

Number of Schools – Represents the different counts of schools.

Frequency (F) – Indicates the number of times a specific number of schools was observed.

Percentage (%) – Represents the proportion of the specific number of schools relative to the total.

Table 2 presented the frequency and percentage of schools in the Tandag City according to their scores in the organization and coordination indicator of Child Protection Committees (CPCs). A total of 31 schools were evaluated with a cumulative score of 212 representing 3.79% of the total score distribution. The organization and coordination indicator assessed the structure and effectiveness of the Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in schools in Tandag City, with a total score of 212 across all schools. The scores range from 2 (Buenavista Elementary School) to 21 (Meliton M. Ajos Memorial Integrated School), indicating a broad disparity in the organizational capacity of the committees. Meliton M. Ajos Memorial Integrated School scored the highest at 21, suggesting a well-established and highly coordinated CPC with a robust structure and significant engagement in child protection efforts. In contrast, Buenavista Elementary School scored the lowest at 2, reflecting a CPC with minimal organization and coordination, which may point to a lack of formalized processes or resources. Schools such as Tandag Pilot Elementary School (11), Salvacion Elementary School (9), San Antonio Elementary School (9), and Meliton M. Ajos Memorial IS have relatively high scores, indicating effective organization and coordination, possibly through clear frameworks, active committees, and comprehensive child protection programs. However, schools such as Buenvista Elementary School (2), Engineer Nestor Ty Memorial Elementary School (3), Pag-asa Tribal Community Integrated School (3), Awasian Elementary School (4), and Mabuhay Integrated School (4) scored lower, indicating significant weaknesses in their organizational structures and coordination efforts. These schools may face challenges in implementing systematic child protection programs and coordinating efforts among stakeholders. Several schools in the mid-range, including San Antonio ES (7), Pangi ES (6), and Banahao IS (6), show that while organizational efforts are in place, additional resources, training, or formal processes are needed to enhance the effectiveness of their CPCs. The total score of 212 suggested a varied landscape of CPC functionality, with some schools performing well and others requiring substantial support to improve their coordination and organization. This disparity highlights the need for targeted interventions to address the gaps in schools with lower scores to ensure a more consistent and effective child protection approach across the district. Finkelhor (2018) emphasized the critical role of organized frameworks in child protection, while Sullivan and Knutson (2020) argue that continuous updates and resource allocation are essential for maintaining effective committees. Furthermore, Benson et al. (2021) highlighted that strong organizational structures and coordination within CPCs are key to the success of child protection programs especially in underserved regions.

Policies and Guidelines

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Schools Based on Policies and Guidelines Scores

Legend:

Number of Schools – Represents the different counts of schools.

Frequency (F) – Indicates the number of times a specific number of schools was observed.

Percentage (%) – Represents the proportion of the specific number of schools relative to the total.

Table 3 showed the frequency and percentage of schools in the Tandag City according to their scores in the Policies and Guidelines indicator for Child Protection Committees (CPCs). A total of 31 schools were evaluated, with a cumulative score of 110, representing 4.22% of the total score distribution. The Policies and Guidelines indicator evaluates the establishment and effectiveness of policies governing the Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in schools in Tandag City with a total score of 110 across all schools. The scores range from 1 (Telaje ES, Meliton M. Ajos memorial IS, Buenavista ES, Mabuhay IS, and Quezon ES) to 11 (Salvacion ES), indicating significant variation in the implementation and presence of child protection policies across schools. Schools such as Salvacion ES (11), Special Science ES (6), and PaTCIS (6) scored relatively high, suggesting that these institutions have robust policies and guidelines in place, which likely include clear protocols and guidelines for child protection, and active implementation within the school system. However, schools such as Telaje ES (1), Meliton M. Ajos Memorial IS (1), Buenavista ES (1), and Quezon ES (1) scored the lowest, reflecting the lack of formalized or well-implemented child protection policies. These schools may not have comprehensive child protection frameworks or guidelines, or their policies may be outdated or inadequately enforced. Many other schools, such as Tandag Pilot ES (5), San Antonio ES (4), Tandag City SPED Center (3), and Rosario IS (5), scored in the mid-range, indicating that while some child protection policies are present, their application may be inconsistent or in need of improvement. The total score of 110 suggests that while some schools are making strides in developing and implementing effective child protection policies, others still face significant challenges in this area. As Finkelhor (2018) notes, the presence of clear policies is essential for effective child protection, yet many schools, particularly those with lower scores, may lack the necessary resources, training, or commitment to fully implement these policies. Sullivan and Knutson (2020) emphasized that regular updates to policies are crucial, as outdated or poorly implemented guidelines can undermine the effectiveness of child protection programs, a concern that is evident in the schools with lower scores in this indicator.

Capacities and Resources

Table 4. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Schools Based on Capacities and Resources Scores

Legend:

Number of Schools – Represents the different counts of schools.

Frequency (F) – Indicates the number of times a specific number of schools was observed.

Percentage (%) – Represents the proportion of the specific number of schools relative to the total.

Table 4 presented the frequency and percentage of schools in the Tandag area according to their scores in the Capacities and Resources indicator for Child Protection Committees (CPCs). A total of 31 schools were evaluated, with a cumulative score of 138, representing 3.09% of the total score distribution. The Capacities and Resources indicator evaluates the availability and adequacy of resources for the Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in schools across the Tandag area, with a total score of 138 across all schools. The scores range from 2 (Jacinto P. Elpa National High School, Bongtud ES, Awasian ES, and San Isidro ES) to 7 (San Jose ES, Rosario IS), indicating a disparity in the availability of resources and capacity across schools. Schools such as San Jose ES (7) and Rosario IS (7) scored higher, suggesting that these institutions have relatively better resources and capacity to implement effective child protection programs. On the other hand, schools such as Jacinto P. Elpa NHS (2), Bongtud ES (2), Awasian ES (2), and San Isidro ES (2) scored the lowest, indicating significant resource gaps that may hinder the effective functioning of their CPCs. These schools may face challenges such as insufficient staff, training, funding, or other critical resources needed to support child protection efforts. Schools like Tandag Pilot ES (6), Tandag Central ES (6), and Special Science ES (6) scored moderately high, indicating a reasonable level of resources and capacity to support child protection activities, although there is still room for improvement. The total score of 138 suggested that while some schools have the necessary capacities and resources in place, many others face significant limitations. As Finkelhor (2018) emphasized, adequate resources are essential for the successful implementation of child protection programs, and schools with lower scores in this area may struggle to meet the demands of effective child safeguarding. Sullivan and Knutson (2020) further noted that a lack of resources can lead to inadequate implementation of policies, thereby compromising the overall effectiveness of child protection programs.

Service Delivery

Table 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Schools Based on Service Delivery Scores.

Legend:

Number of Schools – Represents the different counts of schools.

Frequency (F) – Indicates the number of times a specific number of schools was observed.

Percentage (%) – Represents the proportion of the specific number of schools relative to the total.

Table 5 presented the frequency and percentage of schools in the Tandag area according to their scores in the Service Delivery indicator for Child Protection Committees (CPCs). A total of 31 schools were evaluated, with a cumulative score of 240, representing 3.31% of the total score distribution. The Service Delivery indicator evaluates the effectiveness and accessibility of child protection services across the Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in schools within the Tandag area, with a total score of 240 across all schools. The scores range from 2 (Awasian ES) to 17 (Carmen IS and Rosario IS), indicating significant variation in the delivery of child protection services. Schools such as Carmen IS (17) and Rosario IS (17) scored the highest, suggesting that these schools have well-developed, effective service delivery mechanisms in place, likely providing comprehensive services related to child protection. Conversely, schools such as Awasian ES (2), San Jose ES (3), and San Isidro ES (3) scored among the lowest, indicating that these schools may face challenges in delivering child protection services, possibly due to resource constraints, lack of trained staff, or insufficient infrastructure. Several schools, including Tandag Central ES (14), Pandanon ES (12), and San Agustin ES (13), scored moderately high, suggesting that these institutions provide a reasonable level of child protection services, though there may still be areas for improvement in terms of consistency or coverage. Schools with lower scores, such as Salvacion ES (4), San Antonio ES (4), and Buenavista National High School (4), may have limited child protection services or face barriers in effectively delivering these services to students. The total score of 240 indicates a mixed landscape, where some schools perform well in-service delivery while others require significant improvements to meet child protection needs. According to Finkelhor (2018), effective service delivery is critical to addressing child protection issues, as it ensures that at-risk children receive the support they need. Sullivan and Knutson (2020) emphasize that comprehensive service delivery is essential for the success of child protection programs, but schools with lower scores may need additional resources, training, or policy updates to enhance their service delivery capabilities.

Accountability and performance

Table 6. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Schools Based on Accountability and Performance Scores

Legend:

Number of Schools – Represents the different counts of schools.

Frequency (F) – Indicates the number of times a specific number of schools was observed.

Percentage (%) – Represents the proportion of the specific number of schools relative to the total.

Table 6 presented the frequency and percentage of schools in the Tandag area according to their scores in the Accountability and Performance indicator for Child Protection Committees (CPCs). A total of 31 schools were evaluated, with a cumulative score of 159, representing 2.59% of the total score distribution. The Accountability and Performance indicator assesses the effectiveness of Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in maintaining accountability and delivering measurable outcomes in schools across the Tandag area, with a total score of 159 across all schools. The scores range from 1 (Tandag Pilot ES, Salvacion ES, San Antonio ES) to 10 (Carmen IS, Rosario IS, San Agustin ES), highlighting significant variation in the accountability and performance levels of the CPCs. Schools such as Carmen IS (10), Rosario IS (10), and San Agustin ES (10) scored the highest, suggesting that these institutions have well-established systems for accountability, monitoring, and reporting child protection activities. In contrast, schools such as Tandag Pilot ES (1), Salvacion ES (1), and San Antonio ES (1) scored the lowest, indicating minimal accountability and performance monitoring in their child protection efforts. These schools may lack mechanisms to track the effectiveness of their CPCs or face challenges in implementing systematic monitoring practices. Schools like Tandag Central ES (9), Pandanon ES (7), and Quintos ES (9) scored moderately high suggesting that they have made some progress in establishing accountability frameworks, though there may still be room for improvement in terms of consistency and effectiveness. The total score of 159 reflects a significant disparity in the CPCs’ ability to ensure accountability and performance with some schools excelled while others faced challenges in this area. According to Finkelhor (2018), accountability is crucial for ensuring that child protection programs deliver effective outcomes, and the lack of accountability mechanisms in lower-scoring schools can undermine their child protection efforts. Sullivan and Knutson (2020) emphasized the importance of robust monitoring and evaluation systems to assess the performance of child protection initiatives, a factor that is reflected in the variation of scores in this indicator. Schools with lower scores may need to focus on developing stronger accountability systems to improve the effectiveness and transparency of their child protection programs.

Effectiveness of Five (5) Key Indicators of Child Protection Committee

The functionality of Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in schools plays a crucial role in safeguarding children from abuse, neglect, and exploitation (Save the Children, 2018). The fig. 1 shown below illustrated the effectiveness of CPCs in Tandag City Division based on five key indicators: organization and coordination, policies and guidelines, capacities and resources, service delivery, and accountability and performance. Among these, service delivery received the

highest score (240 points), suggesting that many CPCs actively implement child protection programs. However, as UNICEF (2021) notes, high service delivery does not necessarily indicate efficiency if there are gaps in coordination or resource availability. Organization and coordination also performed relatively well (212 points), reflecting structured CPCs, but challenges in inter-agency cooperation and sustainability may persist (Child Rights International Network [CRIN], 2020). Accountability and performance scored 159 points, suggesting issues in monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (World Health Organization [WHO], 2019). Capacities and resources (138 points) and policies and guidelines (110 points) received the lowest scores, highlighting concerns regarding insufficient funding, personnel, and unclear or weakly enforced policies (Jones & Smith, 2022). The overall score of 2.26, categorized as “Moderately Functional,” indicates that while CPCs are operational, significant areas for improvement remain. This finding aligns with global studies, which emphasize that effective CPCs require strong policies, adequate funding, and continuous accountability (Lansdown, 2019; UNICEF, 2021). Furthermore, WHO (2019) stresses that child protection policies must be regularly revised to maintain their effectiveness, a challenge reflected in the low policy score in this study. The results reinforce the need for clearer policy implementation, increased financial and human resources, and improved oversight mechanisms to ensure CPCs function optimally in protecting children’s rights.

Figure 1. The five (5) Key Indicators of CPCs.

The Over-all Functionality of CPCs

Table 7. Summary of Main Indicators on School System Functionality

Legend:

Number of Schools – The total count of schools.

Main Indicators – Key domains used to assess CPC development.

Overall Score – The computed numerical value representing CPC development, derived from the total scores across all indicators.

Adverbial Rating – A qualitative description of the CPC’s functionality based on the overall score.

This table presented the main indicators assessing the functionality of the school system, including the number of schools, levels of organization and coordination, policies and guidelines, capacities and resources, service delivery, and accountability and performance. The overall score of 2.26 indicates that the system is Moderately Functional based on the aggregated data from 31 schools. This score reflected the performance of CPCs across five main indicators: Organization and Coordination, Policies and Guidelines, Capacities and Resources, Service Delivery, and Accountability and Performance. The Organization and Coordination indicator with a score of 212, suggested that many schools have functional and coordinated efforts for child protection, although improvements are still necessary to ensure uniformity across all schools. The Policies and Guidelines score of 110 indicated some progress in policy development and implementation, but gaps remain in ensuring that policies are comprehensive, updated, and consistently enforced. In terms of Capacities and Resources, the score of 138 shows that while some schools have the necessary resources, others face limitations in staffing, funding, or other essential capacities, hindering the full implementation of child protection programs. The Service Delivery score of 240 highlighted considerable variability in the provision of child protection services, with some schools offering comprehensive support, while others struggle with accessibility or quality. Finally, the Accountability and Performance score of 159 suggested moderate accountability and performance monitoring, but some schools may lack effective tracking and evaluation systems, potentially undermining the long-term impact of their child protection efforts. This Moderately Functional score highlighted significant gaps in child protection efforts, pointing to the need for targeted interventions, including policy updates, resource mobilization, and capacity-building to enhance the effectiveness of CPCs across Tandag’s schools. Finkelhor (2018) emphasizes the importance of well-organized frameworks for child protection, while Sullivan and Knutson (2020) argue that continuous resource allocation and updates are essential for maintaining robust and adaptive CPCs.

The Impact of Data-Driven Tools on Child Protection Program Design and Implementation

Tool Evaluation

• Response from Informants:

“The tool provides a clear and systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of child protection committees (CPCs). It allows us to identify strengths and weaknesses within the CPC’s operations, helping to assess progress and pinpoint areas requiring improvement. However, there is a need for regular updates to ensure the tool captures emerging child protection trends and challenges.”

Evidence-Based Practices

• Response from Informants:

“The tool enables the integration of evidence-based practices by aligning indicators with proven child protection strategies. It helps CPCs adopt practices grounded in research, ensuring that interventions are not only relevant but also effective. However, the application of these practices is contingent on local context and resource availability, which may influence their success.”

Data-Driven Decisions

• Response from Informants:

“By systematically collecting and analyzing data on various CPC indicators, the tool supports data-driven decision-making. The ability to assess the status of CPC operations allows for more informed decisions, leading to targeted interventions that address specific needs. However, the tool’s effectiveness depends on the quality of the data collected, which can vary across different regions.”

Impact on Program Design

• Response from Informants:

“The tool plays a significant role in influencing program design by providing valuable insights into CPC strengths and areas of growth. This data informs the development of more targeted and relevant child protection programs, ensuring that resources are used effectively. It is essential for program managers to regularly evaluate the data to adjust and adapt programs to meet the changing needs of children.”

Stakeholder Involvement

• Response from Informants:

“The tool encourages stakeholder involvement by engaging a broad range of informants, from CPC members to community representatives, in the evaluation process. Their input helps ensure that the assessments are comprehensive and reflect the perspectives of those most impacted by the programs. It is important that all relevant stakeholders are involved to ensure that decisions are inclusive and consider the community’s needs.”

Propose Intervention Program for CPCs

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

Findings

The data on the functionality of Child Protection Committees (CPCs) in schools in Tandag revealed notable disparities in their overall performance across various indicators. Schools such as Meliton M. Ajos Memorial Integrated School, Carmen Integrated School, and Rosario Integrated School achieved the highest functionality scores, demonstrating well-established, organized, and coordinated CPCs. In contrast, schools such as Awasian Elementary school, Buenavista Elementary School, and San Isidro Elementary School received low functionality scores, indicating substantial gaps in their organizational efforts, policies, resources, service delivery, and accountability mechanisms.

The Organization and Coordination indicator with a total score of 212, highlighted that while some schools had strong CPC structures, others were lacking formal coordination and processes. The Policies and Guidelines indicator showed that schools like Salvacion Elementary School were doing well, but several others, including Telaje Elementary School and Meliton M. Ajos Memorial Integrated School, lacked clear and effective policies. In terms of Capacities and Resources, schools such as San Jose Elementary School were well-resourced, whereas others, like Awasian Elementary School, faced severe limitations in terms of funding, staff, and other essential resources.

The Service Delivery indicator revealed significant variability in the provision of child protection services, with top-performing schools like Carmen Integrated School offering comprehensive services, while others, including Awasian Elementary School and San Jose Elementary School, struggled with service delivery. Lastly, the Accountability and Performance indicator demonstrated that schools like Carmen Integrated School had well-developed accountability systems, while others, such as Tandag Pilot Elementary School, exhibited minimal accountability mechanisms, which could hinder the long-term effectiveness of their child protection programs.

Conclusion

The findings indicated that the functionality of CPCs in Tandag’s schools is highly variable, with some schools performing well in terms of organization, policy implementation, resource allocation, service delivery, and accountability, while others face substantial challenges. These disparities highlighted the need for targeted interventions to address the capacity gaps in schools with lower scores.

Recommendations

Targeted Capacity Building

Schools with lower scores, particularly Awasian ES, Buenavista ES, and San Isidro ES, should receive additional training, resources, and support to improve their CPCs’ organizational structures, policy implementation, and service delivery.

Regular Monitoring and Updates

Given the importance of maintaining effective child protection programs, it is crucial for schools to regularly update their policies and procedures. Tools for evaluation should also be updated periodically to capture emerging trends in child protection (Sullivan & Knutson, 2020).

Strengthening Accountability Systems

Schools with low accountability scores should develop stronger mechanisms for tracking and assessing the effectiveness of their child protection programs. Ensuring transparency and regular reporting can help improve overall program outcomes (Finkelhor, 2018).

Enhanced Stakeholder Engagement

Engaging a wider range of stakeholders, especially from marginalized communities, is critical for effective child protection. Schools should focus on overcoming barriers to participation to ensure that the voices of all relevant parties are heard (Benson et al., 2021).

Contextual Adaptation of Evidence-Based Practices

While evidence-based practices are essential, they must be adapted to local contexts to ensure their success. Schools should evaluate their current practices to ensure they are appropriate for the community’s needs and resources (Macmillan & Warkentin, 2019).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We express our sincere gratitude to all who contributed to the completion of this study. Special thanks to all school heads in Tandag City Division for their participation and cooperation. We deeply appreciate the support of Dr. Gregoria T. Su, schools division superintendent; Jasmin R. Lacuna, assistant schools

division superintendent; Dr. Jeanette R. Isidro, CID chief and Gregorio C. Labrado, SGOD chief for their leadership in facilitating this research. Our thanks also go to the Child Protection Committees, teachers, SPTA officers, School Governing Councils, and school administrators for sharing their insights. We are grateful to our family and friends for their encouragement and for providing the necessary resources to complete this study.

REFERENCES

1. Benson, C., Brendtro, L., & Hammer, M. (2021). Effective stakeholder involvement in child protection programs. Journal of Child Welfare, 40(2), 123–136.
2. Bromfield, L. M., & Holzer, P. J. (2008). Child protection risk assessment tools: A review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 29(2), 118–128.
3. Browne, K., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005). Promoting children’s rights: The role of the Child Protection Committee in child protection systems. Child Development Perspectives,3(4), 201–211.
4. Child Rights International Network. (2020). Strengthening child protection systems: Global lessons and challenges. CRIN.
5. Department of Education. (2012). DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012: Child protection policy. Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education.
6. Department of Education. (2013). DepEd Memorandum No. 221, s. 2013: Capacity building for Child Protection Committees. Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education.
7. Department of Social Welfare and Development. (2020). Strengthening local child protection systems: Guidelines for child protection committees. Quezon City, Philippines: Department of   Social Welfare and Development.
8. Feinstein, C., Yarrow, J., & Johnson, R. (2016). Participatory assessments in child protection: Involving children and families in identifying their needs. International Journal of Child Protection, 8(3), 101–113.
9. Feinstein, C., Naimark, H., & Singh, R. (2016). Participatory approaches in child protection assessments: Lessons learned and best practices. Child Protection Journal, 7(3), 112–127.
10. Finkelhor, D. (2018). Data-driven decision-making in child protection programs. Child Protection Review, 27(3), 345–360.
11. Garcia, M., & Booysen, F. (2011). Building capacity in child protection through training: The importance of sustainable interventions. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(1), 85–101.
12. Hussein, S., & Moriarty, J. (2019). Monitoring and evaluating child protection programs: A framework for sustainable outcomes. Journal of Children’s Services, 14(2), 75–92.
13. Jones, A., & Smith, B. (2022). Challenges in implementing school-based child protection policies: Global perspectives. International Journal of Child Welfare, 45(2), 123–140.
14. Klein, L. A., & Lasky, T. M. (2014). Risk assessment frameworks in child protection: Identifying at-risk children and early intervention strategies. Child Welfare, 93(3), 105–118.
15. Lansdown, G. (2019). Child protection in education: Building effective systems. Journal of International Child Welfare, 41(1), 15–30.
16. Lange, R., & Walton, M. (2013). Challenges in child protection: Bridging the gap between policy and practice. International Social Work, 56(1), 7–19.
17. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis of child protection interventions. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(5), 635–651.
18. Lundy, L., & McEvoy, L. (2019). A child-centered approach to intervention in child protection: Participation and rights-based frameworks. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27(4), 798–815.
19. Macmillan, H., & Warkentin, T. (2019). Evidence-based practices in child protection: Adaptation and implementation strategies. International Journal of Child Protection, 13(2), 85–102.
20. Moro, D., & Diedrichs, P. (2016). Ensuring sustainability in child protection programs through community ownership. Social Development Review, 12(2), 36–47.
21. Peters, H., O’Brien, R., & Stewart, P. (2020). Gaps in child protection services: The challenges faced by Child Protection Committees in responding to abuse. Journal of Social Welfare, 35(2), 52–66.
22. Peters, K., Worth, H., & Streak, G. (2020). Child protection in resource-poor settings: Examining gaps and opportunities. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 21(1), 45–61.
23. Pinnegar, S., & Wright, M. (2014). Collaboration among child protection stakeholders: Enhancing the effectiveness of Child Protection Committees. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 49(2). 167–182.
24. Plan International. (2019). Improving child protection systems: Community-level approaches. London, UK: Plan International.
25. Save the Children. (2018). Child protection programming: Key strategies and tools. Washington, DC: Save the Children.
26. Sullivan, P., & Knutson, J. (2020). Evaluation tools in child welfare: Dynamic and evolving needs. Child Welfare Evaluation Journal, 15(4), 290–305.
27. Tongson, E. C. (2023). Childcare investments in the Philippines (No. 2023-01). UNRISD Working Paper.
28. UNICEF (2021). Measuring child protection systems: A guide for policymakers and practitioners. New York, NY: UNICEF.
29. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). UNCRC and its implications for Child Protection Committees. United Nations.
30. World Health Organization. (2019). INSPIRE: Seven strategies for ending violence against children. WHO Press.
31. Zwi, A. B., & Gaffney, P. (2012). Child protection programs: Evaluating effectiveness through outcomes and sustainability. Child Protection Review, 9(1), 44–57.

Appendix A. Lists of Schools by School ID, Name, and District

Appendix B. Consolidated Report on Functionality of CPCs in Schools

Appendix C. Regional Memorandum No. 628

Appendix D. CPC Functionality Assessment Survey Tool