Indonesia 7
Assessment 1: Case Study – CP Rapid Assessment

In order to better explain the case, we would like to put it into the context of emergency response in Indonesia, in this case Merapi Volcano Eruption in 2006 (before Yogyakarta Earthquake) when IDPs (Internal Displaced Person) had to stay for almost two months in the camps.

In 13 may 2006 Merapi status was changed from alert to danger since the eruptions were getting more explosive, the volcanic material cloud (called “Awan Panas”: high temperature of cloud from tons of volcano material) began and it became bigger in 15 May 2006, there were also another volcanic material cloud in 9 June and 14 June 2006. These situations (the volcanic material cloud from Merapi) were happening until 12 July 2006 when the government changed the status of Merapi from Danger to Alert).

Since 13 May 2006, community who lived 5 KM from the crater were being moved by government to safe area (camp), there was a bigger voluntarily IDPs movement in 15 May 2006. The camps were located in safe area, 15 KM from the source of lava eruption, in many districts in 2 provinces (since Merapi is located in border area of Central Java and Jogjakarta province). The Government with the help from many humanitarian organizations and Indonesian Red Cross build many tents for temporary shelter during that time.

Specific issues for Merapi:
- Sexual exploitation considered as taboo, it is possible that no information can be revealed from the community or can be rejected by community leaders.
- Another way to collect data from children is by talking to them during recreational activities, ask them to draw and explain their feelings about the drawing, most of the time children expressed their angers and fears
- Interesting case from Merapi 2006: school turned into evacuation centre and child friendly space, final class students stay in school to be better prepared for final exams.
- Time for interview or data collection: most of IDP camps were empty during day time, only children, women and elderly stayed in camps while the male IDPs going back to their villages to take care of their cattle and farms.
- Homogenous society of Central Java who shared collective believe about the sacred mountain of Merapi

Plan for CPRA
1. Unit of measurement:
Not only community but also smaller target groups of stakeholders like household, community leaders, and service providers (schools, health posts)
2. Sampling:
Purposive sampling (people who meets with criteria from sample framing), or we can also using snowball and purposive in the same time, based on recommendation from key informant.
3. Target area (sample frame):
Camps and non-camps IDPs, host community and IDPs, directly affected and not affected population
4. Sampling methods:
Desk review, observation, KIIs (need to be careful with capacity of local social workers with limited experience of child protection, important to provide interview guidelines to them)
5. Primary objectives or research questions:
What are the main problem, risk for children in crisis and coping mechanism from the community with specific issues on?
- Violence against children in camp and no camp settings
- Psychosocial needs
6. Methodology:
Qualitative data, that will be analyzed using content analysis technique to get more detail and depth information like: Interview (formal and informal), survey, observation, desk review
7. Validity:
CP networks (info sharing) and stakeholders’ interviews: camp managers, service providers, community leaders, volunteers, humanitarian workers
8. Data analysis:
Analysis will be conducted by CP Coordinator, methods used in data analysis: quantitative using frequency analysis, qualitative using major theme (categories) and elicitation analysis
9. Coordination: who will be responsible for collecting which types of data? CP Coordinator will be responsible for that
a. How will data be collected and transferred for analysis?
Data will be collected in manual and transferred in MS Excel program. CP Coordinator will be responsible for transferring it to SPSS program for analysis purpose
b. How will the information be shared and with whom it will be shared:
CP networks through coordination meeting and follow discussion on information sharing with other organisations involved in similar assessments
10. Timeline: training for team, how long assessment will take, general day-to-day plan, analysis, methods
General Timeline for 10 effective workdays:
· Day 1: Briefing about an introduction of assessment CP activities, objective of the activity, assessment target group, schedule, learning about the assessment tools (questionnaire survey, observation checklist and interview) guideline), à all day long from 9 am to 5 pm used for training
· Day 2: Gathering data round 1 and pilot testing tools and assessor, each field assessor tries each tools for 1-2 IDPs (CP questionnaire), in pair observe 1 IDPs tent and having conversation and interview with at least 1 IDPs (observation checklist and informal interview guideline), conduct desk review of document and secondary data from other source à 9 am to 1 pm; Debrief and reflection all the pilot test on data gathering, additional capacity building for the assessor on CP issues, facilitated by coordinator, revised and adapt assessment tools à 1 pm to 5 pm
· Day 3 – 5 : Data gathering for 5 sites , assessors are in pair in 1 site (tent) with different group (women, children, elderly etc), 10 person (5 pair/ group) à 9 am to 3 pm; Debrief and reflection à 4 pm – 5 pm; continuing data gathering for key informant whom only can be meet at night, shifting 2 group (2 pair) a day à 7 to 9 pm
· Day 4 – 6: processing and checking data, give feedback for the information, 2 person for data entry and checking under supervision from coordinator à 9 am to 3 pm
· Day 6 – 8 : Cross checking data and continued data gathering for next target; 8 person (4 pair, since 1 other pair is helping on data processing) 9 am to 3 pm à ; debrief and reflection à 4 pm – 5 pm
· Day 8 – 9 : data analysing , triangulation data with other organization/ government, interview stake holder or comparing the information collected from them with information collected from community,
· Day 9 – 10 : writing assessment report
11. Why using specific choices and how they are superior to other options
a. Strengthening local social worker capacity
The local social workers have limited experience in child protection issues, that’s why before starting the assessment there are briefing and training process for the social worker (1 and half day). There are also pilot assessment to have field input on the assessment process, assessment tools used and assessor aspect. Debrief and reflection conducted every day after the data collection process finish on that day as part of strengthening social worker capacity for assessment.
b. Respect community in camps.
The community already lived in camp for at least 3 weeks and face daily stressor in camp situation and increased probability of being irritable with assessment process. The assessment process will not only conduct in formal assessment (formal interview or survey with the assessor holding the questionnaire or guideline) but also conduct in informal way (such as daily conversation, playing and some recreational activity etc). Group activity with children (and also with adult) will have multi-benefit for them in camp situation right now; they will have recreational activity at the same time the assessment process take place. Permission and inform concern will be given to the community before the assessment process begin.
c. Role of Stakeholders
The role of stake holder (camp managers, community and religious leaders, educators etc) will be optimized by involving them in the CP assessment process. They will become source of information about CP situation in their camp. These can be one of triangulation method for checking the data/ information validity. Through their involvement, the stake holders will be encouraged to have more participation in after-assessment process (assessment follow up) and supporting the CP issues.