Some assumptions have been made due to the limited information provided.

Preparing for the assessment (week 1):

It is assumed that a group of child protection agencies has been formed to conduct the assessment and we are the leading agency with administrative and technical expertise including IM.

The objective of the assessment is to gain an understanding of:
· The scale of the needs and protection risks affecting the children
· The priorities for required responses and
· How such responses can be configured

The following categories of What We Need to Knows have been identified in order to decide upon and adapt the assessment tools:
· Separated children
· Environmental hazards for children
· Risk of death and injury to children
· Children involved in armed forces
· Risk of sexual and GBV towards children
· Child labour
· Psychosocial issues
· Resources available in the community to provide support to affected people

A purposive sample will be taken instead of a random sample due to resource/time limitations, as the findings need to be disseminated promptly for emergency responses to be designed and implemented in a timely manner. While providing insights into the different impacts the disaster has had on different populations, it provides the advantage of allowing adjustment of sites during the process if needed. Convenient sampling is not preferred since it scores the least in representativeness.

We will take both the camps and villages as the units of measurement, to draw comparable and representative information. Assuming that there will be approximately 150,000 displaced people in the UN-run camps and 50,000 in the villages, we will select 6 camps (A) and 1 village (B). Assuming that there are 2 ethnic communities (X, Y) in both the units, an equal number of sites representing each community will be selected from each unit. Thus, 12 sites from the camps (AX1-6, AY7-12) and 2 sites from the village (BX, BY), totalling 14 sites will be the sample. Assuming that all the camp sites are equally accessible, the 12 sites will be selected, i.e. 4 each (2Xs+2Ys) from the northern, central and southern parts of the compound. The 2 village sites will be selected from areas that have the highest concentration of displaced populations.

Data collection tools:

Key informant interviews, direct observations (structured and informal), desk reviews and group discussions employing the Participatory Ranking Methodology (PRM) will be employed.

Three key informants will be selected from each site, 2 working directly with children and 1 community leader, taking gender balance into consideration. KIIs will be conducted separately to reduce bias generated through peer pressure. Since the 10 social workers, who will act as assessors, do not have much background in child protection, it is not advisable to include the flagged questions regarding involvement of children in armed forces and sexual violence against children. However, the required information on these issues can be obtained from the other tools. A Desk Review of pre-onset and post-onset secondary data will be done at both the preparation and interpretation stages to inform the assessment process through information on the child protection situation in the country prior to the disaster, post-disaster statistics, etc. A list of all available documentation will be made and systematically reviewed. It is assumed that not more than 2 days will have to be allocated for this since much of the literature would have already been reviewed during the preceding 3 weeks. The PRM is adopted because the assessors will be able to conduct these sessions with minimal training, and will be able to draw a rich array of both qualitative and quantitative data, along with prioritized needs of the community.

Recruitment and training of the assessment team:

The 10 local social workers will be given a comprehensive 2-day training needed for the assessment. 2 supervisors will be recruited and each will be assigned with 5 assessors, whose progress they will monitor. A mock field-testing of the assessment tools will be conducted during the training, in order to make necessary changes to the tools prior to adaptation.

Data collection and management:

The data collecting team will cover one site before going to the other, which will be time/cost-effective, while facilitating real time data processing and analysis. The 10 assessors will be put on a roster by the supervisors, where daily, 3 will conduct KIIs (1 hour each) followed by DOs (2 hours), 3 will conduct the PRM (2 hours) and 4 will do the DOs (2 hours). The team will cover 2 sites daily (morning and evening), covering all the sites in 7 days (week 2).

At the end of the day, the supervisors will conduct a debriefing session with the assessors and review the data, cleaning them and triangulating, to ensure the validity of the data. The supervisors will transmit the site reports to the IM focal point of the data entry team on a daily basis.

The data entry team will enter the data sent by the field team using a model data management tool, in parallel with data collection. The field team will make any clarifications needed by the data entry team. All the teams will be managed by our coordinator.

Data analysis, interpretation and dissemination:

The data will be analysed during the 3rd week using frequency analysis and cross tabulation, because they are descriptive analysis methods commonly adopted with purposive sampling, and can easily be done by a non-specialist. The analysed data will be presented both visually and descriptively, along with its interpretations, by the data analyst, during the 4th week. The aggregated data will be triangulated again during interpretation, to ensure its validity.

Afterwards, the findings of the assessment will be shared with a range of stakeholders during the 4th and 5th weeks:
· Government stakeholders, development agencies, the UN, I/NGOs, donors – 2 page brief.
· The child protection working group – a comprehensive report to inform their programming.
· Raw data – shared with other agencies as required.