USA Group 3: Asuna, Kimberly and Tanya - Assignment 1

Three weeks after an earthquake in country X, Group 3 will begin a stand-alone a child protection rapid assessment using the framework provided by the Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Needs Assessment Task Force (NATF). Given these conditions, the NATF suggests conducting an inter-agency Child Protection Rapid Assessment (CPRA) as a stand-alone process to rapidly inform our preliminary response. However, following this rapid assessment phase, Group 3 will suggest the planning of a more comprehensive and in-depth child protection assessment. This initial CPRA will take approximately 4 weeks to complete.

Week 1
Coordination and Planning
In the first week we will form a Child Protection Rapid Assessment Working Group (CPRAWG) composed of the 10 local social workers we were given access to. While this group has limited child protection experience, we also know that human resources are tight. Training will be conducted each week by the three Group 3 members to ensure adequate skill. According to the initial task check-list, the working group determined:
  1. 3-4 week Child Protection Rapid Assessment (CPRA) action plan and timeline
  2. Overall geographic scope: 200,000 individuals in 150 temporary UN-run camps in town and a few nearby villages
  3. Logistical and human resource needs: 10 local social workers that we were assigned

Week 2
Preparing for the Assessment
In the second week, the CPRAWG refined the child protection What We Need to Know (WWNK) list given the local context to include:
  1. Patterns of separation, ensure that family tracing systems are in place
  2. Risks of violence or abuse
  3. Common community practices in child care (risks and protective)
  4. Resources available among the community
  5. Hazards for children in the environment
  6. Health, basic care needs

Sampling Methodology and Sample Frame
Unit of measurement: The unit of measurement is at a community level
A “community” can be defined as people separated by geography or degree of severity of the effect of the disaster, and/or by other considerations such as language, ethnicity, status, etc.
Sampling: Purposive sampling will be used. Given the limitations of resources, it would not be feasible to do random sampling. Priority will also be given to the severely affected areas where there is likely to be the most serious humanitarian issues.

An application in a hypothetical scenario follows:
  1. Site: After receiving registration information about the 200,000 individuals in 150 temporary UN-run camps and a few villages, we have identified two main sites:
1. 50 camps with individuals displaced by the earthquake
2. 100 camps with individuals evacuated as a precaution
  1. Sample Frame: The earthquake has affected two regions in country X; the earthquake occurred in region X1 but individuals were also evacuated as a precautionary measure in X2. Information from an initial rapid assessment reveals that approximately 50,000 people were immediately displaced from site 1 and are in approximately 50 camps (X1). The 100,000 people evacuated as a precautionary measure are located across approximately 100 camps (X2). The ethnic minority group P was also part of the populations evacuated from both areas, representing about 50,000 individuals (XP). 30,000 ethnic minority individuals are said to be from site 1 and are located amongst X1 population camps (X1P). 20,000 ethnic minority individuals are said to be located amongst X2 camps (X2P). Based on this information, we are faced with X1, X2, X1P and X2P. Given the limited number of our staff, have assembled teams to collect data from sites X1, X1P and X2P to capture risks to children among those most affected by the earthquake and by displaced ethnic minority populations who are known to be at particular risk.
  2. Data Collection: We have created three assessment teams to collect information from the three scenarios (ATX1, ATX1P and ATX2P). AT1 will be assessed by of 5 members (4 social workers and one group 3 expert), while regions AT2 and AT3 will be composed of 4 members each (3 social workers and 1 group 3 expert).

Week 3
Reviewing and Adapting the Data Collection and Analysis Tools
  1. Desk Review: Desk review will be conducted to collect information about the type and scale of emergency; information about ethnic minority group P; and pre-existing child protection concerns.
  2. Key Informant Interviews: Two social workers (with the most in-depth knowledge of risks to children) in each group will be assigned to conduct key informant interviews. Key informants such as community leaders, teachers, and community caretakers will be identified.
  3. Direct Observation: Participatory Ranking Methodology (PRM): One social worker in each group will utilize the participatory ranking method. One question has been designed for each of the three main scenarios:
X1: What are the biggest risks and dangers for children since the earthquake?
X1P: What are the biggest risks and dangers for ethnic P children since the earthquake?
X2P: What are the main risks posed to ethnic P children at this time?
Note: variation in X1P and X2P questions in the hopes of capturing vulnerabilities to ethnic minority children as a result of the earthquake and more generally. The latter will be useful for long term assessment.

Week 4
Analysis and Coordination
Once the raw data is collected through KIIs, direct observation, and PRM, the team will analyze the data using descriptive analysis.
  1. A frequency analysis will be done to determine what issues and at what frequency they occur within the overall information. Frequency distribution tables can be used organize the findings.
  2. Cross tabulation will also be used to sort the responses based on location as well as demographics. This will enable us to determine how particular issues have affected certain groups. Graphs will be made to better visually see the data findings.
  3. Triangulation should occur both during and after the data collection, in order to test for validity. The data will be collected by different teams, and through the use of both KII and observation methods, and comparison of the data from the various sources will take place.
  4. Post data collection, the data will be compared and analyzed to check for any possible discrepancies. After analysis, the data findings will be shared. If possible, a mini workshop will be held for all involved actors to explain the findings. The data will also be written up in a number of formats. A shorter narrative with the main points will be written to be shared to all relevant humanitarian organizations and actors. A more detailed report will be made for the other CPWG members so that they can use the data for program development. The raw data will also be kept on file, so that it can be accessible for all related groups as well as for future use.