Conduct a child protection stand‐alone assessment.

The situation:
· Three weeks have already passed since the emergency.
· 200.000 individuals have been displaced.
· Living in approximately 150 temporary UN‐run camps in town and in a few nearby villages.

10 local social workers, who have limited experience with child protection issues.

Objectives of the stand‐alone assessment:
The primary objective for this assessment will be to identify child protection issues in the area of emergency. The identification of the needs and priorities of children and child protection is necessary in order to come up with information based, effective responses to child protection issues. These responses should strengthen the protective elements of the community in order to ensure prevention from child separation, abuse, exploitation and violence. Another goal for the information based responses should be to minimize the risk factors within the community for child separation, abuse, exploitation and violence.

Hence, the research questions would have to identify the needs and priorities of children and child protection. There should be an inventory of both risk factors and protective factors of child protection issues. Special attention should be paid to several specific issues, which influence the welfare and wellbeing of children. For instance: food, water, health, housing/shelter, safety and security, child separation, abuse, violence, exploitation. The research questions used in this rapid assessment should primarily be focused on these subjects.

The stand‐alone assessment should comply with the most important objectives of any rapid assessment in child protection. These are the principles of ‘do no harm’ and ‘the best interest of the child’.

Also, confidentiality should be ensured to the participants and an informed consent should be obtained from all participants, regardless their age.

Methodology :

The stand‐alone assessment will be conducted and completed in one month.

Sampling methodology : we will use purposive sampling. One of the advantages of using this method is that it is not very time consuming and the costs are relatively low. In this method groups of people or communities are purposefully selected based on a set of defined criteria.

Our sample criteria will be camps with the following characteristics:
1. The camp with the worst circumstances, such as lack of food, water, sanitary facilities etc.
2. The camp where the population contains a lot of children.
3. An ‘average’ camp (average facilities etc.)

Based on these characteristics we will choose 3 camps as a sample area. We would like the 3 camps to vary in its characteristics, because it will enable us to get a broad view of the problems in different kinds of camps.
The respondents used in the rapid assessment will also be sampled by using the purposive sampling strategy, because of the advantages mentioned earlier. We will have to make sure that the selection of the respondents will be able to speak on behalf of the community and that they are a diverse group in order to ensure a broad representation of the community (For example, the groups should vary in gender and age).

Unit of measurement: In order to get an idea of the problems and possible interventions at a larger scale (instead of individuals) and to find out about the general experience of the community, the unit of measurement will be at a community level.

Data collection:
1. We should start by making a data inventory of what happened in the first three weeks after the emergency, in our absence. What kind of aid is already present, what kind of assessment have already been done, what kind of information is already collected and what are the conditions in the area of the emergency and the camps. In order to make this inventory we should start by contacting the UN, the local/national government and local NGO’s.
2. Before the start of the actual data collection, we should start with a desk review of relevant sources, articles and experience from other, similar emergencies. We should learn from the past and implement the experiences of other emergencies and their aftermath in the current rapid assessment.
3. To find out what the biggest risks and dangers are for children since the emergency, we will use the Participatory Ranking Methodology (PRM). We choose this method because it is known as a strong method to collect data. The method is accessible for teams with less skills, such as our team of local researches. Also, as concluded from previous experiences, the participators of this method experience it as open discussions, which are able to identify key relevant issues in the community. Because of the ranking element of this method, we will get more information on the background of the ranking and the participants will have discussions with each other, which will also provide us with extra information on needs and priorities. To recruit participants for the PRM groups, we will use a combination of random and snowball sampling. A couple of participants will be randomly sampled and this participant will select other participants to join them.

There will be different groups for the PRM:
a) PRM for a group of women,
b) PRM for a group of men,
c) PRM for the children, divided into 3 groups, also divided by gender
- 10-12 years old;
- 13-15 years old;
- 16-18 years old

The framing question we are planning to use for the PRM groups is: What are the biggest risks and dangers for children since the crisis?

4. Key informant interviews with fill in questionnaires and interviews:
- Informants who have responsibilities in community: For example the community leader/local chief, the camp manager or other significant staff in the campsettings, the religious leader.
- Informants who understand children’s issues and are dealing with children everyday: For example key figures at schools, hospitals, police, parents.
- Informants who are known with the area, the community and its culture: For example key figures at the local government, the local NGOs.
- A minimum of 3 key informants per site is required, so that brings us to at least 9 key informant interviews.

5. Direct observation:
- Observation checklist of the children’s daily activities and functioning in the camp.
- Observation of the circumstances and interaction between parents and children in the camp.
- Observation checklist to use with the younger children. To playfully collect information through playing games, purposive play or art activities that are conducted by assessor.
- Observation of sites that are known for exploitation, abuse, trafficking, abduction. Such as train or bus stations, harbors, shelters etc.

N.B. We chose not to use focusgroups because they require a certain amount of expertise of working with children, which the used local researchers don’t have. Besides the lack of capacity, the use of focusgroups is often discussed because of the possibility of peer pressure and the influence of group dynamics. These could influence the quality and validity of the collected data through focusgroups. Focusgroups are also very time-consuming. A combination of these factors made us decide against the use of focusgroups.

We will use 10 local social workers as our assessors. They will be divided between the 3 camp sample areas.
Considering that our local workers have limited experience with child protection issues:
1. We will have a quick training for a week about child protection, how to use questionnaires and observation checklists and how to collect data from children (avoid past condition questions. Heavily focus to what they feel right now and what they need in the future through playing games and art activities).
2. Equip the local researchers with technical and logistical support (cameras and recorders).
3. Appoint one supervisor at each camp who will be responsible to coordinate the activities of the assessors in the field and monitor the progression of the data collection activities and help the researchers if they experience any difficulties at the collection of the data.
All of the collected data will be discussed with experts and checked with journals or any references to ensure the validity. The validation of the data should find place during several phases of the data collection. Asking the same questions to different people can check the validity of the different key informants. During the daily debriefing the team leaders and assessors will go through the filled forms (by children and parents) and look for areas that have to be clarified. If there are questions left, the assessors could try to find the child again to ask for clarification. During the data collection the information of different sources (parents, children, key informants and direct observation) should be compared in order to check the validity.
Experts will also be involved in the analysis phase.

Analyze Data:
Before starting to analyze the data, the data should be cleaned, by checking the data for errors and missing elements.
After that one can start with the data analysis. We will use several ways of analyzing the data.

Descriptive analysis:
o Frequency analysis to determine frequency of overall information that has been collected (such as demographical characteristics and the frequency of certain evens such as abuse, exploitation, child separation etc.):
The frequency analysis of children based on their sex (male/female)


The frequency analysis of children based on their age distribution
0-5 years
6-12 years old
12-18 years old


o Cross tabulation to determine how issues have affected different types of groups (For example the differences of the needs of children based on their characteristics such as gender, age etc.)
Needs of children based on children characteristics

Access to food

Access to water

Access to school

Health access

Insecurity problems based on children characteristics
Cases of
Gender based violence

Sexual violence

Separated Children

The data will be presented in graphics and tables.

When interpreting the data, we will have to make sure the data are valid by:
- Triangulation during data collection by comparing information provided from different resources
- Triangulation after all data has been compiled
Data and results will be shared with different stakeholders (such as the (local) government and NGOs) by the written report, meetings and the use of different types of media.

Responsible for collecting the data are the assessment team. The team consists of a coordinator and 10 local social workers. They will be divided over the 3 different camps. So 3-3-4. The coordinator (lead researcher) will travel between the different sites.
Ideally, the entry of the data into the computer will happen in the same time as the data collection finds place. After the data collection and the processing of the data in the computer, the team can start with the data analysis. The coordinator/lead researcher will be responsible to coordinate this phase.

Planning and Implementing a Child Protection Rapid Assessment (Action Plan and Timeline)
Suggested Tasks
Suggested Timeline

Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5


1. Coordination and Planning
Form assessment coordination body

Agree on roles and responsibilities

Agree on lead agency

Develop work-plan, including who will lead each activity

Determine the initial geographic sample (scenarios)

Determine logistical and HR needs

Cost the operation and raise/flag funds

Analyze the risk and develop contingencies

2. Preparing for the Assessment
Refine and adapt What We Need to Knows

Conduct Desk Review

Develop sample frame

Define urgent action procedure

Contact key resources

3. Reviewing & Adapting the Data Collection & Analysis tools
Adapt modules

4. Structure, Recruitment and Training of Assessment Teams

Train assessors and supervisors

5. Data Collection and Management
Deploy teams to the field

Supervise fieldwork

Provide regular technical and logistical support to teams

Collect field reports, clean and enter the data

6. Data analysis, Interpretation and Report Writing
Analyse and interpret the data

Write reports and disseminate