Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Content
Part Content
I
1.1
1.2
1.3
II
2.1
2.2
2.3
III
3.1
3.2
3.3
IV
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
V
5.1
VI
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
Introduction
Background on IASC
What is a Child Protection Rapid Assessment
Objectives and Parameters of a CPRA
Methodology
What We Need to Know (WWNK), Indicators and questions
Analysis Plan
Sampling
Developing Assessment Tools
Desk Review
Key Informant Interview
Direct Observation
Process, planning and implementing the Rapid Assessment
Preparedness
Coordination
Planning and Preparation
Structure, Recruitment and Training of assessment teams
Data Cleaning and Entry
Data Analysis
Interpretation
Report Writing
Additional Key Considerations
Ethical and Confidentiality issues
Annexes
Glossary and definitions
Sample data analysis plan
Sample urgent action report form
Sample Report Template
Sample consent form for the use of real name
Suggested Tasks and Timeline
Key Informant Interview—Guidance and Sample Tool (separate file)
Direct Observation—Guidance and Sample Tool (separate file)
Desk Review—Guidance and Sample Questions (separate file)
Sample Data Compilation Tool (soft copy—separate file)
Page
number
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Key questions and consideration for consultation – we have developed a table below to
garner inputs on a number of specific questions and considerations on which we would like
feedback before finalizing the Draft for Pilot. General considerations are outlined here
below, while considerations/questions specific to sections of the guidance have been
included in the relevant sections.
Considerations
1
This is a working draft. Formatting and layout will change in the final product.
2
This document may still be too long to be easily useable in an emergency context. Through the
piloting, we will try to determine which parts were useful, and which were not so useful, in
order to ensure that the final version is short, concise, but provides the level of detail that is
necessary. None the less, we would welcome feedback and input on parts which people feel
are too detailed and could be taken out.
3
Sample tools and guidance for adaptation of tools are provided in a separate document
entitled “Draft Tools for Consultation.” Please provide all your comments in that document
using either the blue consultation boxes provide or the ‘new comment’ option with Microsoft
Word.
#
1
Questions
How much of the theoretical/technical
descriptions are necessary?
Note: If the team agrees that technical details
are hindering the usability of this guideline,
then we may choose to develop a ‘CP
assessment for dummies’ type
theoretical/technical document that could act
as an add-on for both this tool as well as the
more comprehensive assessment tool.
Your Answer
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
PART I – Introduction
[note from the CPWG]
1.1. Background on IASC Needs Assessment Task Force (NATF) Process
The IASC NATF was established by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee1 in 2009 to improve
coordinated assessment processes in humanitarian disasters.
Following the onset of larger-scale immediate onset emergencies, Child Protection assessments will
usually be conducted in the context of coordinated assessments organized through the
humanitarian clusters. The IASC NATF suggests a framework that identified three phases in the
emergency assessment processes – these are generally applicable to all emergencies, whether
large- or smaller-scale as well as to both Clusterized and non-Clusterized contexts.
1. Phase I – Preliminary Scenario Definition. This phase should happen within 72 hours of the
onset of the emergency and does not include sector specific questions. It is meant to:
 Estimate scale and severity of impact;
 Locate affected populations;
 Inform initial response decisions;
 Inform phase-II rapid assessment
2. Phase II – Multi-Cluster/Sector joint assessment. This phase should take place within the first
two weeks of the onset and will look into top priority sector issues to:
 Inform initial planning of response & highlight priority actions;
 Define focus of follow-up assessment;
 Establish baseline for monitoring
3. Phase III – Cluster/Sector-specific Assessments. This phase addressed more detailed and indepth sector specific questions and will take place the third and fourth week following the
onset of an emergency. During this phase, joint (i.e. interagency) cluster/sub-cluster
assessments will strive to:
 Analyse situation and trends;
 Adjust ongoing initial rapid response;
 Inform more detailed planning of humanitarian relief;
 Establish baselines for later impact evaluation
1.2. What is a Child Protection Rapid Assessment?
A Child Protection Rapid Assessment (CPRA) is a joint CP cluster-specific rapid assessment, designed
and conducted by CPWG members in the aftermath of a sudden onset emergency. In the NATF
rapid assessment framework (above), the inter-agency CPRA fits under phase III, but can also be
undertaken in the absence of a NATF assessment or Cluster, processes, and earlier than the three to
four week mark identified by the NATF. None-the less, while initiation and duration can differ
based on specific local contexts, the CPRA typically starts on or around the third week following the
1
The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) is the primary mechanism for inter-agency coordination of humanitarian
assistance. It is a unique forum involving the key UN and non-UN humanitarian partners.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
onset and continues for some ten days. This limited duration ensures that priority sector-specific
information is available rapidly to inform the preliminary response. Following this Rapid
Assessment Phase, once the initial response is underway (approx. 8 weeks after the onset), a more
comprehensive and in-depth child protection assessment should be planned. The existing InterAgency Child Protection Assessment Tool is the primary resource developed to assist in this more
comprehensive child protection assessment process.
A child protection cluster-specific rapid assessment is meant to provide a snapshot of urgent child
protection related needs among the affected population within the immediate post-emergency
context. It also strives to provide a stepping-stone for a more comprehensive process of gathering
evidence and managing information about an emergency by flagging information gaps and
emerging issues. It is not meant to be a comprehensive baseline study or to provide generalizable
information on the entire population. As such, rapid assessment findings should not be confused
with nor take the place of more comprehensive assessments or monitoring mechanisms.
A CPRA will provide the necessary evidence-base to not only inform initial programming, but also
support fund raising activities (ie: development of the Flash Appeal and relevant project
documents).
1.3 Objectives and parameters of a CPRA
A Child Protection Rapid Assessment (CPRA) provides a starting point for defining Child Protection
needs and existing supports in the immediate aftermath of an emergency.
Through the CPRA, we strive to determine:
 SCALE of needs and protection risks
 PRIORITIES for required response
 HOW such response should be configured
 WHERE such response should be targeted
More specifically, a CPRA is a situation analysis that provides us with:
 A preliminary list of geographic and programmatic areas of priority;
 An IA agreed-upon prioritization of needs;
 IA agreed-upon funding priorities;
 Evidence-base for advocacy with stakeholders (armed groups, gov’t, etc);
 Initial mapping of existing capacities to respond;
 Reliable knowledge of where the main information gaps are on the situation of children and
women.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Parameters of a “good enough” CPRA2
1. Assessment teams will have minimal skills and capacity on CP and assessment
Assumptions:
2. Some Information Management technical support will be available
3. It will be possible to accessing at least some parts of the affected population
- CP specialists will plan and manage
the assessment process including:
- Methodology:
o
o
o
o
o
Preparedness activities (before the onset)
Selection and adaptation of tools
Identification, training and supervision of assessment teams
Data analysis
Write up
Good command of the local language
At least one day of training in the use of assessment tools and basics of CP
Strong interpersonal skills
Desk Review is at the core of the methodologies used in the CPRA
Key Informant Interview and Direct Observation are the recommended field methods
Purposive sampling is the preferred sampling method for CPRA
Speaking to children directly should only be considered if it is absolutely indispensable
and if there is access to highly qualified assessors
Recommended “unit of measurement” is community (see section 2.3: sampling)
Gender balance
o
o
o
- Assessment teams are
comprised of persons
with:
o
o
o
o
o
Cautionary notes:
-
-
Methods that require direct interaction with children or focus group discussions are not recommended in a CPRA because they
require specialized training and skills sets to be undertaken effectively and ethically. These are unlikely to be available in the
rapid phase
Time is valuable, especially to affected populations in the aftermath of an emergency. Speaking to a person or a group should
take more than 1 hour maximum.
Cultural sensitivity and security are key. The assessment process should not put anyone in harms way, directly or indirectly. For
more on ethical considerations see section 5.1.
These as well as the other parametres proposed in this tool were discussed and agreed upon during a
November 2010 CPWG inter-agency consultation on the development of this toolkit. This consultation
included CP experts from various Agencies and NGOs at HQ and field levels, as well as protection Information
Management technical experts.
2
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
PART II – Methodology
2.1. What We Need to Know (WWNK), Indicators and questions
The What We Need to Know identified in the CPRA is a set of knowledge/information elements that
constitute the priority child protection risks on which we need information in order to inform our
programming. The first step in developing a CPRA is to determine the WWNKs. Once WWNKs are
agreed upon, a set of indicators and questions can be derived from them.
WWNKS
Indicators
Questions
List of agreed upon WWNKs for CPRA is as follow:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Specific risks of Sexual violence for children;
Risks of other forms of GBV for children;
Common community practices in response to sexual violence against children;
Availability of sexual violence response services for children;
Death and/or Injury of children as a result of violence;
Types of Violence towards children in the community;
Hazardous environment for children (open pit latrines, dangling electrical wires, landmines
in the vicinity of the residence, small arms etc);
Patterns of Separation;
Types of care arrangements for separated children;
Capacities in community to respond to separation;
Institutionalization of children;
Laws and policies on adoption (in and out of country);
Involvement/association of children in armed groups;
New recruitment of children by armed groups;
Active participation of children in violence;
Existing Patterns and scale of child labour; likely new risks as a result of the emergency;
Sources of stress for children and their caregivers;
Children's coping mechanisms;
Capacities for provision of people/resources at community level who can help/provide
support for children.
An indicator is a characteristic of an individual, population, or environment which is subject to
direct or indirect measurement. An indicator may be comprised of one piece of data or a
combination of several pieces of data that provide information about an event or an issue. For
example, number of sites where children are reported to have been recruited by armed forces is an
indicator. A more complex indicator could be: percentage of sites where recruitment of children
into armed forces is reported. This indicator is comprised of a nominator and a denominator.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Proxy indicators are also used in assessments when direct access to the required information is not
possible or difficult. This can include, for example, not being able to ask direct questions about
highly sensitive or politicized issues. A proxy indicator gives us an idea about the issue of interest
in an indirect way. In reality, many of the indicators we use on a day-to-day basis are proxy
indicators. For example, when we look at the number of children registered as separated or
unaccompanied with an NGO, we are in fact using a proxy indicator for the real number of
separated and unaccompanied children. This is because we do not have the ability to go to every
household and find out if there are children who are separated or unaccompanied. An example of a
proxy indicator would be to use loss of livelihood indicators in as a proxy for risks of child labour.
2.2. Analysis plan3
A good analysis
plan ensures:




Efficiency: that only useful and manageable information is collected;
Thoroughness: that all the necessary information is collected;
Feasibility: that the process can practically lead to arriving at the required
information for programming and advocacy purposes;
Usability: that an action plan is developed to use the collected information
to inform programming and funding priorities.
An analysis plan is a schema of what and how the collected data will be analyzed and translated into
desired outputs, i.e. a preliminary situation assessment of the scale and nature of child protection
risks, in line with the identified indicators and WWNKs. Through a reverse process (i.e. by
beginning from “what kind of information do we need” and working backwards) we can determine
data collection methodologies and develop tools that can provide us with information on WWNKs.
WWNKS
Indicators
Data elements
to be collected
Questions
Data collection
and compilation
Analysis
For instance, if we suspect that a massive flood and the ensuing displacement of the affected
population may have led to separation of children, we need to have concrete evidence that this is in
fact true, before being able to effectively respond to it. Therefore, WWNK in this case becomes: are
there children who were separated from their usual caregivers. The respective indicator for this
3
A sample analysis plan is provided in annex 6.2
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
WWNK could be: % of sites reporting separation of children from their usual caregivers. In other
words we need a frequency analysis of sites that report separation as an issue (analysis). To
generate this indicator, we need to collect two data components: number of sites and number of
sites that reported separation (data collection). From this, the question we ask is: are there
children in this site who are separated from their usual caregivers? Note that the number of
questions to arrive at indicators can vary (ie: you may be able to use one question to arrive at more
than one indicator; you may require various questions to arrive at one indicator).
The process of developing the analysis plan can also function as a reality check exercise that allows
us to appreciate our limitations and only collect the data that is manageable and analyzable (both in
terms of the type and volume) with limited time and resources.
The Analysis Plan will be developed based on WWNKs and their respective indicators. In other
words, we need to know what types of data are needed for our indicators and ask the right
questions to collect all the elements of our indicators.
The Analysis Plan is best developed at the beginning of an assessment process, prior to choosing
data collection methods and designing questionnaires, checklists and other data collection tools.
This will ensure that our data collection process is efficient, rather than collecting too much data
that then cannot be analyzed.
2.3 Sampling
- Preferred sampling method in a Rapid Assessment is “purposive” sampling
- The appropriate Unit of Measurement in the rapid phase is the “community”
Any analysis based on a sample of the population is an estimate with inherent inaccuracies. The
level of such inaccuracies depends on the sampling method we chose. Given the constraints in an
immediate post emergency setting as well as the time-bound nature of rapid assessments, we often
have to opt for purposive sampling.
Purposive sampling is a sampling methodology where we purposefully select the groups or
communities that are to be assessed. For example, if we want to solely gather information on the
most affected communities—as opposed to the whole affected population—we group parts of the
population based on level of impact the emergency has had and only assess the communities in the
most affected groups. Other situations may be when different ethnic groups are affected and we
suspect that one of them will not receive as much assistance as the others, or we want to determine
differences between urban or rural populations.
Despite inaccuracies, it should be noted that for initial planning purposes, purposive sampling does
allow approximate measures of scale and priority that are sufficiently accurate to enable initial
rapid prioritization and planning. It can also provide adequate insights into the possible differential
impacts of the emergency on the different categories of affected groups chosen for the sampling.
One additional benefit of purposive sampling is that site selection can be adjusted during the
assessment process if needed. For example, if during the data collection it becomes clear that
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
certain important areas have been overlooked, they can be added. The field report, however, should
document and justify the selection of sites added and/or sites excluded.4
Random geographic sampling – selecting geographical ‘clusters’ from a map at random -might be
appropriate for a rapid assessment in a post emergency context but only when/if we are faced with
a geographically concentrated and relatively small affected population; for example, if we are
dealing with a few IDP camps that have been affected by a sudden onset emergency.
After deciding the most appropriate sampling methodology we will use, the second most important
step is defining the “unit of measurement.”
2.4 Unit of measurement
“Unit of measurement” is the units used to measure something; for instance, individual, a class, a
school, a country, etc.
Community
In humanitarian settings, we tend to focus on the following four
categories:
Household
Individual
Community, household, individual, and institution (school, health-clinic, etc).
As one moves to smaller units (ie. down the pyramid), the volume of data collected increases
exponentially. This can often mean that in the rapid phase, assessments that attempt to collect
information at the household or individual level produce a volume of information that is difficult to
process and analyze within a limited timeframe.
Example: Imagine a scenario in which an earthquake has taken place. The affected population
currently lives in 10 sites of approximately 500 households (i.e. 5000 households in total). Average
number of people in each household is 6.5 (i.e. total population = 32,500).
If we chose each of these sites as an independent unit (a community) and interview 5 Key
Informants per site, we will end up with 50 questionnaires to be cleaned and entered into your data
analysis tool. If we decide to go down to the household level and interview only 5% of the
households, we will produce 250 questionnaires to be processed. If we go even lower on the
pyramid to the individual level and interview a mere 5% of the population, we will have 1,625
questionnaires to process.
As this example demonstrates, the lower you go down on the unit of measurement pyramid, the
amount of data to be processed increases exponentially. As such, in rapid assessments, unit of
measurement often remains at the community level.
A unit of measurement can be a single population entity, like a village or a camp, or a group of
population entities, such as a group of 10 camps or a group of villages that accommodate
approximately X number of people. In any of these cases, the unit of measurement should be a
4
Link/reference to where people can get more information on purposive sampling to be added…
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
‘distinct community’ with a formal, legal, customary or pragmatic boundary allowing an estimate of
the population.
The exact definition of what constitutes a ‘community’ needs to be determined at the local level.
Defining the best unit of measurement (in this case community) depends heavily on the
geographical spread of the emergency, populations affected, results of the previous assessments (if
any), and available resources. The larger the units, the less costly your assessment will be. At the
same time, as the units grow larger, the level of confidence we can have in the results declines. The
balance between these two is a decision that can only be made at the country level based on
available resources and the importance of acquiring reliable data.
It is important that an information management (IM) specialist is consulted on the sampling frame
to ensure that the collected data will be “good enough” for your purposes.
Question for consultation
Question
Inputs
Is the standard of maximum 500 households per
site (unit of measurement) reasonable? If not,
please suggest an alternative.
Part III: Developing Assessment Tools
Recommended tools
Desk Review
Key Informant Interview
Direct Observation
Optional Tool
Focus Group Discussion
Note: All the sample tools provided in annexes to this guideline should be adapted to local
context.
Type and scale of emergency; diversity of language, ethnicity, tribal and religious affiliations; preexisting child protection concerns; access and security limitations; local capacity and many more
contextual issues should inform the development of an appropriate tool for a CPRA. For instance, a
CPRA tool for a post-earthquake context with no significant displacement of the affected population
may look significantly different from one for a post-conflict situation where large numbers of
affected persons were forced to leave their homes. This section provides a quick guide on how to
adjust the tools and refine their content.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Sample Assessment tools are provided in annexes. These sample tools should be used as a base
model for the adaptation and development of context-specific tools. Each of the specific Sample
Tools in the Annexes also includes further guidance on tool-specific adaptation.
General Considerations in Refining the Tools:
- Population data that is not based on formal sources should be dealt with as very rough estimates
regardless of how confident the source is in their validity;
- You may want to further limit possible answers to a question by making them time bound. For
example question 1.2 in the KI sample tool asks the country team to define a limited “recall period”
when inquiring about an event for the past X days. Narrowing down the question in this manner
sometimes helps the respondent in providing a more accurate answer, while also making analysis
more meaningful;
- Whether or not a country edition of the tools has been produced during the preparedness phase
(before the onset), the tools should always be reviewed in advance of fieldwork to ensure
appropriateness as well as thoroughness;
- Changes to the tools after the deployment of teams are discouraged. However, if the supervisors
determine that changes are indispensible, they should be kept to a minimum, and need to be
immediately communicated to all concerned teams through a centralized coordination mechanism.
When deciding whether or not to apply a change, consider the connectivity issues, as in many cases
some teams cannot be reached on time. If some teams apply the change and others do not, the
whole data set related to the changed question may end up being unusable.
3.1 Desk Review (DR)
Desk review is the first step in a CPRA data collection exercise. Ideally, DR should take place before
the finalized adaptation of the other tools as the information acquired during the DR can inform the
formulation of questions and probing options. Data used during a DR is through a secondary source
such as the National Health Information System and therefore is called: secondary data5.
A guide to the type of questions that can potentially be answered through a Desk Review is
available in Annex 6.9.
3.2 Key Informant Interview (KII)
A Key Informant (KI) is anyone who can provide informed comments and/or opinion about a
specific subject or a group of related issues based on her/his experience and knowledge of the
community in question. KIs should be identified based on their roles in community and whether or
not we believe they can provide a good-enough representation of the views or situation of the
community/population and children in question. Key informants do not have to be people in
positions of authority.
For the purpose of a Rapid Assessment, we may need to identify one person with general
5
Secondary data is a type of data that is derived from a source other than the primary source. For example, if we use
the data collected routinely by government ministries on the situation of children in a given region, we are using
secondary data.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
knowledge of variety of topics, such as a local chief. However, time and resources permitting, it is
recommended to also interview KIs with more in depth knowledge of specific areas of interest and
those who have more regular contact with children and can therefore better represent their
situation. For example, as compared to a local chief, a social worker may be able to provide more
valid information on care arrangements for children and a teacher may have a better sense of how
children have been impacted emotionally.
In choosing the key informants consider that:
-
They should know the answer to your questions;
They should be able to understand the questions;
Their personal experience may not always be representative of the community, e.g. higher level
of education than other community members;
In some cases they may have an agenda, e.g. high-level government officials. So personal biases
should be taken into consideration.
Examples of key informants likely to have information on the situation of children include:
- teachers or educators;
- social workers or other government or civil society actors who work with children;
- youth leaders (above 18)
- women who care for children in the community
The number of key informants to be interviewed in each site is also dependant on resources and
time. In determining the number of KIs, consider:
-
the average size of the unit of measurement (site). For an average of 100?? households in each
homogeneous6 site, consider interviewing at least one key informant.
as identity denominations in a site become more heterogeneous, larger numbers of KIs are
required to ensure a good-enough representation of the views of the population
in order to reduce the likelihood of biased information, at least two KII should be undertaken in
each site even if the number of households is less than 200. At least one of these should be
someone that works directly with children (i.e. teacher, community care taker, etc.)
Question for consultation
Question
Inputs
Is the standard of at least one Key Informant per
100 households reasonable? If not, please
suggest an alternative.
Depending on the context, you may chose to either go for a group or an individual interview.
Individual interviews are easier to handle and may introduce less bias, as peer pressure and/or fear
6
A homogenous site can be interpreted as a site where a dominant majority of the population represents similar
identity denominations such as socio-economic background, ethnicity, religion and language.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
of creating discord with other members of the community are less of an issue. However, if you need
to get the perspective of individuals with different backgrounds, you will have to conduct several
individual interviews. In an emergency context, time and resource limitations may lead you to opt
for an interview with a group of key informants. [more details on how to manage a group interview
will be provided in an annex]
Question for consultation
Question
Inputs
Given potential difficulties in controlling group
dynamics for assessors with limited technical
capacity, depending on the make-up/dynamic of the
group, we may have a situation where the responses
are dominated by the views of one person in the
group against which others are not willing to speak
(i.e. if you have a group with a tribal leader in it).
Should we even keep this section or get rid of it all
together to avoid complications?
In conducting a KII, consider the following:








Introduce yourself and your organization to respondents, and explain the purpose of the
assessment;
In case of displacement, make it clear that the questions are about the situation of children
where the KI currently lives (and not his/her normal habitat).
Do NOT make any promises or raise expectations for assistance;
Obtain informed consent orally and if necessary in writing;
Write clearly and briefly;
Observe and respect cultural principles and norms;
Respect interviewees’ time. KII should not go beyond one hour.
Do no Harm: ensure that your questions and the answers you are receiving are not putting
the interviewee in danger of repercussions. Beware of types of information that may be
socially or politically sensitive.
A guide to adapting KII questions and a sample KII tool are provided in Annex 6.7
3.3 Direct Observation
The power of Direct Observation as an assessment method is often understated and large amount
of valuable information may be at our disposal through mere observation. Through “listening” and
“seeing,” and without relying on other people’s judgments, we can gain significant insight to the
realities of life in a camp or a village. Direct observation is particularly useful if we are interested in
knowing about behaviours within a population as well as physical conditions of something or a
place.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
A guide to Direct Observation and a sample tool are provided in Annex 6.8.
Urgent Action Form
Urgent Action Forms should be available to all assessors. They should only be used when an
individual case comes to the attention of the assessor. Cases are not to be actively sought in the
assessment (though may be sought through separate response activities). See Annex 6.3 for
procedure and sample form.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
PART IV – Process, planning and implementing the Rapid Assessment
4.1 Preparedness
This document is designed as a quick guide for development of a CP
rapid assessment tool during the immediate aftermath on a sudden
onset emergency. Sample tools are provided as annexes to the
guide. However, country-specific adaptation is necessary to ensure
more accurate results. Where possible, a country edition of the
tools should be produced as part of a preparedness process. All the
material should be translated into the local language and tools
should be field-tested. All key child protection actors in country
should be involved in this process to ensure buy-in and
endorsement of the tool.
It is suggested that a roster be prepared for assessors from
different parts of the country. When a country has several local
languages, the roster should include a balanced number of
candidates with knowledge of these languages. If there are
emergency prone areas in the country, a larger pool of candidates
should be identified for those regions.
4.2 Coordination
Preparedness Steps
 identify CP assessment
focal-points (CPWG
taskforce)
 adapt the tools
 translate the tools
 test the tools
 train focal-points
 define trigger
requirements
 disseminate to CPWG
 revise & retrain once a
year
The success of a joint Child Protection Rapid Assessment is
 Prepare a roster of
dependent on strong coordination with and partnership among CP actors,
assessorsincluding
(consider
government. Broad involvement of child protection actors will not only language
help todiversity)
ensure
availability of the resources required to undertake the assessment, but will also enrich the
result through inclusion of diverse points of view and experiences and ensure wider buy-in
ownership over the results.
the
the
end
and
It is important to remember that assessments require significant time and resources - financial,
logistical and human. Undertaking this process through a coordinated and collaborative interagency process can help to ensure that rapid assessment are able to have broader geographic reach
and the availability of adequate resources from various sources.
Deciding who should lead the coordination effort depends on existing coordination mechanisms on
the ground, actors’ capacity and expertise and the type and nature of the emergency. However, a
lead agency should ideally be selected during the preparedness phase to avoid delays.
Where applicable, CPWG members are encouraged to coordinate with the NATF regarding the
implementation of the first two phases of the NATF assessment to:
- ensure that child protection considerations are integrated into multi-cluster/sector
assessment;
- acquire information from those phases to be used as post-emergency secondary data; and
- avoid duplication and unnecessary overlapping of assessment activities.
However, the first two phases of NATF assessment process are not pre-requisites for a CPRA. The
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
decision of whether or not a CPRA should be conducted lies solely with the CPWG members.
[Once the Protection Cluster Rapid Assessment tool is completed, include a paragraph here on how
these two separate tools relate/link…]
4.3 Planning & preparation of assessment
Formation of the CPRA working group and its tasks
Supervising and coordinating the
assessment requires both technical
and administrative support. A group
of high-level child protection experts
(preferably with an IM specialist)
should provide technical oversight
and
administrative
support
throughout the process.
Tasks
Suggested timeline –
following onset of
emergency
Agreement of CPWG to conduct rapid assessment:
-
In addition to technical and
administrative support provided to
assessment teams, other tasks of the
coordinating body may also include:
Form assessment working group
Agree on roles and responsibilities
Agree on lead agency
Week 1
develop a concrete work-plan, including who will lead each activity
determine the initial geographic sample
Based on geographic reach, determine logistical and HR needs
a. Outreach to ensure adequate
participation of key CP actors;
Week 2
cost the operation and raise/flag funds
analyze the risk and develop contingencies
b. Security management/ monitoring
the humanitarian situation;
recruit assessors and supervisors
conduct Desk Review
c. Time management, information
management and appeals processes;
select and adapt modules to be used
Week 3
d. Liaison with other assessment
processes;
train assessors and supervisors
contact key resources
e. Ensuring logistic arrangements
and support.
deploy teams to the field
supervise fieldwork
provide regular technical and logistical support to team leaders
Week 4
collect field reports; analyse data and prepare final reports
4.4 Structure, Recruitment and
Training of assessment teams
* a more detailed timetable is available in Annex 6.6
Assumption: That assessors will have
negligible child protection background, but some level of experience in working with communities.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Due to the myriad of constraints present in an immediate onset emergency context, we will likely
be faced with difficult choices when it comes to the qualifications of assessors: if we have to choose
between two candidates, one with good knowledge of the local language but no CP background or
another with good CP background but limited local language skills, we should select the former. The
only indispensible qualifications for an assessor are: knowledge of local language, interpersonal
skills and ability to express oneself clearly. As much as possible, assessors should have some
minimum level of experience working or interacting with communities.
CPWG members are encouraged to partially mitigate possible shortfall by putting together a roster
of already screened candidates during the preparedness process. However, the need for preexisting knowledge of the basic concepts of child protection during the pre-deployment training of
assessors will likely remain crucial for a successful assessment.
Structure of the team
- The number of assessors in each field team would be determined by: the number of assessors available;
the number of supervisors/team leaders available; the number, location and size of sites to be assessed.
None the less, as a general rule of thumb and to ensure effective management, there should be maximum
5 assessors per team;
- Each team should include at least one supervisor with more advanced child protection skills (and ideally
some IM technical knowledge) who can guide the rest of the team on technical issues;
- If it is not possible to have someone with IM technical background in each team, efforts should be made
to ensure that there is an IM technical focal point that team supervisors can call on if need be.
Question for consultation
Question
Inputs
Should we put a limit on the number of
members in each team, lets say 5 for example?
In other words, a limit on number of team
members to be supervised by each supervisor.
A team leader/supervisor should coordinate the activities of the assessors in the field while
providing them with technical and logistical support. The team leader should also hold a daily
briefing session with their team together at the end of each working day to hear the daily report of
each team member and discuss technical and logistical issues.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Checklist for Daily Debriefing Session (to be used by supervisors)
-
Review and discuss all filled questionnaires
o
Detect potential error patters in filling the questionnaires
o
Address difficulties in answering questions/sensitive topics
o
Acknowledge and comment on innovations (if any) and discuss their relevance to other contexts
-
Discuss logistical concerns/difficulties
-
Discuss Urgent Action cases
-
Detect potential inconsistencies in information provided to different assessors (triangulation) and if
necessary, void certain questionnaires that present significant bias on the part of the KI
-
Write detailed report of all discussions and agreement and share with the team the following day
Training assessment teams
Assessment teams should be briefed and trained before they begin the data collection. The training
should cover some background information on the emergency and the child protection context (this
can be partly based on the Desk Review as well as any assessments that may have been undertaken
in Phase I and/or II), key child protection definitions and principles, orientation on the assessment
tools to be used, roles and responsibilities of team members, reporting/debriefing requirements,
and logistics for the data collection process.
For a rapid assessment, it is unlikely that a team will be able to dedicate more than one day to
training. Even in such a short time, however, it is important to allow assessment teams to practice
using the data collection tools through role-play exercises. Many potential shortcomings of the tools
can be caught during such exercises. If Rapid Assessment preparation was not undertaken
previous to the emergency and field-tested of the adapted tools has not been possible, these
trainings can also be used as an opportunity to do this testing – although it should be noted that
using the training for this dual process will require timing that enables the tools to be revised and
consolidated across the board before assessment teams are sent to the field.
When planning your training module, consider the following:
The way a question is asked is as important as the question itself.
For example, during a KII the assessor should not read out the answer options to certain questions
(see question x of the KII sample tool). At the same time there are questions for which options
should be mentioned to the interviewee as a probe (question y of the KII sample tool). In addition,
for certain questions, if the respondent appears not to have understood a question, answer options
can be used as clarifying examples (question z of the KII sample tool). As a general rule, however,
the options are there to help the assessor record the answers correctly. It is also important to
ensure that questions are not asked in a way that is ‘leading’, which could affect the neutrality of the
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
answers. This issue should be something that is included in the training of assessors.
The way the information is recorded is also important.
It is important for assessors to practice using the survey tools and to share some examples of
correctly and incorrectly completed forms.
See the example below:
What do you think are the main causes of separation after the emergency? [tick all that apply]
√
separation during relocation
disappearance of children
√
intentional institutionalization by caregivers;
disappearance of caregivers;
Other (specify) _ _ _ disappearance _ _ _ _ _
There are two separate options for disappearance in this question. But instead of seeking
clarification through follow up questions, the assessor simply used a general term in the “other”
category.
Asking follow-up questions is often necessary.
In the previous example, the assessor could easily clarify the answer by asking a follow up question
such as: “do you mean disappearance of the child or the care-givers?”
See another example below:
What resource persons, groups and/or institutions in the community are in place that can help or
provide support to children?
children's club
religious leaders
social workers
√ parents
school teachers
√ Other (specify) _ children’s corner _
Instead of adding a new category as “children’s corner,” the interviewer needs to clarify what kind
of an institution “children’s corner” is. For example, s/he could ask: “what do children do in a
children’s corner.” If the description fits the definition of a children club, the assessor should mark
the children club option instead of introducing a new category.
4.5 Data Cleaning and Entry
Keep in mind the operational considerations for data management and maintenance – expertise,
technological capacity and resource availability.




Are computers available for data entry?
Do partners have access to necessary software (word and excel)?
Are power and Internet connections adequate for sharing data?
Is translation required, and if so, at what stage of the data management process?
Cleaning the data:
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Data cleaning is a process that takes place in different stages. The most important part of data
cleaning is done in the field through daily debriefing sessions. During these sessions, the teamleader and assessors will go through filled forms and look for areas that may require clarification
and/or comments. All data collection forms should be verified and signed by a supervisor before
the data-entry stage.
The next part of data cleaning can happen during and after the data is entered. During this process,
the data should be checked for errors and missing elements. No matter how carefully assessors
collect and record the data, and how diligently encoders entered the data into the database,
mistakes happen. Some errors can be detected and removed by simple checks. For example, a
gender variable has two attributes, male and female, and therefore two possible numerical values,
say 0 and 1. Any other value is an error and can be readily detected. A less obvious error would for
example be the answer to a question with 12 multiple-choice options. The values will be 1-12. If a
111 is seen in that column, it is probably a data entry error.
Data entry
Data can be recorded and managed by hand, using tally sheets and summary tables. However,
computer programmes such as MS Excel or MS Access will save you time in the long run and will
allow for easy manipulation, analysis and sharing of data. In a time-constrained context, it is
preferred to use a computerized programme.
[once it is finalized, additional information about the data management tool to be provided here]
4.6 Data analysis
Data analysis is the process of making sense of the collected data. In other words, it is bringing
together individual data points (like an answer to a question) to speak as a collective. It is through
data analysis that we translate the “raw” data from different sources into meaningful information
that enables us to provide informed statements about WWNK.
Data analysis:
The most common analysis that can be done with a non-representative sample of data (such as
those collected through a purposive sample) is descriptive analysis. It so happens that descriptive
analysis is also one of the least complicated methods of analysis. Non-specialists can easily run such
analysis with minimal instructions.
Within the category of descriptive analysis, the most useful for assessment data is frequency
analysis. Frequency analysis determines the frequency of an event (or a statement) as a function of
all the recorded events. For example, if 12 out of 18 KIIs suggested that the incidence of sexual
violence has increased since the onset of the emergency, we can claim that 66.7% of the
interviewed KIs believed that the incidence of sexual violence has increased since the onset of the
emergency.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
To facilitated frequency analysis, a frequency distribution table can be used. For example the age
distribution of the majority of separated children based on KIIs can be presented in a frequency
distribution table such as:
Table #:
Frequency
under 5
5 to 14
15 to 18
no observable
difference
don’t
know
3
8
3
2
3
Cross tabulation is another method in descriptive statistics. Through cross tabulation, one can
separate responses to a specific question based on characteristics of the respondent (e.g.
male/female) or the site where the data was collected (e.g. urban/rural/camp/…). Such analysis is
often very helpful for program design as a rural area affected by an emergency may face different
dilemmas than an urban one.
See the below example for a cross-tabulation analysis:
Table #: tally sheet—increase in incidence of sexual violence
Entry#
Urban/Rural
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Rural
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Increase in incidence of Sexual
Violence since the emergency
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Table #: Cross-tabulation table—increase in incidence of sexual violence in urban versus rural sites
Urban
Increase in SV
5
No increase in SV
2
Total
7
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Rural
Total
3
8
8
10
11
18
Graphs:
Showing the data through visuals is oftentimes a very basic but useful way of making the data
useful. Graphing can take place at different stages of analysis. The first example shows a simple
calculating of number of urban versus rural sites. The second example shows how many sites
reported an increase in the incidence of sexual violence since the onset of the emergency. The third
example is based on a cross tabulation of the two previous sets of data and naturally contains much
more information and context.
Examples:
Graph 1
Graph 2:
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Graph 3:
It is highly recommended that an information management (IM) specialist accompany the CP team
throughout the analysis process. If there are no IM specialists available within cluster members,
please seek support from [to be confirmed and added]….
4.7 Interpretation
Interpretation is the process through which the analyzed data will get linked to programmatic
objectives of the assessment. In other words, through interpretation, the analyzed data will be
linked back to our original questions. Therefore, the interpretation will tell us what are the:




SCALE of needs and protection risks;
PRIORITIES for required response;
HOW such response should be configured;
WHERE such response should be targeted.
The first step in interpreting any data is to make sure (as much as possible) that the data is accurate
enough. To do so, we triangulate. Triangulation of data is the process of comparing data collected
through different methods, by different people and from different sources. This is our main form of
validity check in a Rapid Assessment. Finding similar information across source and methods
allows for increased confidence in the results. Triangulation becomes ever more important if we
collect our data from a small sample, which is often the case in a rapid assessment setting.
Triangulation can happen across the following lines:
- Methods: by comparing data collected through different methods such as Direct Observation and Desk
Review;
- By whom: data collected by one source, even if through different methods, may reflect personal or group
biases. Therefore comparing data collected by different data collectors can increase our confidence in the
validity of the data;
- From who: considering information from different respondents does not only increase our confidence in
the validity of that information, but also enriches our perspective through diversity.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
As apparent from the term, triangulation is ordinarily undertaken through the use of at least three
different sets of information. However, in interpreting CPRA data, we may not have access to three.
During a triangulation exercise using only two information sources, we may face contradictory
information about one subject. In such cases, we should refrain from making any conclusive
statements until a third source of information is consulted. But if there is no contradiction between
the two sources, we can assume that our information is valid enough to be used in decision making
and programming.
Triangulation can happen at different levels. We can triangulate the information at the community
level by comparing the information provided by different KIs and also those collected through our
direct observation tool. This kind of triangulation should happen at the field team level during daily
briefing sessions. If information provided by one KI is consistently contradicting all other sources of
data, the supervisor can suggest that the questionnaire be nullified. We can also triangulate
aggregated information. For example, if 85% of our KIs said that there are no child recruitment
activities in camps, but 45% of direct observation reports recorded active recruitment activities in
camps, we know that one of these two is not correct. In this case, a third source of information
should be identified and used for validation.
Question for consultation
Question
Inputs
Should we develop an annex on indicators of
other sectors that can be used for child
protection assessment analysis? Ex: livelihood
indicators as a possible proxy for risks of child
labour
Examples:
Table #: frequency analysis of the age distribution of separated children
under 5
5 to 14
15 to 18
no observable
difference
don’t know
Frequency
3
8
3
2
3
Percentage
15.79%
42.11%
15.79%
10.53%
15.79%
This table represents the answers of KIs to the question: “in your opinion, which age group
represents the majority of separated children?” We have all the elements necessary to interpret this
table. We can claim that 42.11% of KIs believed that a majority of separated children fall in the age
group of 5 to 14.
If we have access to other sources of data regarding the separated children, we should triangulate
this finding with the data from those sources. For example if the NATF rapid assessment report
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
claims that 70% of separated children are under 5, we know that there is a problem in one these
two findings. But if we do not find any contradictory information from other sources of data, we can
consider our figure valid.
Table #: increase in incidence of sexual violence in urban versus rural sites
Urban
Rural
Total
Increase in SV
5
3
8
No increase in SV
2
8
10
Total
7
11
18
This cross-tabulation table provides enough information for us to make claims about increase of
sexual violence since the onset of the emergency in urban versus rural areas. We can claim that a
higher percentage of visited urban sites are reporting an increase in the incidence of sexual
violence since the emergency than visited rural sites.
4.8 Report writing
Primary data
KII and DO
Secondary data
Triangulation
& Analysis
Report
writing
DR
After the analysis phase, it is important to share the results with other actors. Ideally, a miniworkshop should be organized to discuss the main findings and their significance. This will not only
enrich the learning from the data, but also ensures buy-in and wider use of the results. You may
also want to consider different assessment ‘products’ for different audiences. Your report should
include:
-
3-4 page summary of key findings – most for donors, HQ, development of appeals, advocacy,
etc;
-
More detailed assessment report to be used by CPWG and CP actors to inform their
programming;
-
Make the raw data available to NATF, CPWG members and others who may find it useful.7
Note: It is important to acknowledge that the results from an assessment that has used purposive
sampling will not be representative of the total population. To make this clear in our reporting,
findings should be qualified to reflect the known inaccuracies of the methods (ex: “Of 75 sites
assessed, 80% reported separated children” rather than “80% of affected areas reported separated
children”).
7
See annex 6.5 for more details.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
PART V – Additional key considerations
5.1 Ethical and Confidentiality issues
Assessments are “interventions” in themselves. They can be meaningful and positive experiences or
intrusive and disrupting, and possibly sources of additional stress, for the population. This is
especially the case during the immediate aftermath of an emergency. Our guiding principle during
any assessment should be the two principles of “do no harm” and “best interest of the child.”
Therefore, an ethical approach to rapid assessments requires:
1. A commitment to follow-up action, as necessary;
2. Identifying and finding ways to support community-coping mechanisms that are not
violating basic rights of or harming children;
3. Considering potential negative effects of the assessment exercise, such as stigmatization;
attracting unnecessary attention to a person or a group; or instilling unwarranted fear;
4. Not creating false expectations through honest communication with communities about the
objectives of the assessment before and during the assessment.8
It is also our responsibility to ensure the confidentiality of the information we have been entrusted
with. Confidentially can be defined as the restrictive management of sensitive information (names,
incidents, locations, details, etc.) collected before, during and after child protection assessments.
Sensitive information must be protected and shared only with those persons (service providers,
family, etc.) who need the information for the best interest of the child. Shared information should
ideally be stripped of any details of the source, unless otherwise is required to ensure appropriate
action (with written consent from the source).
Sensitive questions such as the ones flagged ( ) in the KI sample tool (Annex 6.3) should only be
asked by well-trained interviewers. If assessors do not have a strong background in CP or
adequate and thorough training, these questions should not be asked.
Informed consent is an integrated part of any assessment activity that involves direct acquisition of
information from people regardless of their age. The sample tool for the key informant interview
(annex 6.7) includes an oral informed consent example. If you intend to use a key informant’s name
in your reports, a written consent form is necessary (see annex 6.5). Based on the context and
background, the assessment team may decide that written consent is necessary for all KIIs
irrespective of the use of name. In such cases, special written consent forms should be included in
all KI questionnaires.
8
Adapted from “Ethical Considerations for the IA Emergency Child Protection Assessment.”
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
PART VI– Annexes
6.1 Glossary and definitions
Question for consultation
Question
Inputs
If there are other terms that need to be included
in the glossary, please suggest.
Sudden onset emergencies are defined as “emergency situations that come upon a population over
a short period of time.” Such emergencies can include both natural disasters and conflict. In areas of
chronic crisis, such as protracted conflicts, sudden onset emergencies are events that significantly
affect or change the status quo (e.g. new attacks resulting in mass displacement)
Unit of Measurement is a unit used to measure something; for instance, individual, a class, a school,
a country, etc.
Field Report
Daily Briefing
Caregiver
Separation/separated children
Separated children are those who are separated from both parents or from their previous legal
guardian or customary primary caregiver but are not necessarily separated from other relatives.
These may include children accompanied by other adult family members, siblings, etc.
Unaccompanied children, also called unaccompanied minors, are those who are separated from
both their parents/ legal guardian and other relatives, and are not being cared for by any adult who
by law or custom is their guardian
Orphan
Violence
Civil Violence
Armed Violence
Sexual Violence
Gang(s)
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Community
Armed groups
Children associated with armed forces and armed groups
Specialized child protection actors
Hazardous objects are defined as objects that if accessible to children can cause significant
physical harm and even death. These objects may not necessarily be harmful to adults. For example,
a set of razor wires laid on the ground close to a playground is very likely to harm children while
they are running around.
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
6.2 Sample data analysis plan
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
6.3 Urgent Action Report—Guidance and Sample Form
Guidance
Ahead of undertaking the assessment, the CPWG as a whole should decide on a process to collect
and respond to the Urgent Actions identified during the assessment. This should include:
1. Criteria for what will constitute an ‘urgent action’ case – this must be determined by CPWG
actors based on the local context/scenario, but could include things such as: unaccompanied
child with no care; active recruitment or abuduction; etc;
2. A clear referral pathway/standard operating procedure;
3. Roles and responsibilities.
Assessor encounters a case/urgent situation  assessor to call on assessment team supervisor to
consult  supervisor to complete urgent action form  team supervisor to send/refer forms to
provincial assessment focal point  provincial assessment focal point to refer case to relevant CP
actors; provincial assessment focal point to send/refer forms to national level  CPWG coordinator
to refer case to relevant CP actors  relevant CP Actors to follow-up on case/situation….
During the daily assessment briefings undertaken by the supervisors with their teams, the urgent
actions that have come up on that day should be discussed to:
-
-
triangulate & identify possible inconsistencies (ex: unaccompanied children without any
adult supervision were found, but KII reported that there were no separated children in the
community);
determine whether there are patterns emerging that require urgent follow-up or advocacy
(ex: active recruitment is observed in several sites)…
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
Sample Urgent Action Report Tool
Date: …………………………………………….Location: ………………………………………………..
Please fill out the first 4 sections giving as many details as possible. In section 5 give your advice for actions to
be conducted to solve the case and to prevent it from happening again. Hand this over to the team leader or
your supervisor. If you do not have access to your team leader, try to contact the CPWG coordinator at
[contact info].
1. What happened?
2. Who (by whom and to who)?
3. When?
4. Where?
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
5. Recommended action/s
6. Other relevant information (such as contact info and name of persons involved)
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
6.4 Assessment Products
PRODUCT and sample content:
Briefing: short narrative, some visual presentation
of data and bullet point recommendations.
LENGTH
2-4 pages
Detailed report:
1. Exec Summary (same as above);
2. Intro and discussion of methodology;
3. Key findings
- data tables and visual graphs of findings;
- narrative analysis
(key findings can be organized by CP issues/risks,
geographic area, etc, or a combination of these,
depending on the context)
4. Identification of priorities – programmatic and
funding;
5. Key recommendations – for programming
20-30
pages max
Raw data – available electronically to be shared
n/a
TARGET GROUP
All interested humanitarian
actors (donors, senior
management of agencies,
government, HQ, etc)
CPWG members who will use
information to inform
programming
CPWG members, other clusters,
NATF, etc…
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
6.5 Sample Consent Form for the Use of Real Name
There may be special circumstances in which the use of your real name is desirable for the best
interest of a child/children. [if this permission is being acquired for a specific purpose, spell out the
purpose]
Do you grant permission for the use of your real name? ________(please write in YES or NO)
Your signature _______________________________ Date_______________
Written consent form
Researcher/Data collector’s Name: ______________________________
Organization: _______________________________________________
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Assessment Process. This form outlines the purposes
of the assessment and provides a description of your involvement and rights.
The purpose of this activity is to get your opinions, insights, and suggestions about:
The situation of children in _______and the issues affecting them as a result of the emergency/crisis.
__________________________________________________________________
You are encouraged to ask questions at any time about the assessment and the methods we are
using. Your suggestions and concerns are important to us.
We will use the information from this assessment to plan the Child Protection response in the area,
a report will be produced after compiling all the data and information from different sources. The
report will be shared among the member organizations of the Child Protection Working Group.
Unless you are asked to sign a separate statement at the bottom of this form, your real name will
not be used at any point in the written report and your identity will be protected as this is an
anonymous process.
Your participation in this assessment is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any point of
the assessment, for any reason. If you withdraw, information collected from you and records and
reports based on information you have provided will be destroyed.
Do you agree with the terms of this agreement? _________ (Please write in YES or NO)
Your name __________________________________
Your signature _______________________________ The date_______________
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit
Guide and Sample Tools
version: 10/Jan/2011
6.6 CPRA Working Group -- Suggested Tasks and Timetable
Suggested Tasks
Week
Day
Form assessment working group
Agree on roles and responsibilities
Agree on lead agency Week 1
develop a concrete work-plan,
including who will lead each
activity
determine the initial geographic
sample
Based on geographic reach,
determine logistical and HR needs
cost the operation and raise/flag
funds
analyze the risk and develop
contingencies
recruit assessors and supervisors
conduct Desk Review
select and adapt modules
train assessors and supervisors
contact key resources
deploy teams to the field
supervise fieldwork
provide regular technical and
logistical support to team leaders
collect field reports, clean and
enter the data
analyse and interpret the data
write reports and disseminate
Suggested Timeline
1
2
Week 1
3 4 5
6
7
1
2
Week 2
3 4 5
6
7
1
2
Week 3
3 4 5
6
7
1
2
Week 4
3 4 5
6
7
1
2
Week 5
3 4 5
6
7