Child Protection Rapid Assessment
A Short Guide
© Global Protection Cluster, Child Protection Working Group, January 2011
All rights reserved….
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Glossary of Acronyms
CP: Child Protection
CPRA: Child Protection Rapid Assessment
CPWG: Child Protection Working Group
CPRAWG: Child Protection Rapid Assessment Working Group
DO: Direct Observation
DR: Desk Review
GBV: Gender Based Violence
IA: Inter Agency
IASC: Inter Agency Standing Committee
IDP: Internally Displaced Persons
IM: Information Management
KI: Key Informant
KII: Key Informant Interview
NATF: Needs Assessment Task Force
RA: Rapid Assessment
SGBV: Sexual and Gender Based Violence
SV: Sexual Violence
WWNK: What We Need to Know
Assessment guide legend
A step or sub-step in organizing and
implementing a Child Protection
Rapid Assessment
Where to find Annexes and Sample
Tools
Tasks
Don’t forget!
I
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Introduction
[note from the CPWG]
Background on Humanitarian Assessments
Following any larger-scale rapid-onset emergency, Child Protection assessment will usually be
conducted in the context of coordinated assessments organized through the humanitarian cluster
system. The Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Needs Assessment Task Force (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.1 These are:
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;
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;
Phase III – Cluster/Sector-specific Assessments. This phase addressed more detailed and in-depth sector
specific questions and will take place during the third and fourth week following the onset of an
emergency.
What is a Child Protection Rapid Assessment?
A Child Protection Rapid Assessment (CPRA) is an inter-agency, cluster-specific rapid assessment,
designed and conducted by CPWG members in the aftermath of a rapid-onset emergency. It is meant to
provide a snapshot of urgent child protection related needs among the affected population within the
immediate post-emergency context, as well as act as a stepping-stone for a more comprehensive
process of assessing the impacts of the emergency. This rapid assessment should not be confused with
nor take the place of more comprehensive assessments or monitoring mechanisms.
The IASC NATF was established by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee1 in 2009 to improve coordinated assessment
processes in humanitarian disasters.
1
II
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Objectives 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 a rapid-onset emergency.
Through the CPRA, we strive to determine:
 SCALE of needs and protection risks;
 PRIORITIES for required response – geographic and programmatic areas of priority, from which
funding priorities can be agreed;
 HOW such response should be configured – including what existing capacities the response can
build on;
Depending on the context, CPRA may also be useful for other purposes, such as:
 Creating an evidence-base for advocacy with stakeholders (armed groups, government etc);
 Providing some knowledge of where the main information gaps are.
When should the CPRA happen?
The inter-agency CPRA typically takes about 3-4 weeks to complete, and thus usually falls within phase
III of the NATF rapid assessment framework. The CPRA may be one component of a coordinated
Protection Rapid Assessment. However, CPRA can very well be a stand-alone process, and take place in
the absence of any other humanitarian assessments. In contexts where preparedness measures have
reduced the post-emergency preparation time, CPRA can also happen at earlier stages after the onset.
The limited duration of the CPRA ensures that priority sector-specific information becomes available
rapidly to inform preliminary response. Following this rapid assessment phase, a more comprehensive
and in-depth child protection assessment should be planned. The existing Inter-Agency Child Protection
Assessment Toolkit is the primary resource developed to assist this more comprehensive child
protection assessment process.
How should the CPRA happen?
This guide will take you through the main steps in the process of planning and implementing a Child
Protection Rapid Assessment in the aftermath of a rapid-onset emergency. The Action Plan and
Timeline table on page 1 of this guide provides an overview of the entire process. Ethical and
confidentiality issues, briefly presented on page 19 of this guide, should be dealt with as a central part to
any assessment effort that deals with human subjects, including the CPRA.
While significant efforts have been dedicated ensure that the guide is as comprehensive as possible, it is
impossible to create an assessment tool that can fit any and every post-emergency context. Therefore,
while using this tool, be mindful of possible need for adjustments and additions based on your local
context.
III
Planning and Implementing a Child Protection Rapid Assessment (Action Plan and Timeline)
Topic/Phase
Guide
(page
#)
1. Coordination and
Planning
2 to 3
2. Preparing for the
Assessment
4 to 7
3. Reviewing &
Adapting the Data
Collection & Analysis
tools
4. Structure,
Recruitment and
Training of
Assessment Teams
5. Data Collection
and Management
6. Data analysis,
Interpretation and
Report Writing
7 to 10
10 to 12
12 to 13
Suggested Timeline
Suggested Tasks
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
Refine and adapt What We
Need to Knows
Conduct Desk Review
Develop sample frame
Define urgent action procedure
Contact key resources
Adapt modules
Recruit assessors and
supervisors
Train assessors and
supervisors
Deploy teams to the field
Supervise fieldwork
Provide regular technical and
logistical support to teams
Collect field reports, clean and
enter the data
Analyse and interpret the data
14 to 18
Write reports and disseminate
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2
Week 4
Week 5
3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
WEEK 1 - Coordination and Planning
The success of a joint Child Protection Rapid Assessment is dependent on a collective effort on the part of
CP actors, including the government when appropriate. A single organization is unlikely to have the full
resources and expertise necessary for this process - a collaborative coordinated approach can help to
ensure the availability of pooled resources. The involvement of a broad set of child protection actors will
also enrich and strengthen the quality and legitimacy of the end result - including diverse experiences and
points of view can ensure wider buy-in and ownership over the process and results.
Coordinate and Link up with other Multisectoral Assessments Processes
Following any rapid-onset emergency, child protection actors are responsible for ensuring that their
responses to the emergency are well coordinated. Whatever coordination mechanism for Child Protection
is in place should also be used as the initial forum to discuss and coordinate assessment activities. The first
step in ensuring a coordinated assessment process would be to look into other existing assessment
processes. Deciding who should lead the coordination effort on needs assessments depends on existing
coordination mechanisms, actors’ capacity and expertise and the type and nature of the emergency.
Ideally, a lead agency should be selected during the preparedness phase to avoid delays.
In some situations, especially larger-scale rapid-onset disasters, a coordinated multi-cluster assessment will
be undertaken in the first two weeks of the emergency. It is important that CPWG members link and
coordinate with NATF or any other existing needs assessment process to:
 ensure that child protection considerations are integrated into multi-cluster/sector assessment;
 obtain the data and results from previous assessments to use it as secondary data; and
 avoid duplication and unnecessary overlap of assessment activities and explore possibility of piggybacking Child Protection into other planned sector-specific rapid assessments.
See Part I – Introduction for a brief overview of the stages of the multi-sectoral assessment process
Building upon information from a multi-cluster joint assessment (Phase II) can usefully
inform a child protection rapid assessment (Phase III). If no multi-cluster joint assessment has
been completed, however, the child protection group needs to make the judgment whether to
proceed with a child protection assessment or await completion of a multi-cluster joint
assessment.
2
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Form a Child Protection Rapid Assessment Working Group (CPRAWG):
Within the Child Protection sub-Cluster/Coordination mechanism, a working group should be formed to
manage the rapid assessment process, including technical oversight and administrative support. It is
important to ensure that in addition to child protection expertise, there is some minimal level of IM
technical capacity within this working group to support assessment work2.
The initial task check-list of the Working Group may include:
 Develop a time-bound work-plan that clearly assigns responsibility to different members;
 Decide on the overall geographic scope of the assessment;
 Determine logistical and human resource needs;
 Cost the operation and identify funds and in-kind contributions;
 Analyse risks and develop contingency plans;
 Form a smaller technical group to develop the sampling, adapt the tool, and undertake the analysis
and interpretation of the results;
 Agree on how the data collection process will be supervised and supported.
In addition to technical and administrative support provided to assessment teams, other tasks of the CPRA
working group may include:
 Outreach to mobilize the participation of key CP actors;
 Contingency planning, including monitoring of the humanitarian situation and revising plans as
necessary;
 Time management of the assessment process;
 Linking and coordinating with other assessment processes;
 Ensuring logistic arrangements and support;
 Developing a plan to share results with relevant actors.3
Financial and human resources together with logistical needs are often a determining
factor in the scope of the assessment. Coming up with a rough calculation of resource needs
earlier in the process will ensure a more realistic planning and smoother implementation.
If there is no IM capacity within the CPWG, seek IM support from OCHA or from other clusters or agencies who may be
conducting similar activities. Also explore the possibility of using the same sampling methodology being used for other
assessments.
3 Anecdotal evidence suggests one of the main impediments to timely distribution and use of assessment info is disagreement
on the how to share the results with others. It is preferable to agree on the parameters of results sharing at the outset. It is
also suggested that any formal sign-off process is complemented the release of preliminary results or a 'briefing note.’
2
3
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
WEEK 2 - Preparing for the Assessment
Review and refine What We Need to Know (WWNK)
The What We Need to Know (WWNK) represent the key pieces of priority information on risks and on the
situation of children which we require to inform our immediate programming priorities. Deciding on
WWNK is the foundation of any CPRA.
The below list of WWNKs was developed based on a broad consultation with global and field level CPWG
members. The CPRA working group should refine and adapt this list to the local context. The process of
adapting the assessment tools should be based on this refined list of WWNKs.
Child Protection WWNKs in the immediate onset/rapid assessment phase:
1. Patterns of separation;
2. Types of care arrangements for separated children;
3. Capacities in community to respond to child separation;
4. Patterns and levels of institutionalization of children;
5. Laws and policies on adoption (in and out of country);
6. Nature and extent of any hazards for children in the environment (i.e. open pit latrines, dangling
electrical wires, landmines or other explosives in the vicinity of the residence, small arms etc) and
risk to their safety as a result;
7. Types and levels of violence towards children in the community;
8. Causes and level of risk of death and/or Injury to children;
9. Existence of active participation of children in acts of violence;
10. Past and current trends in involvement/association of children in armed forces and groups;
11. Specific risks of sexual violence for children;
12. Risks of other forms of GBV for children;
13. Common community practices in response to sexual violence against children;
14. Availability of essential sexual violence response services for children (specially health and
psychosocial services);
15. Existing patterns and scale of child labour; likely new risks as a result of the emergency;
16. Sources of stress for children and their caregivers;
17. Children’s and parents’ coping mechanisms;
18. Capacities for provision of people/resources at community level to provide support for children.
Conduct the Desk Review
Undertaking a Desk Review (DR) is a key and necessary component of the CP Rapid Assessment. Ideally, the
DR should take place in the preparedness phase and before the final adaptation of the various assessment
tools – the DR will provide valuable information to inform the formulation of questions and answer options
in the information collection tools. Remember that during the DR, secondary sources such as the National
4
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Health Information System will need to be used. Data acquired through such sources are called: secondary
data.4
See Annex 3 for the Sample Desk Review & Guide
Decide on a Sampling Methodology and Sample Frame
Do not sacrifice quality for quantity. When resources are scarce, do less, but do it well.
Conducting an assessment in fewer sites but with higher quality is likely to result in more reliable
information than visiting more sites with under-prepared, or otherwise less-skilled, assessors.
Sampling methodology:
Any analysis of a situation that is based on information collected from only a sample of the population will
inevitably have inaccuracies. It will provide an estimate of the situation. The level of inaccuracy relates to
the kind of sampling used. Given the resource and logistical constraints in a post emergency setting, as well
as the time-bound nature of rapid assessments, purposive sampling is usually used.
Purposive sampling is a sampling methodology where groups of people or communities are purposefully
selected based on a set of defined criteria (more on how to develop such criteria below). Through this
purposeful selection, we are striving to achieve a relatively complete picture of the situation in the all
affected area, without using a random sampling approach (which is costly and time-consuming).5
Despite inaccuracies, purposive sampling does give us a measure and sense of the scale and priorities that
is approximate enough to enable initial rapid prioritization and planning. It can also provide preliminary
insight into how the emergency has impacted differently on the different categories of affected groups
chosen for the sample.
Another benefit to purposive sampling is that the site selection can be adjusted during the assessment
process if needed. For example, if during the data collection it becomes clear that certain important areas
that we thought initially inaccessible are now assessable by road, they can be added (and visa versa). It is
important to note that the field report should document and justify the selection or exclusion of sites and
populations for the assessment.
Unit of measurement
“Unit of measurement” is the level at which something is measured; for instance, an individual, a class, a
school, a country, etc. For the purposes of a CPRA, the unit of measurement is at a community (rather than
individual or household) level.
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. For
more guidance on technical issue regarding data and information management, please see the CPWG Technical Guide to Child
Protection Assessment.
5 For more guidance on technical issues regarding sampling methodology, please see the CPWG Technical Guide to Child
Protection Assessment. (to be developed)
4
5
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
A site should be a distinct community with a formal, legal, customary or pragmatic boundary allowing an
estimate of its population. The exact definition of what constitutes a ‘site’ needs to be determined at the
local level. Determining the best definition of a site (unit of measurement) depends heavily on the
geographical spread of the emergency, populations affected, results of the previous assessments (if any),
and available resources. The main parameters of selecting a site are as follows:
 in a non-camp setting, the smallest administrative unit such as a village or a population grouping
can be taken as a distinct site. In camp settings, each camp can be taken as a site;
 if populations with distinct characteristics (such as language, ethnicity, place of origin, status, etc)
live together in one site, and you believe that these characteristics are likely to have an impact on
how each of group is affected by the emergency, such locations should be divided into multiple
sites along the lines of those distinct characteristics regardless of their size.6
If the population distribution is not straightforward or the process of trying to identify sites is a challenge,
seek help from an information management (IM) expert. This will ensure that the collected data will be “good
enough” for your purposes.
Sample frame:
A Sample (or sampling) frame is a list of all the sites that have been selected to be part of an assessment.
This sampling frame needs to be developed after defining the criteria for a ‘site’.
To select the sites, the various characteristics of the sites and populations impacted by the emergency need
to be taken into consideration. These characteristics may include things such as: camp versus non-camp
settings; directly versus indirectly affected areas; displaced versus non-displaced affected populations;
origins of the displaced populations; IDPs within a host community versus on their own; mountainous
versus coastal areas, etc.
Two main steps in developing a sampling frame are the following:
Step 1 –we recommend that a list of distinct scenarios be developed. These scenarios should be
based on and represent the various known characteristics of the affected population and areas.
For example: Imagine a situation where a cyclone has affected two regions in country X. You know that:
a) Region X1 is highly affected while region X2 has been slightly affected;
b) Information from an initial rapid assessment by NATF reveals that in area X1A (sub-region of X1) the
population has been displaced while in area X1B (sub-region of X1) the population stayed in their
villages;
c) Two distinct ethnic groups live in areas X2A and X2B (sub-regions of X2).
 Based on this information, we are faced with four distinct scenarios: X1A, X1B, X2A, and X2B.
Step 2 - The second step is to select a number of sites per scenario. We recommend a standard of at
least three sites per scenario. Selection of sites will be based mainly on geographic accessibility and other
logistical considerations.
The idea behind this parameter is to make sure that the KIs interviewed can credibly speak to the experience of the
population they are representing.
6
6
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
 In the example used above, our sample frame will include at least three sites in each of the four
sub-regions. This means that we will be assessing at least 12 sites.
When facing limited time or resources to cover all the scenarios, consider prioritizing:
 Severely affected areas - prioritize sites where secondary sources of information or experience
indicate the humanitarian situation is the most serious;
 Accessible areas - where overall needs are urgent, widespread and unmet, it’s justifiable to focus
on accessible areas or affected population;
 Where there are the most gaps in existing knowledge - cover geographic locations or groups on
which little information is available.
When time and resources are available, consider the following:
 assess more sites in areas suspected to have been affected more;
 assess non-affected sites that are comparable in characteristics to the identified scenarios in
affected areas. This will allow for a comparison of affected and non-affected sites (that are similar
in other characteristics) that can provide a sense of how things have changed as a result of the
emergency.
WEEK 3 - Reviewing and Adapting the Data Collection and Analysis Tools
Issues such as: type and scale of emergency; language diversity; ethnicity; tribal and religious affiliations;
pre-existing child protection concerns; access and security limitations; WWNKS; local capacity and many
more contextual considerations will inform the development of appropriate tools for a CPRA. The three
recommended modules for a CPRA are:
 Desk Review
 Key Informant Interview
 Direct Observation
Focus Group Discussions are generally not encouraged in this phase, because of the levels of staff expertise
they require and the time required to analyse the information they produce. Where there are available
staff trained in appropriate methodologies these may be used as a complementary source of data, but their
use should be guided by strict adherence to guidance on this form of approach.7
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 sample tools
in the annexes also includes further guidance on tool-specific adaptation.
General Considerations in Adapting and Refining CPRA Tools:
 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
7
For more guidance on FGDs, refer to the Inter-Agency Child Protection Assessment Toolkit and/or Rapid
Appraisal in Humanitarian Emergencies using PRM, available at: http://resources.cpclearningnetwork.org/
7
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
period” when inquiring about an event over the past X days. Narrowing the question down in this
manner sometimes helps a respondent provide 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. We suggest at a minimum doing a short simulation of the
tools with CPWG members familiar with the local context;
 Changes to the tools after the deployment of teams are discouraged. However, if the supervisors
determine that changes are critical to the success of the assessment, changes should be kept to a
minimum and need to be immediately communicated to all concerned teams through a centralized
coordination mechanism. When communication is poor (i.e. reliance on transmission devices that
operate sporadically), the capacity of teams to understand and implement the change(s) is
compromised, or there is a likelihood that the changes will be inappropriately or unevenly applied,
the introduction of changes may render the information gathered unusable.
Revise the Assessment Questions (as and if necessary)8
For the rapid assessment phase, to facilitate timely data compilation and analysis, close-ended questions
should be used as much as possible. Open-ended questions should only be used when answers to
questions are hard to predict or when the answer options cannot be pre-determined. To make open-ended
questions easier to analyze, however, we need to close them by identifying a set of predicted answer
options. For this purpose, two methods are used in the sample tools:
1. Multiple-choice questions: for which we can identify an exhaustive and mutually exclusive pool of
answers. This requires sufficient knowledge of the local context to ensure that selected choices adequately
cover all possible answers. Such questions should provide an ‘other’ answer option that can capture
important issues or help identify additional answer options for multiple-choice questions. Multiple-choice
questions are easiest to analyze.
2. Coded-category questions: in this method categories of answers will be developed for each question. This
coded-category approach is useful for questions for which it is harder to come up with concrete answer
options. The assessor will then be tasked to decide to which category the answer of the respondent
belongs.
As far as possible, the type of questions recommended in the Sample KII tool should be maintained, while
answer options should be modified as necessary.
Please see the CPWG Technical Guide to Child Protection Assessments for additional guidance on assessment questions. (to
be developed)
8
8
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Adapt the Key Informant Interview (KII)
See Annex 1 for the Sample Key Informant Interview Tool
A Key Informant (KI) is anyone who can provide information or opinions on a specific subject (or group of
issues) based on her/his experience and knowledge of the community we are trying to assess. KIs should be
identified based on their roles in community and on whether we are confident they can provide a goodenough representation of the views or situation of children in the community/population in question. Key
informants do not necessarily have to be people in positions of authority.
In choosing the key informants, consider whether:
 There is reason to believe that they have significant knowledge of the situation of the population of
interest;

 They will be able to understand the questions;
 Their personal experience is representative of the community, and if not whether this will affect
their answers. (e.g. having a higher level of education than other community members may not
meaningfully affect answers regarding experience or impact of the disaster, but being a member of
a dominant group might);
 key informants may have an ‘agenda’ that shapes their answering of questions. While everyone
migh have a persoanl agenda, such biases should be taken into consideration in the selection and
analysis.
The number of key informants to be interviewed in each site is also dependant on the number of sites in
your sample frame; resources and time; and the homogeneity9 of each site. A minimum of 3 key
informants interviews are recommended for each site. In a site that is exceptionally large, additional KIs
should be indentified. In addition:
 at least two of the KIs should be working directly with children in some capacity on a day to day
basis. E.g. teacher, community care taker, etc.;
 gender balance should be considered. In other words both genders should be represented in the
KIIs conducted in each camp;
 at least one of the KIs should hold some overall responsibilities for the population. (e.g. a local
chief, camp manager, religious leader, etc.)
It is recommended that you conduct these KIIs as separate interviews. Individual interviews are easier to
handle and may introduce less bias, as peer pressure and/or fear of disagreement with other members of
the community are less of an issue. If time and resources do not allow for separate interviews, you may opt
for an interview with a group of key informants.
In both of these cases, only one report per site will be produced and forwarded for analysis (see below). In
the case of individual interviews with three KIs, the supervisor is responsible for compiling one site report
using all the information available in the KII questionnaires and cross-verified with the direct observation
checklist.
A homogenous site can be interpreted as a site where a majority of the population represents similar identity
denominations such as socio-economic background, ethnicity, religion and language.
9
9
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Adapt the Direct Observation Tool (as and if necessary)
See Annex 2 for the Sample Direct Observation Tool
The power of Direct Observation (DO) as an assessment method is often understated. Large amounts 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
given site. 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.
The main purpose of this method in a CPRA is to inform the analysis and validate the data collected from
KIIs through a process called triangulation10. DO results will be used by the supervisor and the team to
inform the compilation of the site report.
Revise the Site Report (as and if necessary)
See Annex 5 for the Sample Site Compilation Report.
Each site will produce a single report that reflects all the data collected in that specific site. This report will
be a triangulated compilation of information collected through KIIs, DO and informal observation of team
members. Adaptation of the questionnaires will also requires an adaptation of this tool.
Revise the Urgent Action form and agree on reporting lines and follow-up responsibilities
See Annex 4 for the Sample Urgent Action Template and Procedures
Urgent Action Forms are designed for an occasion when an individual case comes to the attention of the
assessor. The child protection rapid assessment working group is responsible for defining the criteria for
urgent action and establishing a well-defined procedure for referral services. Cases are not to be actively
sought during the assessment (though may be sought through separate response activities).
WEEKS 2-3 Structure, Recruitment and Training of Assessment Teams
This Rapid Assessment Toolkit has been developed based on the assumption that assessors will have negligible
child protection background, but speak the local language and have some experience working with communities.
Triangulation of data is the process of comparing data collected through different methods, by different people and from
different sources. More on triangulation in section 4.7.
10
10
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Due to the many constraints present in a post-emergency context, you will likely be faced with difficult
choices in regards to the qualification of assessors. The only indispensible qualifications for an assessor are:
knowledge of local language, ability to express oneself clearly and experience working or interacting
responsibly with communities.
CPWG members are encouraged to partially mitigate possible shortfall by putting together a roster of
already screened candidates during the preparedness process.
Determine Structure of the Assessment Teams
 Each team should include at least one supervisor who has more advanced child protection skills,
prior assessment experience and ideally some IM technical knowledge, who will be the lead in the
field;
 The number of assessors in each field team should be determined by: the number of assessors
available; number of supervisors/team leaders available; and number, location and size of sites to
be assessed. Nonetheless, as a general rule of thumb and to ensure effective management, there
should be maximum six assessors per supervisor; and
 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.
Supervisor:
Supervisors coordinate the activities of the assessors in the field while providing them with technical and
logistical support. Supervisors are responsible for coming up with a data collection plan to monitor the
progression of data collection activities. Data collection plan will be a simple list of when and what data
collection activities will take place in each site will and by whom. This plan is crucial to ensuring efficient use
of
time
and
Checklist for Daily Debriefing Session (for use 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;

Compile site reports (when all the KIIs and the DO forms are filled out for the sites in question);

Discuss logistical concerns/difficulties;

Discuss and refer (if necessary) 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 reports of all discussions and agreements and share with the team the following day.
11
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
resources. The supervisor will also be responsible for conducting debriefing sessions with their assessment
teams at the end of each working day.
Daily debriefing sessions are one of the most important tasks of a supervisor and are at the core of an
efficient data management process. It is during such sessions that
Train the assessment teams11
Assessment teams should be briefed and trained before deployment. This training should cover:
 some background information on the emergency and the child protection context (this can be
partly based on the Desk Review);
 key child protection definitions and principles;
 ethical considerations;
 an orientation on the assessment tools;
 roles and responsibilities of team members,
 reporting and debriefing requirements;
 logistics of data collection.
If Rapid Assessment preparation was not undertaken prior to the emergency, including field-testing of the
adapted tools, the training can be an opportunity to do a mock field-test.
Note however, that if the training is going to be used for this dual process, you need to ensure that
you allocate time post-training to revise and consolidate changes before teams are deployed to the field.
WEEK 4 - Data Collection and Management
The CPRA working group should appoint logistics, security, urgent action and technical (CP and IM) focal
points who should remain at the disposal of the field teams throughout the process. At the same time, data
entry focal points should be identified and means of data transmission be communicated to all supervisors.
Before starting the data collection process, consider the operational requirements of data
management: expertise, technological capacity and resource availability. Ask the following
questions early enough to find solutions to possible constraints:
 Are computers available for data entry?
 Do partners have access to necessary software (word and excel)?
 Are power and Internet connections available for sharing data?
 Is translation required, and if so, at what stage of the data management process?
Basic guidance on some aspects of the training is provided in the CPWG Technical Guide to Child Protection Assessments
(to be developed).
11
12
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Collect Data
It is recommended that data collection take place in a sweeping manner. In other words, it is preferable to
concentrate resources in one site, until the data collection in that particular site is completed. For example,
if a team consists of a supervisor and three assessors, instead of spreading the team to three sites, they
should all concentrate on collecting the data from the same site and then move on to the next site. This will
also enable the supervisor to transmit the site report of each completed site to the data entry team for real
time processing.
Clean Data
Data cleaning is a process that takes place in different stages.
Stage 1 - The most important part of data cleaning is done in the field through daily debriefing
sessions. During these sessions, the team-leader and assessors will go through filled forms and look for
areas that may require clarification and/or comments.
Unless a supervisor verifies (and signs) data collection forms, they cannot be considered a valid source of information.
Stage 2 - The next part of data cleaning can happen at the data entry point. During data entry, the
data should be checked for errors and missing elements.
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 to 12. If 111 is
seen in that column, we will know that it is probably a data entry error.
No matter how carefully assessors collect and record the data, and how diligently encoders entered the data
into the database, mistakes happen. Most errors can be detected and removed by simple checks.
Enter and compile the Data
Data can be recorded and managed by hand, using tally sheets and summary tables. However, computer
programmes such as MS Excel 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.
See the CPRA Data Compilation and Analysis Tool (Excel document) that comes as part of
this assessment kit.
13
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
A model data management tool has been developed for use during a CPRA. This excel-based tool allows for
easy data entry and basic automatic analysis.
Ideally data entry should be done in parallel with data collection. If possible, site reports should be
transmitted via fax, email or other available means to an agreed-upon data entry site. This will allow for
simultaneous data entry and analysis which will not only save time, but will also allow the data entry team
to ask for clarifications/further information, if and when necessary, while the teams are still in the field.
WEEKS 4 & 5 - Data Analysis, Interpretation and Report Writing
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 and tell the ‘story’ of the
situation. 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.
Analyze the Data
The most common analysis that can be done with a purposive sample used in this assessment 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 instruction.
Within the category of descriptive analysis, the most useful for assessment data is frequency analysis.
Frequency analysis helps you to determine the frequency of a particular event, issue, or statement within
the overall information that has been collected. For example, if 12 out of 18 sites reported that the
incidence of child labour has increased since the onset of the emergency, we can claim that 66% of the
assessed sites reported that the incidence of child labour has increased since the onset of the emergency.
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 1: frequency analysis of the age distribution of separated children12
Frequency
Percentage
under 5
5 to 14
15 to 18
3
16%
8
42%
3
16%
no observable
difference
2
11%
don’t know
3
16%
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 in determining
12
Only one age category was picked per site.
14
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
how a particular issue has affected different types of affected areas or groups differently, and will inform
program design, for example in rural versus urban areas affected by the emergency.
Example of cross-tabulation analysis - Table 2: 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 3: Cross-tabulation 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
Graphic presentation of data:
Showing the data through visuals is a very basic but oftentimes useful way of making the data useful.
Graphing can take place at different stages of analysis. Examples:
15
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
Graph 1: shows a simple calculating of number of urban
versus rural sites
Graph 2: shows how many sites reported an
increase in the incidence of sexual violence since
the onset of the emergency.
Type of Assessed Sites
(%)
20
10
Frequency
0
Urban
Rural
Graph 3: Is based on a cross tabulation of the two previous sets of data and as a result contains much more
information on how the emergency has impacted differently on SGBV incidents in urban vs rural areas.
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 the CPRA working group or
other CPWG member agencies, please seek support from [to be confirmed and added …]
Interpret the Data
Interpretation is the process through which the data that has been collected and analyzed is then linked
back to programmatic objectives (and informing the WWNK) of the assessment.
A key step in interpreting the data is to make sure (as much as possible) that the data that has been
16
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
collected is accurate within the acceptable ‘good enough’ threshold, which will be possible through
triangulation. 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 a validity check in a Rapid
Assessment. Finding similar information across the different sources and methods used in the assessment
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 at different levels.
Stage 1 - Triangulation during data collection – the information collected at the site level should be
triangulated by comparing the information provided by the different KIs as well as that collected through
the direct observation tool. This triangulation should be undertaken on a daily basis, and led by the team
supervisors during daily debriefing sessions. During the daily debriefing sessions, the team will compare
results from different key informant interviews and structured and informal observations to find the best
answer to each question presented in the site report. In answers to each question, it is normally the most
frequent answer that should be cited as the best answer. However, if there are contradictions in answers
for KIs, team members should discuss and choose the best options based on their interactions with the
local population and observations during data collection. Some questions in the site report template also
allow for ranking the answers based on how frequently they were expressed by KIs.
Any decision to not include information that has been collected should be documented carefully and
diligently to avoid future confusions.
Stage 2 – Triangulation after all the data has been compiled- triangulation should also be done after
all the data has been aggregated. For example: if the KIs in 85% of the sites reported that there is no child
recruitment, but 45% of the direct observation reports recorded activities recruitment taking place, 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.
Examples of basic interpretation:
Example 1: Remember Table 1 from above (‘frequency analysis of the age distribution of separated
children’)
Frequency
Percentage
under 5
5 to 14
15 to 18
3
16%
8
42%
3
16%
no observable
difference
2
11%
don’t know
3
16%
This table represents the answers of KIs per site to the question: “in your opinion, which age group
represents the majority of separated children?” We have all the elements necessary to interpret the
information that has been collected through our assessment and can claim that 42% of assessed sites
reported 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 separated children, we should triangulate this finding
with the data from those sources. For example if the NATF multi-cluster rapid assessment report claims
that 70% of separated children are under 5, we know that there is a problem in one of these two findings. If
17
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
this happens, and we are not able to find any other sources of data that contradict our findings, we can still
consider our figure valid.
Example 2: Remember cross-tabulation table 3:
Increase in SV
No increase in SV
Total
Urban
5
2
7
Rural
3
8
11
Total
8
10
18
This 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.
Produce and disseminate assessment products
After the analysis phase, it is important to share the results with other actors. Ideally, a mini-workshop
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. These can include:
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…
It is important to acknowledge that the assessment results are NOT
representative of the total population.
This is inevitable when purposive sampling is used. 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”).
18
Child Protection Rapid Assessment Toolkit – GUIDE - Pilot/Field-testing Version 0.1
WEEK 1-5 - 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.13
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 1) should only be asked
by well-trained interviewers. It is important to speak with locals or those that have a strong familiarity
with the protection situation in the country or context to determine whether and to what degree
flagged issues may be sensitive or politicized; to decide, based on the known capacity of the assessors,
whether these issues should be included; and to adapt the tools to ensure that appropriate terminology
and language is used in assessing these sensitive issues. 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
1) 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. 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.
13
Adapted from “Ethical Considerations for the IA Emergency Child Protection Assessment.”
19