This is a blog post I wrote for War Child UK’s Supporter Newsletter in April 2017. I am posting this here as you may find some useful information for your projects and programmes.
I spend 3 months a year travelling all over the world to work directly with our teams. War Child’s work focuses on psychosocial support to children, helping them overcome the traumas that living through war can develop. This creates the need for unique monitoring and evaluating, which is not always straightforward. I gather data and train all War Child’s Monitoring and Evaluation officers to appropriately measure the impact of our programmes.
Feedback from the children themselves is the most valuable aspect to measuring the impact of our work. We train children so they can conduct research themselves, on their perceived level of safety in their households, schools and communities. These children then survey their friends, who use the child-friendly rating scale to express their views on safety.
Using this research, they can advocate for change on behalf of their peers to state duty bearers and community leaders.
War Child takes accountability very seriously. We gather feedback from our partner organisations and the children we work with, which ensures that our programmes are informed and fit the needs of the children. We then use this feedback to develop and improve future programmes.
I used to be a quantitative evaluator, focusing on numbers and statistics. War Child has taught me to go beyond the numbers and targets, to focus on impact and quality – the real difference we make to children’s lives. In addition to being a passionate employee, I am also a passionate fundraiser for War Child, taking part in the Amsterdam Marathon, jumping off cliffs into ice cold water, solving puzzles, and trekking for a full 24 hours in the Peak District. I am yet to finalise my fundraising activity for 2017, so am open to ideas!
At the 2017 MERL Tech London conference, my team and I gave a presentation that addressed the possibilities for and limitations of evaluating complex situations using simple Excel-based tools. The question we explored was: can Excel help us manipulate data to create predictive models and suggest promising avenues to project success? Our basic answer was “not yet,” at least not to its full extent. However, there are people working with accessible software like Excel to make analysis simpler for evaluators with less technical expertise.
In our presentation, Rick Davies, Mark Skipper and I showcased EvalC3, an Excel based evaluation tool that enables users to easily identify sets of attributes in a project dataset and to then compare and evaluate the relevance of these attributes to achieving the desired outcome. In other words, it helps answer the question ‘what combination of factors helped bring about the results we observed?’ In the presentation, after we explained what EvalC3 is and gave a live demonstration of how it works, we spoke about our experience using it to analyze real data from a UNICEF funded War Child UK project in Afghanistan–a project that helps children who have been deported back to Afghanistan from Iran.
Our team first learned of EvalC3 when, upon returning from a trip to our Afghanistan country programme, we discussed how our M&E team in Afghanistan uses Excel for storing and analysing data but is not able to use the software to explore or evaluate complex causal configurations. We reached out to Rick with this issue, and he introduced us to EvalC3. It sounded like the solution to our problem, and our M&E officer in Afghanistan decided to test it by using it to dig deeper into an Excel database he’d created to store data on one thousand children who were registered when they were deported to Afghanistan.
Rick, Hosain Hashmi (our M&E Officer in Afghanistan) and I formed a working group on Skype to test drive EvalC3. First, we needed to clean the data. To do this, we asked our social workers to contact the children and their caretakers to collect important missing data. Missing data is a common problem when collecting data in fragile and conflict affected contexts like those where War Child works. Fortunately, we found that EvalC3 algorithms can work with some missing data, with the tradeoff being slightly less accurate measures of model performance. Compare this to other algorithms (like Quine-McCluskey used in QCA) which do not work at all if the data is missing for some variables. We also had to reduce the number of dimensions we used. If we did not, there could be millions of combinations that could be possible outcome predictors, and an algorithm could not search all of these possibilities in a reasonable span of time. This exercise spoke to M. A. Munson’s theory that “model building only consumes 14% of the time spent on a typical [data mining] project; the remaining time is spent on the pre and post processing steps”.
With a few weeks of work on the available dataset of children deported from Iran, we found that the children who are most likely to go back to Iran for economic purposes are mainly the children who:
Are living with friends (instead of with. relatives/caretakers)
Had not been doing farming work when they were in Iran
Had not completed 3 months vocational training
Are from adult headed households (instead of from child headed households).
As the project is still ongoing, we will continue to investigate the cases covered by the model described here in order to better understand the causal mechanisms at work.
This experience of using EvalC3 encouraged War Child to refine the data it routinely collects with a view to developing a better understanding of where War Child interventions help or don’t help. The in-depth data-mining process and analysis conducted by the national M&E Officer and programmes team resulted in improved understanding of the results we can achieve by analyzing quality data. EvalC3 is a user-friendly evaluation tool that is not only useful in improving current programmes but also designing new and evidence based programmes.
Abbottabad, Pakistan (August 18, 2017) –Pakistan Evaluation Association (PEA) is thrilled to announce that PEA has now officially become a part of the regional association Asia Pacific Evaluation Association (APEA). This is a huge step towards proving ourselves not only in Pakistan but all over the world.
The Asia Pacific Evaluation Association (APEA) is a regional organization for national, thematic, and sectorial evaluation associations, networks, or groups in Asia. Its headquarter in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
“We are very excited for this significant achievement, this is just a beginning, the next step is to sign MoUs with neighbouring countries,”
says Hur Hassnain, Chair of the PEA Board of Directors.
“We will also need to tap into the IOCE and the Evaluation partners however we already have a strong presence at the IDEAS with me being their Board of Director for Asia Pacific and Aman Ali Vice-president of PEA being a very active and participating member”.
says Aman Ali Vice-president of PEA
“I’m thrilled to be joining the APEA and its global network of dedicaed partners and supporters who all believe in the power of Evaluation to change the world.”
“It’s an honour and a privilege to be part of an association whose mission is to promote the culture of evaluation across Pakistan at national and sub national levels. I am excited to contribute to PEA’s vision and ambitious plan to improve the environment for evaluation across the country and to foster evidence based M&E research to cater national policy development gaps in the country through evaluation”.
About Pakistan Evaluation Association
Pakistan Evaluation Association (PEA) is an association to promote evaluation across Pakistan at national and sub national levels. PEA, as a professional body, promotes the culture of Evaluation in government and development sector organizations.
The existence and establishment of PEA came into being to fill the gap with adoption and inculcation of international evaluation standards among evaluators. Subsequently, to prepare and launch young and emerging evaluators at the mainstream, those who receive minimal education and guidance on the subject from their respective academic institutions.
Being an active Voluntary Organization Promoting Evaluation (VOPE), in a very small tenure PEA established itself well at the national level. Being one of the most active evaluation associations in the country and region, PEA established and created its presence at various regional and global events in a short span of time.
At PEA, we believe that evaluation can contribute into the development of country. We advocate, aware and provide sustainable solutions to the government and private sector actors involved and engaged in development related interventions in the country.
For more information, contact:
Pakistan Evaluation Association
‘Parhain Farsi aur bechain tail?’
Today marks the first death anniversary of Aslam Azhar, a progressive Pakisani best known as the father of television in Pakistan. Aslam Azhar is a living legend and a role model for all of us. Throughout his professional life, he contributed tremendously in the field of electronic media and show business in Pakistan. He was also one of the first radio broadcasters in Pakistan to read the English news.
Aslam was born in Model Town in Lahore in September 1932 in a literary family. His father was a civil servant and his mother was a mathematics teacher. Aslam was interested in Physics as a subject and attained his Bachelors’ degree from the Government College Lahore in Physics and Mathematics. After his graduation, he went to Cambridge to study law believing that jurisprudence is the way to understand one’s society and culture. He once said, talking to Pakistani media, that he believed it was jurisprudence that formed his ‘soch’ (thinking).
Aslam never forgot people who contributed in making him what he was. In one of his interviews to the Pakistan Television he recalled his class teacher, Mr. Ghulam Nabi Butt, who he believed transformed him from a boy to a human, and taught him the values he lived by all his life.
Aslam Azhar had a staunch character to the values instilled in him by his school teacher, Ghulam Nabi Butt and once understood the meaning of what it is to be Human, he enjoyed nurturing others around him. He lived his entire life accordingly and never let greed corrupt his values.
After his graduation, Aslam joined the Burma Oil Company. In just a couple of years he realised he was not created to do this job. Based in Chittagong he once quoted, ‘Parhain Farsi aur bechain tel?’, (study Persian and sell oil?). This was the moment he realised this job was not meant for him. He resigned on the same day and came back to West Pakistan and became involved in theatre and the performing arts, which had always been one of his passions. He started working as a free-lance radio broadcaster, documentary film-maker and as a performer and director in theatre, including street theatre.
Aslam had immense feeling for the poor and hardworking people of the country. He recalled a play that was performed in Karachi’s industrial area for factory and daily wage workers. The play was about the exploitation suffered by workers at the hands of the capitalist class. According to Arieb Azhar, his son, Aslam was inspired and stimulated by the hard-working labourers of Pakistan.
It was in the theatre group he met Nasreen Jan, the love of his life. They decided to get married. Talking about her husband to a Pakistani news agency Dawn News, Nasreen Azhar said, “I spent 51 years with him. We were husband and wife, but the stronger bond between us was of being good friends.”
In 1964, while Aslam was in Karachi, a friend approached and informed him that the Pakistani government wants him to lead in setting up a television station in Lahore. He made a team of three people who had some experience of working for radio and moved to Lahore. He had a knack for training and building capacities and bringing out the best from people who worked with him, which he proved by setting up television stations in other cities of Pakistan after Lahore.
Although he was the founder of television in Pakistan, but in his later years he preferred reading books to watching television. Aslam was a critical thinker and believed that ‘Critical thinking is the most important skill a person could ever have’. He said reading books stimulated the imagination and activated the mind, unlike television which encouraged only passive viewing. It was this facility for imagination and critical thinking that made him what he was, a progressive Pakistani. Although he is no more with us, but his teachings and his vision for a vibrant media and a Pakistani nation that has the capacity for rational thought remains with us as his legacy. May we succeed to strive together to make the electronic media like he wanted to see.
May his soul rest in peace!
The author would like to thank Nasreen Azhar and Arieb Azhar for reviewing the post and sharing Aslam Azhar’s portrait photo from their collections. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Lok Foundation.
Ahmed got deported from Iran twice in less than a month
During my visit to the War Child Transit Centre for the unaccompanied minor(s) in Herat, I met Ahmed, a 13 year old boy from a rural village in the western Afghanistan. Ahmed was deported from Iran twice in the last 20 days. The first time he got deported he went home by himself but this time he needed War Child’s support to reintegrate him back to his family. He met our Social Workers at the Islam Qala border who enrolled him in our project that reintegrates the unaccompanied minors to their families.
Behind that innocent smile on Ahmed’s face there was a fear of what people would say when he is back in his village for the second time. He was also concerned that he wasted his family’s money.
When I asked him what is it that takes him to a totally strange country in such a young age; he could easily count a few attractions. Freedom, parks, rides, big buildings, more regular electricity were a few to count but finding work to support his family was on the top of his list. Ahmed’s dream to go to Iran is a mix of both his aspirations and the fact that he needs to be the bread winners of his family.
While we were talking, some of Ahmed’s friends also joined us at the Transit Centre. All these children met in the bus that brought them back to Afghanistan. They all belong to rural areas in the western Afghanistan. Talking about their Iranian dream they all expressed similar aspirations and realities as Ahmed and expressed their wish to go back to Iran whenever they get the opportunity. A child explained that he would go back to Iran and stay there until caught by the authorities. According to our M&E database, more than 30% of the deportee children enrolled in this project are deported more than once.
Children migrate to Iran to work mainly as a labour at construction sites, farms and gardens. Some children are also involved in selling products on the streets. Sometimes we do quite a dangerous work, children said proudly. “We are paid on time and sometimes more than the Iranian nationals because we work much harder comparatively”, a boy explained.
The Iranian employers are happy to employ Afghan children as they know that being illegal they are not only hard working but they can work for longer hours. Children mentioned a few cases where these employers didn’t pay full wages and threatened children that they will report them to the authorities if they ask for it.
Abdullah, a little older than Ahmed narrated the story of his cousin whose vehicle got shot by the police while the agents were trying to smuggle them into Iran. He said that his cousin got injured and had to come back to Afghanistan.
Going to Iran is hard work. The security at the Iranian border in Afghanistan is very tight so these children have to first go to the Southwest of Pakistan through Nimroz province from where they cross the Iranian border. They pass through deserts and mountains with tens of children stuffed into one vehicle. An agent’s cost to transport a child to Iran is only USD 300. This is mainly the cost for bribing the officials at the borders of two different countries besides all the transportation and living expenses.
45 children from Ahmed’s village went to Iran with him; hundreds of children from different villages joined them as they moved towards the borders. Ahmed said he lost contact with all of the 45 children from his village. It is concerning that the parents of those children have no resources to contact their children and/or check on where they are in Iran.
War Child’s Social Workers are trying to contact Ahmed and his friends’ families to reintegrate them if both the family and children are ready and willing for it. Since the inception of this project in July 2016, our Social Workers have reintegrated over 700 children back to their families. This is the 100% of the unaccompanied children our Social Workers received at the Islam Qala Border.
With the continuing violence and wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, now we are hearing loud noises and threats of attack on Iran. There is a dire need to expose the bogus calls of war propaganda and work for a safer environment in the Middle East.
Just after the protests outside the British Embassy in Tehran recently, William Hague, the UK Defence Minister put forward a plan to attack Iran (another Muslim country) which will open up another venue for the military to engage in future war mongering. These attacks are following the same pattern of accusing countries falsely for possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction as in Iraq’s case and now accusing Iran of developing Nuclear Weapons.
Seymour Hersh, in The New Yorker of November 21, wrote: All of the low enriched uranium now known to be produced inside Iran is accounted for the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which provoked such outcry against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he continued, contained nothing that proved that Iran was developing nuclear weapons; so why there is a talk of stronger and more indiscriminate sanctions and ultimately a talk of military attack against Iran. There is no logic of sanctions being placed on Iran after the denial of IAEA.
This attitude of the western world is an example of the hidden agendas of working with Israel. The reality is that Iran is surrounded by several nuclear weapon states like Israel, Pakistan, India and China. A war between the nuclear weapon states can have huge consequences in the loss of lives and destruction to infrastructure.
The US government spent a staggering $687 billion on ”defence” last year. Think what could be done with that money if it were put into hospitals, schools or to pay off foreclosed mortgages. What is required is a foreign policy which uses sanity to negotiate with Iran to overcome the present misunderstanding of Iran developing nuclear weapons.
The retiring US president Dwight D. Eisenhower famously took the opportunity of his farewell to the nation address in 1961 to warn his fellow countrymen of the danger in allowing too close a relationship between politicians and the defence industry. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
If the west starts a war with Iran a sovereign country, it will amount to a crime which Bush and Blair committed in conducting an illegal war on Iraq resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people. The global impact of attack on Iran will be catastrophic if Iran decides to block the shipping movements in the Gulf of Hormuz. It will create turmoil in the Middle East as never seen before. This intervention will destabilise the whole region including the neighbouring major nuclear weapon states with a possibility of nuclear explosion killing millions of people in one go.
We need to voice our concern as loud as possible to stop this sabre rattling of war situation and ask for sanity to prevail. Leaders of all the neighbouring countries should sit together for having a constructive dialogue to diffuse the situation.
There is an immense need that the media should play a vital role in bringing peace instead of one dimensional war reporting and churning false narratives of war mongers. “The world is over armed and underfed”.
The blog based on a special discussion with Vijay Mehta, Chair of Uniting for Peace and author of “The Economics of Killing: How the West Fuels War and Poverty in the Developing World”
War Child UK recently turned children from recipients of aid to agents of change by training child researchers to assess other children’s perceived level of safety in countries such as Afghanistan and the DRC in a participatory way. The tool at the centre of the research was Child Safety Report Cards, inspired by the community score card used by adults to rate the performance of public service.
The cards captured children’s perception of how safe they were at home, in school and in their communities, employing a child-friendly rating scale. The questionnaire was designed and data were entered and analysed by trained child enumerators themselves, and findings and children’s recommendations were subsequently presented to local decision-makers and, in the case of Uganda, to the national parliament.
The approach rested on the premise that “children know much more about their lives and needs than we ever could” and that asking family members and teachers about children’s views comes with its own biases and risks.
The process of training children to be researchers was perceived in itself to be empowering as well. War Child is currently piloting the report card approach in Jordan and Lebanon with Syrian refugee children.
Measuring Peace in our Lifetime: How to best approach evaluating SDG-16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
Happy International Peace Day!
Evaluating peace, justice and strong institutions is complex, tricky and arguably the most difficult to measure out of all the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Goal 16 urges us to: “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. It has the highest number of targets compared to other goals that require us to go beyond traditional evaluation methods and approaches. Moreover, the indicators alone are not enough to measure and support progress on such a complex goal.
The challenge is that peace, justice and strong institutions are fundamentally political and therefore fundamentally contested; different political perspectives would choose different things to monitor and measure and under those circumstances how could you reach agreement on indicators, tools and contextualised data?
In some ways, institutions are analogous to the rules of game in a competitive team sport. That is, they consist of formal written rules as well as typically unwritten codes of conduct that underlie and complement formal rules (North, 1990). In many fragile states where Oxfam works, , formal institutions either don’t exist or they are not functional so in such situations oftentimes informal institutions take the lead in governance and peacekeeping.
When it comes to examining Goal 16, if we neglect the role of these informal institutions we risk missing many developmental objectives. So, an uphill task for evaluators is how to incorporate informal institutions into the indicators. Contemporary discussions on culture, practice and values draws heavily from the work of Hofstede that describes the effects of a society’s culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behaviour. The widely accepted understanding is that symbols, heroes, and rituals are the tangible or visual aspects of the practices of a culture. See the attached photo from a discussion at the EvalPartners’ Global Evaluation Forum in May 2017 in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
To measure peace one needs to also collect a combination of perception-based and objective data ensuring that the “Do No Harm” principle always takes precedence over the desire for accountability and robustness of evidence. Despite the fact that people’s actual experiences and perceptions are hard to generalise, such an effort if undertaken, could generate interesting thematic analysis and regional statistics about their fears, priorities and definitions of peace in their respective contexts. See Everyday Peace Indicators Initiative.
As realised by the SDG indicator 16.1.4, to measure overall progress towards lasting peace, we could include within our M&E frameworks the measurement on people’s perceived level of safety while walking alone around the area they live in, within their respective contexts and how the planned intervention influenced this perception.
The programmes and evaluations in situations of conflict could also benefit from incorporating people’s psychosocial wellbeing in their strategic planning and data collection especially if the goal is to promote an environment for human development and human security (the “positive peace”) compared to eliminate deaths (the “negative peace”). The final evaluation of Oxfam’s programme ‘Opening the space for enhanced food security and livelihood recovery in Gaza Strip’, 2016, suggests that providing psychosocial support to people living in conflict results in improved livelihoods, especially for vulnerable women. RAND’s study, “The invisible wounds of war” suggests that in developed countries the economic cost of untreated trauma is actually higher than the cost of providing treatment, due to lost work, loss of economic productivity, substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness and other issues. This might imply that investing in improving the wellbeing of people and accounting for omitted cost components—such as substance abuse, domestic violence, and homelessness living in conflict would mean the savings to society would likely be even greater.
A huge challenge for evaluating SDG-16 is that it asks for highly sensitive information to be shared. Firstly, the information itself is hard to acquire as the information infrastructure in most fragile and conflict-affected states are almost non-functional, and secondly, there is a risk that authorities may underreport to prevent naming and shaming – as human beings we are all biased! The private sector, think tanks, CSOs, Academia, UN agencies and National Statistical Offices are all collecting data on the SDG-16 but we have yet not been successful on establishing a platform for sharing this data.
Measuring peace, justice and strong institutions is difficult, fundamentally political and contested amongst multiple political perspectives and this makes it hard to reach agreement on indicators which then makes the measurement difficult. Some nuggets from the active debates in measuring peace however are adopting flexible approaches, assessing both objective and perception-based indicators and above everything mobilising the state, civil society and private sector to share and use data for learning and adaptive programming. See report from an interesting conference on this organised by the International Peace Institute, One Earth Future Foundation and the SDG-16 Data Initiative.
My eyes are set on some robust discussions and solutions on measuring peace at the Joint Conference “Evaluating the SDGs” that is bringing the state actors, civil society and the private sector together in Mexico from December 4-8, 2017. The conference is organised by the International Development Evaluation Association [IDEAS], Latin American Evaluation Associations, ReLAC, REDLACME and the state and university of Guanajuato, Mexico.
Children are more often simply seen as the recipients of assistance designed by others rather than as agents of change who can help shape how their needs are responded to. It is quite rare, especially in a conflict affected country to ask children directly what their problems are and what change they want to see, let alone do it in a child participatory way. In such contexts this may also be because working with children in this manner raises a range of security and ethical issues and in turn requires a well-planned and thoughtful process to ensure their safe and meaningful involvement.
War Child UK’s Child Safety Report Cards (CSRC) is an approach that ask children to score how safe they feel at home, school and in their communities using a child-friendly rating scale. Children’s responses are collected through a child-led survey process and quantified to determine what percentage of them feels safe, unsafe or scared. Child Safety Report Cards are then produced to present key findings and children’s recommendations for change as well as record decision-makers’ commitments in response. This process not only empowers children to speak up and demand change but is also an interesting approach for child rights-based programming, research and advocacy. The main assumption behind this approach is that children know much more about their lives and needs than we ever could and so we need to talk to them rather than relying on the available wealth of data about them – nor can we just ask parents and teachers about children’s situations, as sometimes they are part of the problem.
Through Child Safety Report Cards, children have a say in their own protection response and gain a degree of control over what their future may look like. This approach is modelled on Community Score Cards, a monitoring and evaluation approach that enables community members (usually adults) to rate the performance of public service providers. In Europe, more than 30 countries use a similar tool to report on levels of safety for their children.
War Child UK has practiced this child-led child safety research twice in Northern Uganda and once in the Congo DR and Afghanistan. We adapted our approach according to the different contexts we work in and as per the needs and aspirations of the children involved in the research. Children’s participation was on their willingness only and we made sure that all questions were designed by the children themselves during the three days training course on designing the research, data collection (qualitative and quantitative) and the research ethics.
All child researchers were accompanied by adult staff members for their safety and in case if there is a need to provide some psychosocial support to any of the study participants. It has never happened so far as we aim to fully equip the child researchers on child friendly data collection methods and approaches. The adult staff members observed the process from a distance.
Once the data was gathered it was recorded on a computer by the children themselves using SurveyMonkey. All the children reported they enjoyed the process from designing the research, data collection to analysing the data. On average it cost us around USD 5,000 to conduct this study in 22 days.
In Uganda, 3,200 children participated in the research, DRC 665 and 1,526 children participated in Afghanistan. The overall finding was that children don’t feel safe in their households, schools and communities. In Uganda children reported feeling safer in schools then at their homes, in Afghanistan it was the opposite while in the DRC children reported that they don’t feel safe in both the places. The main safety concerns identified by children were:
Uganda: physical abuse, defilement and early marriage
DRC: corporal punishment and getting abducted while fetching water
Afghanistan: physical, emotional and sexual violence and corporal punishment.
As part of the advocacy component of the Child Safety Report Cards, children took these report cards to their local government officials. In Uganda, children presented it at a variety of events including at the Ugandan National Parliament (please see the photo). At the next day of the African Child celebrations, rather than singing and dancing, children presented a report to the local government accompanied by a CHILDREN FEEL NOT SAFE report card. District Leaders responded by saying they had come to see children’s dance and singing as usual but instead they received this report cards and they want to understand why they don’t feel safe.
Although there is no attributable evidence available but anecdotally some of the follow up actions taken by officials included establishing new police posts in areas identified by children in Uganda and safety walls were constructed in schools identified by children.
War Child has produced a learning paper on this approach and a detailed toolkit that are both available on our website. Besides its dissemination at the UK and the country of operations level, the Child Safety Report Cards approach was presented at high level global events, The AFREA Evaluation Conference 2017, The Global Assembly of the International Development Evaluation Association (IDEAS) in Bangkok in October 2015 and at the Child Protection Working Group meeting in Bangkok in November 2015 where parliamentarians, government officials, evaluation experts, child protection experts and other development and humanitarian community members participated.
War Child is planning to use technology in future to further simplify the data collection and analysis. We are conducting the second round of the Child Safety Report Cards in Afghanistan and DRC by the end of this year to compare the findings and to find if there are any changes in children’s perceived level of safety in some of the worst conflict affected countries War Child works in. It is also being piloted in Jordan and Lebanon with the Syrian refugee children.
Quotes from Children:
“I was surprised to see that children know so many things about what happens in their communities” (Child researcher Goma, DR Congo)
“I was surprised that so many children are suffering” (Child researcher Goma, DR Congo)
“I realised handicapped children could also think well” (Child researcher Goma, DR Congo)