Learning in Action Using Participative Ranking Methodology for Assessment and Evaluation of Child Protection Programming in Emergencies Thursday 24 June 2010

Focus Groups Discussions are frequently poor sources of data because they are:  run as ‘group interviews’ based around a long list of questions more appropriately asked via a survey  experienced as ‘interrogations’ rather than ‘discussions’  profligate in their loss of narrative insight (reducing conversations to ‘bullets’)  poorly understood by facilitators (who are inadequately equipped to conduct effective FGDs)  used as a means of confirming - rather than opening for challenge - agency assumptions  difficult to collate reliably (e.g. comparing across settings or groups) PRM as an alternative to FGDs

Discussions structured through PRM are frequently strong sources of data because they are:  genuinely empowering and participatory, shaped by participants  experienced as lively, intense, open discussions  able to capture key narrative (‘propositional quotations’) as a basis for deeper understanding of local context  easily understood by facilitators (who are rapidly confident to conduct effective FGDs)  useful as a means of challenging - rather than confirming - agency assumptions  straightforward to collate reliably (e.g. comparing across settings or groups) PRM as an alternative to FGDs

Participative Ranking Methodology  A PRA (Participatory Rapid Appraisal or Participatory Research and Action) type of methodology  Structured by three steps: Pile – Rank – Account

Participative Ranking Methodology  Pile:  Define scope  Elicit responses  Select object  Negotiate categories  Prompt if required  Rank:  Define continuum  Place objects  Adjust positions  Account:  Record  Clarify

Examples 1. Child Protection Assessment, Gambella, Ethiopia 2. GBV Assessment, IDP camps in Lira District, N Uganda.

GBV Assessment, IDP camps in Lira District, N Uganda.  Within IDP camp, 19 PFGDs segmented by gender and age (4 women's groups, 6 men's groups, 5 boys' groups, 4 girls' groups)  Adult groups and half of children's groups 'seeded' from convening participant identified thro' random household selection.  Other half of children's groups selected at random from school roll.  Scope of discussion: 'Major issues faced by women on the camp'  Domestic Violence (DV), Marital Rape (MR) and Rape by other (R) prompted if not proposed.

 When the husband comes back home be it lunchtime or evening, I make sure I send the children out immediately as he lies impatiently on the bed waiting like an angry lion wanting to eat meat. (WBA1,1)  He doesn’t respect me even if I am under my periods claiming that he is the one who buys soap to wash my blood. (WBA1,2)  Some parents give out their daughter to men in exchange for food and other material gains. (WBA1,3)  Marital rape was put no.2 because most girls are getting pregnant as a result of practicing what they see from their parents. A girl in block 2 aged 13 is pregnant. When asked who pregnated her, she said they had been playing with boys outside there, like Daddy and Mum does. So she didn’t know what and who did it exactly. (WBA1,6)  Women are beaten here like anything. (“A woman was beaten two days ago by the husband just because she had brought a diarroehing child outside in the night to help herself, alleging that she had an affair with another man outside there.”) They had to gather the clan after she reported to the clan leader to settle their problem. (WBA1,7)  One woman who had a fresh wound on the thumb said domestic violence should be ranked first because after being beaten, even if you eat, you will never be satisfied. (WBA1,8)

References  Stark, L., Ager, A., Wessells, M. & Boothby, N. “Developing Culturally Relevant Indicators of Reintegration for Girls Formerly Associated with Armed Groups in Sierra Leone Using a Participative Ranking Methodology”, Intervention: International Journal of Mental Health, Psychosocial Work and Counselling in Areas of Armed Conflict, 2009, 7(1),  Ager, A., Stark, L. & Potts, A. Participative Ranking Methodology: A Brief Guide. Version 1.1. New York: Program on Forced Migration & Health, Mailman School of Pubic Health, Columbia University, 2010.