GAZA CHILD PROTECTION WORKING

GROUP

CHILD PROTECTION RAPID

ASSESSMENT REPORT

October 2014

2

C o n te n t s

Acronyms .......................................................................................................... 3

Definition of terms ............................................................................................. 4

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... 5

Executive summary ........................................................................................... 6

Summary of findings ......................................................................................... 7

Background and context ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

Tools ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Findings and analysis ..................................................................................... 14

Unaccompanied and separated children ........................................................................................................ 14

Dangers and injuries, physical violence and other harmful practices ........................................................ 17

Psychosocial distress ............................................................................................................................................ 18

Child labour .......................................................................................................................................................... 22

Sexual violence ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Access to services and information ................................................................................................................... 26

Justice for children ............................................................................................................................................... 26

Key recommendations for the child protection sector ..................................... 27

Key recommendations for other sectors ......................................................... 28

Annexes .......................................................................................................... 30

Key Informant Interview ...................................................................................................................................... 30

3

A c r o n y m s

CPRA Child Protection Rapid Assessment

CPWG Child Protection Working Group

DO Direct observation

ERW Explosive remnant of war

GCMHP Gaza Community Mental Health Program

HR Human resources

IDP Internally displaced person

KII Key interlocutor Interview

MOSA Ministry of Social Affairs

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

PCDCR Palestinian Centre for Democracy and Conflict resolution

PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics

PRCS Palestinian Red Crescent Society

SC Save the Children

TDP Theatre Day Productions

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Authority

YEC Youth Empowerment Centre

4

D e f in i t i o n o f te r m s

Child – Any person under the age of 18 Separated child – Any child separated from both parents, or from previous legal or customary primary care-giver, but not necessarily from other relatives. This may, therefore, include children accompanied by other adult family members. Unaccompanied child – Any child who has been separated from both parents and other relatives and is not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so. Orphans are children, both of whose parents are known to be dead. In some countries, however, a child who has lost one parent is called an orphan. For the purposes of this assessment orphans are children who lost both parents. Physical violence is the deliberate use of force on a child’s body which may result in injury, e.g. hitting, burning, shaking, and choking. Sexual abuse/violence is any sexual activity, including inappropriate touching or rape, where the child does not fully comprehend, or is unable to give informed consent (under the legal age for consent). Exploitation is the abuse of a child where some form of remuneration is involved whereby the perpetrators benefit in some manner – monetarily, socially, politically, etc. Exploitation constitutes a form of coercion and violence, detrimental to the child’s physical and mental health, development, and education.

Worse Forms of Child Labour is defined by the International Labour Organisation as (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties; (d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children. Labour that jeopardises the physical, mental or moral well-being of a child, either because of its nature or because of the conditions in which it is carried out, is known as “hazardous work”.

Harmful traditional practices – Practices that are harmful to children and defended on the basis of tradition, culture, or religion by some community members.

5

A c k n o wl e d g e me n ts

Undertaking the child protection rapid assessment in Gaza would not have been possible without the valuable contributions of the following persons and groups:

Members of the CPRA Task Force (Ma’an, GCMHP, TDP, PCDCR, MOSA, SC, YEC, UNRWA, UNICEF, OHCHR, PRCS, War Child, SOS Village) for their commitment, inputs into establishing “what we need to know” and adapting the assessment questionnaire, contributing their local knowledge to the process, and providing logistical and HR support

Katherine Cocco, UNICEF Child Protection Specialist, who wrote the Child Protection Working Group “Overview of Child Protection Concerns to Inform Humanitarian Action”

The National Level CPWG for their encouragement and support Ma’an for providing a data entry clerk, and printing support Ma’an, SC and PCDCR for identifying key interlocutors and resource persons Ma’an, War Child, YEC, PCDCR, TDP, and UNRWA for providing enumerators UNICEF for financing the training venue, vehicle hire, and providing a translator for the

length of the project as well as lending support staff OHCHR, UNICEF and UNRWA for their contributions to reviewing the CPRA report All members of the CPWG for their inputs, and feedback on the process and results UNICEF, OHCHR, Ma’an and GCMHP for lending office space and meeting rooms MOSA and UNICEF for coordinating approval for the CPRA to be conducted The enumerators who collected the data The key interlocutors who contributed information to the assessment The Global CPWG for supporting the assessment and providing technical advice

throughout the assessment process

Thank you very much to all of the people and groups listed above. This report represents the

collective work of the CPWG members, and the inputs of 193 members of the community, and

is designed to be used by the child protection sector to set priorities in the reconstruction

phase of the response to ensure the wellbeing and protection of children, and to meet the

needs of the most vulnerable families. Recommendations have also been included for other

sectors to ensure that the needs of vulnerable children are considered beyond child protection

specific activities.

6

E x e cu t i v e su m m a r y

Background

On 8 July 2014, the Israeli army launched a large military operation in Gaza1, Palestine was

already experiencing a protracted protection crisis with humanitarian consequences, and have

been, and continue to face a range of serious protection threats.

Gaza is densely populated and a largely urban environment, therefore everyone was exposed

to the impact of the conflict. Between 8 July and 26 August, at least 539 Palestinian children

were reported killed during the hostilities in Gaza, and 2,956 were injured. During this time,

the child protection response largely focussed on delivering immediate psychosocial relief to

the affected populations, and reaching as many children and caregivers as possible.

There is a limited availability of baseline data on child protection issues. The need to undertake

an assessment was discussed with the National level CPWG, and the members of the CPWG

in Gaza who decided to proceed with a Child Protection Rapid Assessment (CPRA) following

the Child Protection Working Group CPRA toolkit.

Methodology

The CPRA Task Force was established on 28 August. Purposive sampling was selected as

the most appropriate sampling methodology for this assessment, which covered 193

interviews in 60 randomly selected sites, in all five Governorates across the following 4

scenarios

IDPs living in UNRWA shelters, now referred to as UNRWA collective centres

IDPs living with host families

Persons who have not been displaced, or have been able to return home, or are in

stable accommodation

Bedouin communities.

In addition to purposive sampling, snowball sampling was used to identify key interlocutors

to interview.

The task force adapted the Arabic version of the “key informant interview” questionnaire

included in the CPRA toolkit, to the local context, and this questionnaire was used as the

principal data collection tool in the field2. Enumerator teams also filled out a direct observation

report which highlights additional information acquired through observations, and one site

report was filled out per site summarizing all information collected for that particular site. The

data was collected by eight teams of three enumerators over three consecutive days and an

additional team of three completed the data collection for the Beit Hanoun Shelters.

1 Israel refers to its military operation in Gaza which started on 8 July 2014 as “Operation Protective Edge”. 2 Key informants are hereafter referred to as Key interlocutors

7

S u m ma ry o f f i n d i n g s

The data confirms that children have become separated from their caregivers (but not

necessarily from other relatives) during the conflict, predominantly as a result of the

displacement, and members of the Child Protection Working Group established that the

majority of families were quickly reunified. In 53% of sites, responders indicated that they were

aware of 1-10 cases in their neighbourhood or site. Separation was most frequently noted for

IDPs living in UNRWA collective centres (64% of key interlocutors), in Gaza North (82%) and

Rafah (64%).

In 90% of sites responders stated that they were unaware of any children who were not cared

for by an adult with responsibility to do so. Of the sites where unaccompanied children were

identified, initial responses suggest that boys may be more affected than girls and half of these

sites indicated that unaccompanied children are mostly 14 years and over. This may be related

to patterns of child labour, and/or to families keeping girls at home longer and separating from

boys when under duress and faced with difficult choices.

38% of responders indicated that caregivers are sending their children away to be cared for

by extended family. This may represent a secondary pattern of separation caused by a range

of combined factors including loss of livelihood, economic hardship, and the loss of family

home.

Key interlocutors were asked what they would do if they came across a child who had become

separated from his or her family, and 70% said they would temporarily take care of the child

whilst looking for alternatives, 63% said they would assume care of the child, and 35% would

find someone in the community to care for the child.

Despite the presence of explosive remnants of war (ERWs) all over the Gaza Strip, only 14%

of respondents in the CPRA identified this issue as posing as a predominant risk for children,

whilst hazards in and around the home were most commonly selected (49%) followed by car

accidents (47%) and lack of access to medical care (36%). 34% of responders identified

community violence and 19% domestic violence. Community violence rated highest in key

interlocutors of the IDP population living in UNRWA shelters (50%).

100% of responders stated that they had noticed significant changes in children’s behaviours,

and 99% said that they had noticed significant changes in caregivers’ attitudes as a result of

psychosocial distress. Respondents identified conflict related events as the biggest source of

stress; in terms of post conflict stressors, having to travel far from home to attend school was

identified as most significant source of stress (boys 36%, girls 55%).

Displays of aggressive behaviours, anger and frustration (73%) was identified as a strong

trend for boys, and children committing acts of violence was identified in 88% of sites visited.

The most commonly cited acts of violence identified were bullying (74%), violence against

siblings (74%) and damage to infrastructure (68%). 100% of responders representing IDPs in

UNRWA sites identified that children are committing acts of violence.

8

Respondents in 78% of sites identified that children in their neighbourhoods are involved in

harsh and dangerous types of labour; and 65% of those responders said that this pattern has

increased as a result of the crisis. Dangerous forms of child labour were identified more

frequently by responders representing the IDPs living in UNRWA collective centres (97% of

responders), in Gaza (88%) and Gaza North (90%).

The most commonly cited types of labour identified are: selling small goods (71%), and

collecting items in the rubble to sell (63%). Involvement of children in building/construction

work in Gaza North was identified by 40% of respondents. New forms of labour include

collecting remnants of war, and collecting rocks and iron from destroyed houses.

50% of responders did not acknowledge that sexual violence happens in their community.

This was higher in Bedouin communities (67%), and across populations in Gaza North (82%),

whereas this percentage was lower for IDPs living with host families (30%) and across

populations in Rafah (25%). Of the remaining 50% of responders, 52% said that sexual

violence against children had increased since the hostilities. In sites where sexual violence is

said to be present, 70% of respondents in UNRWA collective centres, and all respondents in

the sites in Gaza North said that it has increased, 69% of responders overall said that they

thought girls were targeted more than boys and 63% said that children under 14 were the most

targeted group.

The fact that Gaza North was the Governorate with the highest rate of negative responses

around the question of the existence of sexual violence (82%), and that all of the responders

who acknowledged this issue also said that it had increased seems to indicate that there may

be differing views on the existence and prevalence of sexual violence against children which

could be driven by social norms and values, and/or by the level of education and knowledge

on the issue.

When asked the situations in which sexual violence occurs 90% of responders identified

shelters, 52% identified common areas such as latrines or showers, 32% identified play areas,

19% identified that it occurs on the way to school, and 19% identified that it occurs in host

families; only 16% of responders identified that sexual violence against children happened in

the home.

Confined spaces, where there is less privacy and protection, and places where children are

left unsupervised may increase the risk of sexual violence. The high response rate suggesting

that children are most at risk of sexual violence in the UNRWA collective will require further

and careful analysis, and to establish protective measures as a matter of priority.

It will be important to establish strong systems and protocols to identify and respond to the

needs of the most vulnerable children: separated and unaccompanied children, children

displaying concerning behaviour changes as a result of psychosocial distress, and child

survivors of sexual violence. It will also be important to deliver an intensive awareness raising

campaign on the dangers of ERWs targeting children and caregivers directly. Finally it will also

be crucial to identify and prioritise the most vulnerable and poorest of families for the provision

of socio-economic supports and referral to essential services through a case management

system to prevent children becoming involved with hazardous types of child labour.

9

B a ck g ro u n d a n d co n t e x t

Even before 7 July when attacks against Gaza were launched, Palestine was already

experiencing a protracted protection crisis with humanitarian consequences, driven by lack of

respect for international law. Palestinians have been, and continue to face a range of serious

protection threats related to these factors including threats to life, liberty and security,

destruction or damage to homes and other property, forced displacement, restrictions on

freedom of movement and on access to livelihoods, and lack of accountability and effective

remedy.3

On 8 July 2014, the Israeli army launched a large military operation in the Gaza Strip,

“Protective Edge”, with the stated objective of stopping Palestinian rocket firing at southern

Israel and destroying the military infrastructure of Hamas and other armed groups. This

development marked the collapse of the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire understanding reached

between Israel and Hamas in November 2012.4 Gaza is densely populated and a largely

urban environment, therefore everyone was exposed to the impact of the conflict, and

experienced a pervasive sense of insecurity and the feeling that nowhere was safe. Among

those most affected were those in the Israeli imposed buffer zone, next to alleged military sites

or those living near open land.5

The Gaza inter-agency initial assessment results, released on the 9 September 2014 indicate

that at least 951,083 people were directly impacted by the conflict. People most affected were

those east of Salah ad-Din Road, in Northern Gaza, Rafah and certain parts of Gaza City. All

people were affected by damages to vital infrastructure. At the height of the conflict an

estimated 500,000 people were internally displaced, with people seeking refuge in UNRWA

schools designated as emergency shelters, in government schools, in informal shelters such

as, for example empty buildings, churches or mosques, and with host families.6

“Between 8 July and 26 August, at least 539 Palestinian children were reported

killed during the hostilities in Gaza. The child casualties include 339 boys and 200

girls, aged between 10 days and 17 years old. Of the 539 children, at least 371

child casualties, or 68%, are 12 years old or younger. Of the 200 girls, 153

casualties, or 76%, are 12 years old or younger. Child casualties were recorded in

Khan Younis (127); Gaza City (126); Rafah (127); north Gaza (87); and Middle

Area (72). The neighbourhoods with the most child casualties since the beginning

of the hostilities include: Shajaeya, Gaza City (43); Jabaliya, north Gaza (37); Bani

Suheila, Khan Younis governorate (32); Nuseirat, Middle Area (22); Deir Al Balah,

Middle Area (24).

3 Humanitarian Needs Overview, 2014, Occupied Palestinian Territories, November 2013 4 OCHA Sit.Rep, Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency Situation Report (as of 20 July 2014, 1500 hrs) 5 Gaza Initial Needs Assessment, 27th August 2014 6 Ibid

10

In total, 2,257 persons were killed due to the hostilities in Gaza, of which 1,549

civilians, 547 militants and 161 unknown. Children make up for 34 per cent of the

civilian casualties. Between 8 July and 26 August 2014, a reported 11,100

Palestinians have been injured or maimed, of which at least 2,956 were children,

representing 26 percent. Over the same period, one four-year-old Israeli boy was

reported killed by mortar shelling from Gaza and at least six Israeli children were

reportedly gravely injured due to rocket fire from Gaza, including three boys and

three girls aged between 3 months and 17 years old.”7

During the conflict, the child protection response largely focussed on delivering immediate

psychosocial relief to the affected populations, and reaching as many children and caregivers

as possible through recreational activities, psychosocial first aid, home and hospital visits and

a telephone hotline through which distressed individuals, including children, could speak with

a counsellor. By the 28 of August, the hotline had reached 2,916 callers across the Gaza strip,

23.5% of callers contacted the hotline to discuss concerns about the impact of the conflict on

children, and 37.9% of calls were about persistent fear of violence. Other interventions

included distribution of key messages (actions that caregivers can take to reduce the

vulnerability of children to death and injury, reduce psychosocial distress and to prevent and

respond to child abuse, along with a free phone number to call the Sawa Helpline 121).8

Child Protection responders in Gaza have historically focused predominantly on addressing

the psychosocial impacts of successive wars and deprivation resulting from the blockade on

all members of the community. However successive emergencies have resulted in cumulative

impacts on children as well as caregivers, including capacity for resilience and coping

mechanisms. Emergencies exacerbate existing risks and threats, create new ones, and

undermine protection structures. Given the paucity of baseline information on the types and

prevalence of child protection issues beyond psychosocial distress, the importance of

undertaking a broader child protection assessment was discussed at the National the Child

Protection Working Group (CPWG) level before the current crisis began.

M e th o d o lo g y

Decision to undertake a Child Protection Rapid Assessment

The need to undertake a child protection assessment was further discussed with the members

of the CPWG in Gaza, and it was agreed to undertake an interagency Child Protection Rapid

Assessment (CPRA), using the Global CPRA tool, for the following reasons:

The CPRA is based on a sound methodology

It has been successfully implemented in a wide range of countries and contexts

The tool could be adapted to the context in Gaza

The CPRA is designed to produce information on child protection risks, vulnerabilities

and capacities, which then inform the identification of the most urgent protection needs

and priority responses

7 Children and Armed Conflict Database, 20 December 2014 8 Gaza CPWG Sit Rep, dated 28 August

11

The CPWG coordinator in Gaza is trained and familiar with the toolkit and able to lead

the process

CPWG members were able to mobilise resources to support the assessment

Establ i shment of an inter -agency assessment task for ce

The CPRA Task Force was established on 28 August. It comprises of the following

organisations: Ma’an, YEC, PCDCR, SOS Village, TDP, MOSA, War Child, GCMHP, SCI,

PRCS, UNRWA, and UNICEF. The responsibilities of the CPRA Task Force members were

to:

Assist with determining geographical coverage, communities and sites to be sampled

Determine “What We Need to Know” taking into account information already known

and available

Define the urgent action procedures (for eventual case follow up)

Mobilise resources (assessment teams, vehicles, office debrief space, printing)

Adapt the tools – questionnaires, direct observation and site report

Participate in the data interpretation meeting

Review and endorse the assessment report

The task force met weekly in the preparatory phases, mobilized and at times coordinated

resources as needed during the data collection week, and provided inputs into the data

interpretation phase.

Secondary data review

Considering secondary data sources is an important part of the process as it helps to

determine what information is already known, information gaps, and what will need to be

included and/or excluded from the assessment questionnaire. Secondary data is also an

essential element of the data triangulation process. The following secondary sources of data

were considered:

Humanitarian Needs Overview (2013)

Inter-agency Initial Rapid Assessment results (2014)

CPWG Overview of Child Protection Concerns to Inform Humanitarian Action in the

State of Palestine (August 2014)

CPWG “Child Protection in Gaza: Needs, Response, and Gaps” (2014)

Sampling

Purposive sampling was selected as the most appropriate sampling methodology for this

assessment. It enables an assessment of scale and priorities that is approximate enough to

inform child protection planning and programming for the immediate response, and entails

selecting communities or groups of people based on a set of defined criteria for the purpose

of the study. The task force selected 4 scenarios for the assessment:

IDPs living in UNRWA shelters, now referred to as UNRWA collective centres

IDPs living with host families

12

Persons who have not been displaced, or have been able to return home, or are in

stable accommodation

Bedouin communities.

60 sites were initially randomly selected across all 5 Governorates with equal weighting across

all 4 community types. Site selection was adjusted during the assessment process on

occasion as the following issues were encountered: closing of some of the UNRWA shelters

between the time that the sampling was completed and the time that the enumerators collected

the data, difficulty in finding IDPs living with host families in the sites selected for data collection

concerning this particular community. In such cases, enumerators talked with key interlocutors

who were non-displaced.

In addition to purposive sampling, snowball sampling was used to identify key interlocutors to

interview. A number of resource persons for each scenario for most sites were identified by

members of the task force based on their networks and local knowledge. Resource persons

were initially contacted as an entry point by the enumerators to assist in identifying key

interlocutors to interview; many of the resource persons were also interviewed in this process.

In total, enumerators talked with 193 Key interlocutors - 3 to 4 interviews per site.

T o o l s

Key interlocutor interviews (KII). The KII is a central part of the methodology. The enumerators

adapted the Arabic version of the “key informant interview” questionnaire included in the CPRA

toolkit to the local context, and used this questionnaire as the principal data collection tool in

the field. In total, 8 teams of 3 enumerators visited 60 sites and undertook 193 interviews. It

was not easy to achieve gender balance, as the enumerator teams found fewer men than

women key interlocutors available to talk to during the data collection times. The gender

balance ratio was 40% men and 60% women for both enumerators and key interlocutors.

Direct Observation reports (DO). On each site, data collection teams filled out a direct

observation report which highlights additional information acquired through observations such

as: community infrastructure, presence of services, community activity, presence and

UNRWA Shelter

24%

Host Family 23%

Non Displaced30%

Bedouin Community

23%

13

behaviour of children, and possible dangers. The direct observation reports were then used to

triangulate or validate the findings from the KIIs.

Site Reports. At the end of each day, the data collection teams produced a single report for

each site visited. The site reports include all data collected in that specific site. It is a

compilation of information collected through KIIs and DO. The compilation of data for each

site took place during the daily debriefing sessions

Assessment teams

The CPRA Task Force members mobilised existing staff and volunteers to take part in the

data collection aspect of the assessment. 30 people were trained over a period of two days

on the following topics: overview of child protection in emergencies; overview of CPRA toolkit;

confidentiality and ethics; interview techniques; review of KII, DO, and site report. The

enumerator teams had the opportunity to field test the tools, with each team interviewing one

service provider who had been informed that they would be interviewed to “test the tool” and

each team had the opportunity to compile a site report. This information was not included in

the assessment results.

Data collection

The data was collected by eight teams of three enumerators over three consecutive days and an additional team of three completed the data collection for the Beit Hanoun Shelters the following week. These were not visited during the data collection week due to unrest. Consequently, the enumerators met with key interlocutors off site and were unable to complete direct observation reports for those particular sites.

The agreed criteria for key interlocutors was:

Ability to provide information about the situation of children in their particular

neighbourhood/shelter based on her/his experience and knowledge about the

community of interest

There is reason to believe that they have significant knowledge of the situation of

the population of interest

Ability to understand the questions

Their personal experience is representative of the community

Must be over 18 years old

At least one KI on each site must be a woman, and ideally one should have overall

responsibility over the community and two KIIs must work directly with children

Definition of terms was an important consideration in terms of validity and reliability of data.

Care was given to ensure that key interlocutors understood the questions well, particularly the

understanding difference between a separated child and an unaccompanied child, the

meaning of harsh and dangerous labour, and sexual violence. Enumerators were trained in

the definitions and asked to explain these to the key interlocutors, and to repeat the definition

when questions were not well understood. Definitions were included in the preamble to the

questionnaire for quick reference.

14

Limitations

Selecting sites for each scenario was challenged by the fact that a population

census has not taken place since 2008, therefore the population numbers for each

Municipality are based on statistical estimates. Additionally there is scarce

information available about population demographics at the neighbourhood level,

and this is made worse by the fluid population movements post crisis, therefore

existing information from the PCBS, UNRWA and OCHA was enhanced with

information obtained through local networks.

As expected, it was found that IDPs living with host families at all of the sites

selected, therefore we had to exercise some flexibility, and for two of these sites

enumerators interviewed representatives of persons who were either non-

displaced, were able to return to their accommodation, or are in new stable

accommodation instead. Therefore, the present report represents findings from

23% of IDPs in host families and 30% non-displaced.

Security did not allow for on-site data collection in the UNRWA shelters located in

Beit Hanoun at the time of data collection, therefore interviews for these four

shelters were undertaken off site and as a result, observation reports for those sites

were unable to be completed.

It was not possible to obtain an equal gender balance as more female than male

key interlocutors were available for interviewing at the time of the data collection.

We were able to achieve a ratio of 40% males and 60% females for both

enumerators and key interlocutors

The KIIs and DOs were undertaken in Arabic, and the information was entered into

the site reports in English. With translation there is always an inherent risk of data

loss in the interpretation.

Despite best efforts it was not always possible to find groups of key interlocutors

on each site that filled all of the criteria listed above.

F in d in g s a n d a n a ly s i s

U n a c co mp a n ie d a n d s e p a ra te d ch i l d re n

The inter-agency rapid assessment, undertaken post-crisis in Gaza and released in

September 2014 found that separation of children from their families as a result of

displacement was a key protection concern identified by 40% of municipality level

respondents. The results did not provide any clear indication of patterns and numbers.

Anecdotal information collected before the CPRA results suggests that in cases where care-

givers have died, children are generally taken care of by extended family as is customary, with

some cases of child-headed families where children are being cared for by the eldest boy in

the family.

The data collected as part of the CPRA confirms that children indeed have become separated

from their caregivers (but not necessarily from other relatives) during the conflict,

predominantly as a result of the displacement. Child protection responders, and members of

15

the CPWG stressed that patterns of separation have largely been of short duration, during the

displacement, with families able to quickly reunite. In 53% of sites, responders indicated that

they were aware of 1-10 children in this situation in their neighbourhood or site, and in 28% of

sites, responders said there were between 10-20 separated children.

Comparative analysis of the data suggests that this percentage of separated children is higher

for IDPs living with host families, and IDPs in UNRWA collective centres than other scenarios.

57% of key interlocutor IDPs living with host families and 64% of key interlocutor IDPs living

in UNRWA collective centres identified that family separation had occurred. In terms of

geographical differences, the positive response rate for family separation was highest in Gaza

North (82%) and Rafah (64%). In terms of gender differences, responders in 24% of all sites

said it was more common for boys than girls to become separated from their families and in

59% of sites responders said there were no evident gender differences in separation patterns.

In terms of patterns of children who are unaccompanied, it is encouraging that in 90% of sites

responders stated that they were unaware of any children who were not cared for by an adult

with responsibility to do so. In the sites where unaccompanied children were identified,

responders mostly estimated between 1-5 children may be unaccompanied.

The data reveals interesting gender and age patterns. Of the sites where unaccompanied

children were identified, initial responses suggest that boys were more affected than girls and

half of these sites indicated that unaccompanied children were mostly 14 years and older. This

may be related to patterns of child labour, where adolescent boys leave the family home for

work, or it may be related to families ensuring the care and protection of adolescent girls above

that of boys, in situations of hardship where caregivers are unable to care for all of the children

in the family and are forced to make difficult choices. Due to the relatively small percentage of

the respondents that were aware of unaccompanied children, more research is necessary to

understand the extent and causes of the age and gender trend analysis.

47%

53%

Yes No

Children separated from caregivers

10%

90%

Yes No

Unaccompanied children?

16

Age and gender differences between unaccompanied end separated children

Age Group Gender

Separated children 5-14 years (70%) More boys (24%) No clear difference (59%)

Unaccompanied children 5-14 years (25%) Over 14 years (75%)

More boys (50%) No clear difference (25%)

The data reveals that the majority of separation incidents occurred during displacement, or as

a result of the death of one or both parents. 38% of responders indicated that caregivers are

sending their children away to be cared for by extended family. The reasons for this pattern

were not investigated in the context of this assessment, and would benefit from further

research. It may be inferred, however, that this is a secondary pattern of separation caused

by a range of combined factors including loss of livelihood, economic hardship, and the loss

of family home.

The death of a father or a mother affects the household in different ways according to ascribed

gender roles in Palestinian households, and both situations place enormous strain on the

remaining and grieving caregiver and children. It noteworthy that comparative analysis shows

this trend as being lower for IDPs living with host families (25%), suggesting the possibility

that community-based alternatives for temporary housing, community cohesion and support

decreases the negative impacts of displacement on families and results in increased

protection for children. Respondents in the Rafah area rated highest on this question, with

57% of responders saying that they were aware of families sending their children to live with

extended family.

Comparative analysis also indicates that on 80% of sites where Bedouin key interlocutors

were interviewed, family separation was identified to have mostly occurred as a result of the

death of both parents; on 20% of these sites, the presence of unaccompanied children was

reported, and on 60% key interlocutors said that caregivers are sending their children away to

live with extended family members. It would be advisable to undertake further research and

focused conversations with Bedouin communities in the most affected areas, as well as

targeted interventions to identify separated and unaccompanied children and the most

vulnerable families for case management interventions.

Main causes of family separation Percentage of responders who selected this response

Family separation during the displacement 69%

Death of one parent 38%

Caregivers sending their children to live with extended family

38%

Death of both parents 28%

In terms of care arrangements for children who become separated from their caregivers, the

assessment results provide evidence to support anecdotal information which suggests that

children are generally taken care of by extended family as is customary in the Palestinian

community. Indeed, 58% of responders indicated that separated children are generally taken

17

care of by informal extended family networks, and 30% said that some children are taken care

of in institutions. It appears that the extended family and community quickly mobilise to ensure

that children are cared for in a family based environment as closely connected to their family

of origin as possible, with a smaller number of children ending in institutional care.

Key interlocutors were asked what they would do if they came across a child who had become

separated from his or her family, and 70% said they would temporarily take care of the child

whilst looking for alternatives, 63% said they would assume care of the child, and 35% would

find someone in the community to care for the child. Interestingly 70% said that they would

inform the Police and only 8% said that they would refer the child to an organization that deals

with children. It will be important to ensure that Police are trained to respond to such situations,

and informed about referral options in each of the Governorates.

Community response to separation Percentage of responders who selected this response

Temporarily take care of the child myself 70%

Inform Police 70%

Assume care of the child 63%

Find someone in the community to care for the child

35%

Da n g e rs a n d i n ju r ie s , p h y s i ca l v io le n ce a n d o th e r h a r m f u l p ra c t i ce s

Global research suggests that after the age of one, unintentional injuries are the leading cause

of death among children and adolescents, accounting for over 30% of deaths among 10 to 14

year olds, and almost 50% in 15 to 19 year olds. Road traffic injuries is the leading cause of

death amongst adolescents aged 15 to 19, and drowning, and fire related burns are

responsible for almost 50% of child deaths across the world.9

Despite the presence of explosive remnants of war (ERWs) all over the Gaza Strip, as

identified in the Gaza Initial Rapid Assessment in September 2014, only 14% of respondents

in the CPRA identified this issue as posing as a predominant risk for children, whilst hazards

in and around the home most commonly selected (49%) followed by car accidents (47%) and

lack of access to medical care (36%). Although movement across restricted areas was only

identified as a risk by 3% of respondents, it is likely to have rated much higher if the questions

were asked to communities living in those areas, as key interlocutors were interviewed about

issues in their community/neighbourhood/site.

Community and domestic violence were also mentioned as a predominant risk for children;

34% of responders identified community violence and 19% domestic violence. Community

violence rated highest in key interlocutors of the IDP population living in UNRWA shelters

(50%). These issues were also identified in the Interagency Initial Rapid Assessment as a

consequence of the hostilities, which found that community and family violence including

domestic violence and abuse against children had increased since the crisis begun, together

9 Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, “Standard 7: Dangers and injuries, p.79

18

with corporal punishment, which was an issue that pre-existed the crisis both in schools and

communities.

Risks that could result in death or injury of children

Percentage of respondents who selected this response

Environmental risks in and around the home (electricity, sewer, fire related)

49%

Car accidents 47%

Lack of access to medical care 36%

Community violence 34%

Return to hostilities 22%

Domestic violence 19%

Harmful traditional practices (early marriage, honor killing, celebratory shootings)

15%

ERWs 14%

Severe corporal punishment 10%

Sexual violence 10%

Movement into restricted areas 3%

Work related accidents 3%

Criminal acts 2%

An important finding is also the mention of harmful traditional practices, defined as practices

that are harmful to children and defended on the basis of tradition, culture, or religion by some

community members (for example early marriage and honour killings), which was identified

as a predominant risk by 15% of responders, corporal punishment was identified by a further

10% and sexual violence also 10%. A study conducted in 2008 indicated that the prevalence

of early marriage is high, with 11% of girls in Gaza married between the age of 15 and 19. The

study identified that although family/community norms is a very important contributing factor,

the societal and political context is also a strong determining factor affecting decisions around

marriage.10

Families are placed under enormous strain in emergency situations, whilst protective factors

are weakened, and this can result in an increase in abuse and violence against children and

an increase in the use of negative coping strategies such as early marriage, to enhance the

family’s economic situation11. The data does not reveal whether there has been an increase

in the incidence of early marriage, but it does confirm that it is practiced, which is in itself an

additional vulnerability and risk factor.

P sy ch o so c ia l d i s t re s s

The Gaza Initial Rapid Assessment identified psychosocial distress among boys, girls, men,

and women as one of the most significant protection concerns, and it was raised in 24 of 25

municipalities. The Child Protection Rapid Assessment results confirm this finding with 100%

of responders stating that they had noticed significant changes in children’s behaviours, and

10 Jaralla, Y., 2008, Birzeit University in PRB, MENA Working Paper Series “Marriage Patterns in Palestine” http://www.prb.org/pdf08/menaworkingpaper2.pdf 11 CPWG “Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action”

19

99% said that they had noticed significant changes in caregivers’ attitudes as a result of

psychosocial distress.

Respondents were asked about what they perceived to be the most significant sources of

stress for both boys and girls, since the crisis began. Overwhelmingly, respondents identified

conflict related events, in particular attacks (boys 86%, girls 72%), continuous sound of drones

(boys 56%, girls 43%), witnessing violence (boys 29%, girls 25%) and death or injury of loved

ones (boys 32%, girls 22%). In terms of post conflict stressors, having to travel far from home

to attend school was identified as most significant source of stress (boys 36%, girls 55%). The

most predominant sources of stress for caregivers include ongoing conflict, identified by 81%

of responders, followed by lack of shelter (53%), although this response was more commonly

cited by IDPs living in UNRWA shelters (71% of key interlocutors). Children’s safety (37%)

was also identified, as well as lack of food (34%), loss of property (29%), and loss of livelihood

(25%).

Interestingly, although there were minor gender differences in terms of whether some sources

of stress were perceived to be more or less predominant for boys versus girls, there were clear

trends suggesting that stress in general impacts girls and boys behaviours differently. The

most predominant changes reported in girls’ behaviours include unusual crying and screaming

(63%), though higher rates were reported by IDPs living with host families (86% of

responders), followed by bedwetting, nightmares, and general sadness, with the rate of

reported sadness highest in UNRWA collective centres, where it was mentioned by 54% of

responders. For boys, aggressive behaviours, anger and frustration (73%) was identified as a

strong trend, followed by bedwetting, violence against other children, nightmares and unusual

crying and screaming.

81%

34%

53%

29% 25%

37%

3%12%

2%

1. ong

oin

g c

onf

lict

2. la

ck o

f fo

od

3. la

ck o

f sh

elter

4. lo

ss o

f p

ropert

y

5. lo

st liv

eliho

od

6. ch

ildre

n’s

safe

ty

7. vio

lenc

e w

ithin

com

mun

ity

8. not b

ein

g a

ble

to

retu

rn h

om

e

12

. D

om

est

ic v

iole

nce

What are the main sources of stress for caregivers in the community?

20

The data also suggests a concerning trend around children committing acts of violence

identified in 88% of sites visited. The most commonly cited acts of violence identified were

63%

22%

15%

5%

5%

8%

29%

39%

10%

2%

2%

53%

3%

19%

2%

UCS: Unusual crying and screaming

AGG: More aggressive behaviour, anger/frustration

VAC: Violence against other children/siblings

UWS: Unwillingness to go to school

LWH: Less willingness to help caregivers and siblings

DRB: Disrespectful behaviour in the family

SDN: Sadness

NTM: Having nightmares and/or not being able to sleep

ATS: Anti-social

HPP: Helping parent more than before

STF: Spending more time with friends

BWT: Bed wetting

LHT: Loss of trust/hope

CLG: Clinginess

ASR: eagerness to return to school/interested in education

Changes in girls' behaviour

24%

73%

29%

8%

10%

5%

8%

12%

24%

7%

2%

3%

51%

3%

2%

5%

2%

2%

UCS: Unusual crying and screaming

AGG: More aggressive behaviour, anger/frustration

VAC: Violence against other children/siblings

CCR: Committing crimes (stealing..)

UWS: Unwillingness to go to school

LWH: Less willingness to help caregivers and siblings

DRB: Disrespectful behaviour in the family

SDN: Sadness

NTM: Having nightmares and/or not being able to…

ATS: Anti-social

HPP: Helping parent more than before

STF: Spending more time with friends

BWT: Bed wetting

EIC: Excessive interest in the conflict (news etc)

LHT: Loss of trust/hope

CLG: Clinginess

ASR: eagerness to return to school/interested in…

HSB: Engaging in risky sexual/sexualized behavior

Changes in boys' behaviour

21

bullying (74%), violence against siblings (74%) and damage to infrastructure (68%). Although

responders were not asked whether there is a gender difference in children committing acts

of violence, the assessment data on behaviour changes shows that aggressive behaviours

were much more frequently observed in boys than girls, therefore it could be inferred that more

boys than girls may be involved in such activities. 100% of responders representing IDPs in

UNRWA sites identified that children are committing acts of violence.

Respondents also reported changes in parents’ attitudes towards their children, with almost

equal weighting given to negative and positive behaviour changes, except for increased

aggression towards children (54%) versus increased demonstrations of love and affection

towards children (34%). Interestingly, 21% of key interlocutors indicated that boys were forced

to stay inside the house and none mentioned girls, which is different to the findings of the

Interagency Initial Rapid Assessment which indicated that anecdotal information suggested

that such restrictions were enforced on girls. This may be because keeping girls home to

ensure their safety may be considered a normal response in the Palestinian context, whereas

keeping boys at home is less commonly practiced and therefore mentioned as a coping

mechanism.

Research shows that there is a strong link between military violence and increases in domestic

violence and violence against children. This pattern was highlighted in a 2009 study by

UNIFEM involving 1,100 women and children in the aftermath of the Israeli military operation

in Gaza in December 2008 through January 2009 12 . Interesting findings relevant to the

Palestinian context were also highlighted in a study of Sri Lankan families, which found that

the cumulative impacts on parents of exposure to successive wars and the higher occurrence

of trauma-related symptoms in the affected children, for example hyper-arousal, irritation,

anger outbursts correlate and result in more frequent acts of punishment by the parents. The

study also found that exposure to a single traumatic event fosters family cohesion, whereas

12 Israel refers to this military operation in Gaza as “Cast Lead”.

88%

12%

Yes No

Children committing acts of violence?

22

repetitive events had a deteriorating effect on family functioning13. Nonetheless, the fact that

almost equal weighting was given to most categories of positive and negative behaviour

changes suggest that a range of factors are likely to influence parents’ coping mechanisms in

highly stressful situations. These are likely to include: whether basic needs are being met,

nature and frequency of stressful event, family dynamics, number and age of dependent

children, additional care responsibilities, disability, presence of domestic violence, or violence

and abuse against children, socio-economic factors, and community and family support

networks.

Negative changes in parents’ attitudes towards their children

Positive changes in parents’ attitudes towards their children

Pay less attention to children’s needs (44%) Pay more attention to children’s needs (41%)

Spend less time with their children (31%) Spend more time with their children (32%)

More aggressive towards their children (54%)

Show more love and affection towards their children (34%)

Force boys to stay inside the house (21%) Force girls to stay inside the house (0%)

Ensure children’s access to recreational activities (8%)

Keep children from going to school (2%) Ensure children’s education despite difficulties (5%)

C h i ld l a b o u r

According to a study undertaken in 2013 Gaza and the West Bank by Save the Children and

TDH, the Gaza study sample showed that 62.5% of children under 15 who are engaged in the

labour market, do so in dangerous occupations that are harmful to their health, including work

in tunnels, spraying pesticides, collecting gravel, acting as porters, the construction and

demolition of buildings, fishing, and work in the petrochemical sector. 14 Many factors

contribute to increasing children’s vulnerability to child labour and worse forms of child labour,

in particular, loss of livelihoods, death of primary wage earners, limited access to education,

family separation.15

The Child Protection Rapid Assessment results show that respondents in 78% of sites

identified that there were aware of children in their neighbourhoods involved in harsh and

dangerous types of labour; furthermore 65% of responders thought that this pattern has

increased as a result of the crisis. Comparative analysis suggests that there are differences

across the different scenarios, and differences in the types of labour in which children are

involved across geographical areas. For example harsh and dangerous labour was identified

less frequently in Bedouin communities (57% of responders), and more frequently by

responders representing the IDPs living in UNRWA collective centres (97% of responders),

and was identified most frequently in Gaza (88%) and Gaza North (90%).

13 Catani et al, “Family Violence, War and Natural Disasters : A Study of Extreme Stress on Children’s Mental Health in Sri Lanka, Published by BMC Psychiatry in 2008, http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-244X-8-33.pdf 14 Child Protection Working Group, August 2014, “Overview of Child Protection Concerns to Inform Humanitarian Action” 15 Minimum Standards for Child Protection

23

The most commonly cited types of labour were: selling small goods (71%), collecting items in

the rubble to sell (63%), farm work (35%), and cleaning streets and cars (25%). Involvement

of children in building/construction work in Gaza North was identified by 40% of respondents,

which is a much higher rate than involvement in building work in other locations; though it is

not known whether the children are involved in rebuilding their own homes or employed by

construction companies, and further research is needed to clarify this apparent pattern.

Similarly, farm work was only identified by 8% of IDPs living with host families who were

interviewed, whereas it was identified by 88% of Bedouin key interlocutors, and by 56% of

responders in the Deir El Balah Governorate.

Interestingly, 37% of respondents identified that children are involved in new types of labour

that did not exist before the crisis amongst which collecting remnants of war, and collecting

rocks and iron from destroyed houses were mentioned. This pattern is a very worrying trend,

particularly in light of the fact that risks to children associated with ERWs were only identified

as a major concern by 14% of responders, suggesting a possible lack of awareness and

therefore protection against those risks. The main reasons identified by responders for

children’s involvement in harsh or dangerous reasons were predominantly that children are

working voluntarily to support themselves and their families (79%), and/or are sent to engage

in such work by their parents (79%). Child labour and worse forms of child labour often

increase in the aftermath of emergencies and have multiple negative consequences including

loss of educational opportunities, health impacts, psycho-social impacts and deprive children

of their childhood and realizing their full potential.

8%

35%

10%19%

8%

71%

4%10%

63%

13%

25%

1. F

ish

ing

2. F

arm

wo

rk

3. F

acto

ry w

ork

4. B

eggi

ng

5. D

om

est

ic la

bo

ur

6. S

elli

ng

smal

l go

od

s

7. O

ther

har

sh a

nd

dan

gero

us

lab

ou

r

8. B

uild

ing/

con

stru

ctio

n

9. C

olle

ctin

g it

em

s in

th

e ru

bb

leto

sel

l

10

. Co

llect

ing

rock

s/st

on

es f

or

bu

ildin

gs

12

. Cle

anin

g (s

tree

ts, c

ars)

What types of work are these children involved in?

24

S e x u a l v io l e n c e

Sexual violence against children is a very sensitive issue in the Palestinian cultural context

and there is a paucity of information on the prevalence and community-based responses to

the issue as well as the impact of social norms, values and beliefs on reporting rates. Global

level studies suggest that girls are up to three times more likely than boys to experience sexual

violence, and that child sexual abuse is vastly under-reported in all contexts. Reasons why

children do not disclose include: fear of consequences, fear of dismissal, manipulation by the

perpetrator, self-blame, self-protection, age, and disability. 16 Evidently reporting is most

impacted in situations where disclosure is likely to attract strong negative social stigma against

the child and family, and could lead to possible negative repercussions against the child or

family.

When asked how they would respond to a child who has been a victim of sexual violence,

50% of responders said that sexual violence doesn’t happen in their community. Comparative

analysis reveals an even higher percentage of responses refuting the existence of social

violence from responders in Bedouin communities (67%), and across populations in Gaza

North (82%), whereas this percentage was lower for IDPs living with host families (30% of

people interviewed) and across populations in Rafah (25%). Of the remaining 50% of

responders, 52% said that they believed that sexual violence was not only present, but had

actually increased since the hostilities started, 29% said that they believed that sexual violence

was present but had not increased and 19% said that they did not know or gave unclear

answers. Comparative analysis indicated a higher rate from IDPs in UNRWA collective centres

with interlocutors on 70% of sites affirming that sexual violence had increased. In all of the

sites in Gaza North where sexual violence was said to be present, interlocutors affirmed that

sexual violence was present and increasing. 69% of responders overall said that they thought

girls were targeted more than boys and 63% said that children under 14 were the most

targeted group.

The fact that Gaza North was the Governorate with the highest rate of negative responses

around the question of the existence of sexual violence (82%), and that all of the responders

who acknowledged this issue also said that it had increased seems to indicate that there may

be differing views on the existence and prevalence of sexual violence against children which

could be driven by social norms and values, and/or by the level of education and knowledge

on the issue. When asked the situations in which sexual violence occurs 90% of responders

identified shelters, 52% identified common areas such as latrines or showers, 32% identified

play areas, 19% identified that it occurs on the way to school, and 19% identified that it occurs

in host families; only 16% of responders identified that sexual violence against children

happened in the home. These figures should be used with caution as they are only an

indication of community knowledge about this issue and not an indication of evidence based

data on prevalence of sexual violence.

16 IRC, 2012, Caring for Child Survivors of Sexual Abuse, Guidelines for health and psychosocial service providers, http://www.unicef.org/pacificislands/IRC_CCSGuide_FullGuide_lowres.pdf

25

Confined spaces, where there is less privacy and protection, and places where children are

left unsupervised may increase the risk of sexual violence. The high response rate suggesting

that children are most at risk of sexual violence in the UNRWA collective will require further

and careful analysis, and to establish protective measures as a matter of priority. Comparative

analysis suggests that children may be at risk in situations where they are left unsupervised.

For example, 75% of responders in the Bedouin community sites visited identified that places

where children play around the village is the most prevalent situation in which sexual violence

occurs, whilst in Deir El Balah, 86% of responders identified common areas (latrines,

showers), 67% of responders in Gaza North identified “on the way to school” and all

responders in Khan Yunis said children were most at risk whilst playing around the

neighbourhood.

Evidence based global studies show that most sexual abuse occurs within the family circle.17

This trend was also clear in a study undertaken by PCDCR in Gaza which revealed that of the

317 child survivors reached through their program, 80% was perpetrated by family or relatives

and only 20% by strangers; therefore it is also possible that sexual abuse in the family circle

may be more prevalent than the responses suggests. Nevertheless, it will be important to

establish child sensitive and age-appropriate, safe and holistic responses to ensure that child

survivors and their families are able to access the care and support that is needed in such

circumstances. In terms of support, 61% of responders said that they believed that children

would seek support in such situations, and that girls would naturally turn to their mothers (91%)

more than their fathers (18%) or friends (18%) for support whereas boys would predominantly

turns to their fathers (48%), their mothers (43%) and their friends (24%).

17 IRC, 2012, Caring for Child Survivors of Sexual Abuse, Guidelines for health and psychosocial service providers, http://www.unicef.org/pacificislands/IRC_CCSGuide_FullGuide_lowres.pdf

16%

90%

19%32%

19%

52%

1. w

hile

at hom

e

2. W

hile

at th

e s

helter

3. w

hile

with

host

fam

ily

4. w

hile

pla

yin

g a

roun

d the

cam

p/vill

ag

e

5. o

n th

e w

ay t

o s

chool

7. in

com

mon

are

as,

such

as

aro

und

latr

ines/

show

ers

, etc

.

In what situation does sexual violence occur?

26

A c c e s s to se rv i ce s a n d i n fo r ma t io n

Responders on 72% of sites visited indicated that some groups of children had less access to

services than others. An overwhelming 71% indicated that children from poor households were

the most excluded group, followed by children with disabilities (13%), and children living in

institutional centres such as orphanages and places where children are placed in long term

care (11%). 84% of responded said that girls and boys in those groups were equally affected.

In terms of access to information, respondents indicated that radio is the most commonly

accessed source of information (93%) followed closely by television (76%), and internet was

only identified by 9% of responders.

J u s t i ce fo r ch i l d re n

Whilst justice was not specifically addressed in the interviews for the CPRA, emergency

situations increase the possibility of children coming into contact with the justice system

whether as alleged offenders, victims of witnesses. The findings in the CPRA, together with a

desk review of available literature, highlight the importance of a fully functioning justice system

as a direct response to the recent conflict.

68% of respondents stated that they would report cases of unaccompanied children to the

police, and 24% of respondents stated that they would report sexual violence to the police.

Furthermore, as there is a recognized increase in violence in the home and in the community,

and an increase in child labour, there will necessarily be an increased need to rely upon justice

system to support a holistic prevention and response effort. Further, increased poverty, stress

and displacement will, in turn, likely lead to an increase in crime with children and young

people coming into contact with police either as victims or alleged offenders.

The justice system will also become increasingly important as housing, land and property

issues continue to emerge as a result of displacement. An increase in the number of orphans,

together with displacement exhibited on a large scale, inheritance rights are likely to be

overlooked, leading to a spiral of poverty for children in this position. The disinheritance of

women and children has been identified as a protection concern in Gaza, whereby the property

of the deceased husband/father is distributed to his extended family members, leaving the

widow and her children with little or nothing.18

Desk review of secondary sources indicates that the justice system in Gaza is unlikely to

provide sufficient protection to children that come into contact with the law. Police are not

trained on child friendly policing, reporting mechanisms are similarly not child friendly and the

referral networks are not adequate to facilitate safe refuge for children who may report abuse.

As a direct result of the conflict, public and other buildings, including in the justice and security

sector (e.g. courthouses, police stations, women’s centres, juvenile and family centres, offices

of legal aid providers) were damaged or destroyed and essential equipment was lost, thus an

already flawed justice system has been further weakened while at the same time there is an

increased demand for services, including rule of law services (e.g. legal information, legal

18 Gaza crisis appeal

27

advice/ mediation and legal representation on housing and property rights, personal

status/family law, family disputes, and juvenile justice)19.

The importance of developing the capacity of legal services on issues of relevance to boys

and girls in post-crisis/conflict situations cannot be underestimated. Child-friendly reporting

mechanisms must be established for children reporting incidents of abuse, or acting as

witnesses. Issues such as guardianship, housing, land and property rights for orphaned or

unaccompanied children will be particular relevance in Gaza, returning child refugees and

internally displaced children, as well as grave violations of human rights such as sexual and

gender-based violence.20

K e y re co m me n d a t io n s fo r t h e ch i l d p r o t e c t i o n s e c to r

Recommendation Agencies With the full participation of community leaders and communities, identify practices, norms and beliefs that inhibit the protection of girls and boys and develop and implement a strategy to overcome the issues identified (in particular sexual violence, child labour, and traditional harmful practices)

UNICEF with the CPWG

Develop a child protection awareness raising strategy targeting: corporal punishment, early marriage, sexual violence, identification and referral of unaccompanied and separated children, psychosocial distress, child labour, and awareness of dangers to children including ERW awareness

UNICEF with the CPWG

Strengthen the child protection system connecting community-based organisations (basic support and awareness raising), family centres (outreach into communities, structured interventions and basic case management) and Child Protection Networks (referral of complex cases for intensive case management) to identify, refer and follow up/monitor cases of violence against children, unaccompanied and separated children, sexual violence, and early marriage

UNICEF and child protection responders (members of the CPWG)

Train front-line responders and Police in detection and referral of vulnerable and at risk children, including separated and unaccompanied children

UNICEF and UNRWA

Ensure that each unaccompanied minor placed in an institution has an individual case plan and that tracing and/or search for family-based alternatives are actively taking place

MOSA

Ensure that vulnerable children and families are identified early though a vulnerability checklist that includes socio-economic indicators, and responded to as a matter of priority so that secondary family separation, and child labour can be prevented

All actors

Involve children directly in ERW awareness activities in schools and through family centres, and involve care-givers directly in ERW awareness activities through family centres and community outreach activities

UNICEF and child protection responders (members of the CPWG)

Implement structured programs to support care givers to provide care, protection, and psychosocial support to their children when they display challenging behaviours and psychosocial distress signs (positive discipline, and psychosocial first aid)

Family Centres, and other and child protection responders (members of the CPWG)

19 United Nations Support Plan for the Transformation of the Gaza Strip 2014-2016 20 ibid

28

Include active participation of adolescents in the design, and delivery of basic psychosocial support activities for younger children (using tested good practice models)

All PSS actors

Design and deliver adolescent specific psychosocial interventions with the full participation of adolescents to provide an avenue for youth to safely express their thoughts and feelings

All PSS actors

Develop a checklist for responders to identify cases that need a referral to a specialized service, and protocols for effective referrals and feedback mechanisms

Gaza Community Mental Health with the CPWG referral task force

Scale up structured focused, non-specialized programmes for children and adolescents

UNICEF and UNRWA

Continue to provide specialised counselling and clinical services for the most severe cases

Gaza Community mental Health, UNRWA

Establish vocational training programs for youth, small scale micro-credit and cash for work programmes for care-givers and education bridging programmes for the poorest families to prevent increases in child labour

UNDP, MOE, MOSA, UNICEF, UNRWA

Train social workers, counsellors, hospital staff, and other relevant actors in the basics of sexual violence against children (patterns, impacts, and best practice responses and interviewing skills – caring for survivors of child sexual abuse

UNICEF, UNRWA

Convene focus groups with adolescents around the issues of child labour, children committing acts of violence, and the issue of unaccompanied minors (predominantly boys over 14)

UNICEF, CPWG, UNRWA

Convene focus groups with care-givers to unpack and better understand the drivers of families sending their children away to live with extended family

UNICEF, CPWG

Establish some clear protocols for reporting and responding to sexual violence in the shelters, and establish preventative measures with the participation of women and girls

UNRWA

Raise awareness in the community about risks associated with leaving children without supervision (sexual violence and ERW)

UNICEF, Family Centres, and other and child protection responders (members of the CPWG)

Ensure targeted outreach to the most affected communities to identify unaccompanied and separated children and other child protection issues

Family Centres, MOSA, CPNs

Conduct regular industry checks to identify working children, and ensure that these children are referred for case management (and access vocational training and/or education) whilst their families access the supports that they require (micro-credit, support for reconstruction, etc.)

MOL, MOSA, CPNs

K e y re co m me n d a t io n s fo r o t h e r se c to rs

SHELTER

Train shelter staff in detection of child protection issues, including identification of unaccompanied and separated children, and in how to use the child protection referral pathways

Establish child protection committees in the UNRWA collective shelters and a system of detection, reporting, and referral of child protection issues, including sexual violence against children

Ensure new shelter options are not resulting in crowding and inadvertently create family separation

Ensure that the most vulnerable families are accessing shelter as a priority using a vulnerability criteria list which takes into account socio-economic indicators as well as child and family vulnerabilities

Ensure that contractors have signed a disclaimer stating that they will not use or engage, or employ children under the legal working age in the reconstruction efforts and ensure that under-

29

age children identified as working in harsh and dangerous labour are referred to Child Protection Networks according to the child protection referral pathways

ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Ensure that recovery actors are fully briefed in the laws governing the work of children

Ensure that economic incentives do not inadvertently create incentives for families to send their children away from home to work

Create vocational opportunities for youth

Establish micro-credit opportunities, and cash grants for the poorest families to strengthen and support families and prevent secondary family separation and child labour

Ensure that field staff are trained in the child protection referral pathways so that the poorest and most vulnerable families can be referred to services that may be able to assist them

EDUCATION

Ensure that children are wherever possible able to attend schools close to where they live, or consider flexible options for children who live far from the schools they attend to reduce stress associated with traveling far to attend school

Establish school bridging programs to ensure that children not attending school and engaged in labour are able to re-enter the education system

Ensure that teachers are trained in detection of child protection issue and link school and child protection referral systems

Ensure that teachers are trained in positive discipline and classroom management techniques

Ensure that ERW awareness is included in the curriculum

HEALTH

Promote the recruitment of social workers as focal points in health centres to talk with children who are unaccompanied or separated, and children who are survivors of sexual violence and also to train staff in child-friendly approaches, and detection of vulnerable children and child protection issues

WASH

Ensure that all latrines and showers in the collective centres are gender appropriate, lockable and well lit

Make sure that frontline staff, for example hygiene promoters and relevant field staff are trained in detection of child protection issues and are aware of the child protection referral pathways

30

A n n e x e s

K e y I n fo r m a n t In te r v i e w

General Information [to be filled in by the assessor]

Identification Assessor’s name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Organization: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Date of assessment (dd/mm/yy): _ _ _/_ _ _/_ _

_

Site code (from the list of sites): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Location of the site [to be filled by the team leader/supervisor] Site name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Area: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Municipality: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Governorate: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

District: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Province /State: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Type of site: UNRWA Shelter Government Shelter Host Family Non

Displaced Bedoin Community

Population estimate of the

site: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Comments: [If ethnicity, tribal affiliation or any other distinctive attribute is relevant, they should be mentioned in this

space]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _

Source of information (key informant) [if key informant prefers not to reveal his/her identity, it should be respected]

[if insecurity is an issue, name and position of the KI may be replaced with a code that is linked to another form for future references]

Name the key informant: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Role in the community: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Age group: 18-25 25-35 35- 60 >60 Male Female

Contact details: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Informed consent form: My name is ___[say interviewer’s name] and I am working with ____[name of own organization + CPWG]____. We are conducting an assessment on the situation of children affected by the recent conflict This interview cannot be considered a guarantee for any direct or indirect support to you or your community, but the information you provide will help us define child protection priorities and programmes. We would like to ask you some questions about the situation of children in this [site/community/.]. The interview should only take about 30 minutes. Your identity will be kept strictly confidential and will not be shown to others unless your written agreement is received to do so. Your participation is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions. [After asking each of the following questions, look at the KI and get implicit approval that s/he has understood]

All the information you give us will remain confidential.

Your participation in this interview is voluntary.

You can stop answering questions at any time.

Do you have any questions? [Note any questions from the KI in the space here]

For supervisor’s use only:

Verification done by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date: _ _ _/_ _ _/_ _ _ Signature:

31

Definitions

Child – Any person under the age of 18 Separated children – Any child separated from both parents, or from previous legal or customary primary care-giver, but not necessarily from other relatives. This may, therefore, include children accompanied by other adult family members. Unaccompanied children – Any child who has been separated from both parents and other relatives and is not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so. Orphans are children, both of whose parents are known to be dead. In some countries, however, a child who has lost one parent is called an orphan. For the purposes of this assessment orphans are children who lost both parents Physical violence is the deliberate use of force on a child’s body which may result in injury, e.g. hitting, burning, shaking, choking Sexual abuse/violence is any sexual activity, including inappropriate touching or rape, where the child does not fully comprehend, or is unable to give informed consent (under the legal age for consent) Emotional abuse is persistent attacks on a child’s sense of self, e.g. constant belittling, humiliation, isolation and intimidation. Neglect - act of omission, failure to provide for the child’s basic needs. This can include:

Physical neglect, the failure to adequately meet the child’s needs for, for example, nutrition, clothing, health care, and protection from harm; and/or

Emotional neglect, the failure to satisfy the developmental needs of a child by denying the child an appropriate level of affection, care, education and security.

Exploitation is the abuse of a child where some form of remuneration is involved whereby the perpetrators benefit in some manner – monetarily, socially, politically, etc. Exploitation constitutes a form of coercion and violence, detrimental to the child’s physical and mental health, development, and education.

Worse Forms of Child Labour is defined by the International Labour Organisation as (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties; (d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children. Labour that jeopardises the physical, mental or moral well-being of a child, either because of its nature or because of the conditions in which it is carried out, is known as “hazardous work”.

Harmful traditional practices – Practices that are harmful to children and defended on the basis of tradition, culture, or religion by some community members

32

[start by saying: “I will start by asking you some questions about …”]

1. Unaccompanied and Separated Children

1.1 Are there children in this [site/neighbourhood] who have been separated from their usual caregivers since

the 7 July Yes No [don’t know] [if NO or Don’t know, skip to 1.5]

1.1.1 [If YES to 1.1] What do you think are the main causes of separations that occurred since the 7 July [tick all

that apply]

1. losing caregivers/children due to medical treatment

2. losing caregivers/children during displacement

3. caregivers voluntarily sending their children to institutional care;

4. caregivers voluntarily sending their children to extended family/friends;

5. caregivers voluntarily sending their children to work far from parents/usual caregivers;

6. disappearance of children/caregivers in the immediate aftermath of the crisis

7. Death of mother/female care giver

8. Death of father/male care giver

8. Death of both care givers

[other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _]

1.1.2 [If YES to 1.1] How many children do you

think have been separated from their usual

caregivers in this [site/neighbourhood]

since the 7th July [read out the options if

necessary]

1-10 11-20 21-50 51-100

>100 (specify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )

[Don’t know]

[if “don’t know”, skip to 1.2]

How do you know this?

personal observation government data

camp management word of mouth

other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1.2 [If yes to 1.1] Regarding children who have been separated from their usual caregivers since the [define a

recall period] do you think(know) that …[read out each block separately and allow the KI to respond block by block. Do not read

out “do not know”]

there are more girls than boys who have been separated [or]

there are more boys than girls who have been separated [or]

no clear difference [do not know]

1.2.1

33

separated children are mainly under 5 [or]

separated children are mainly between 5 and 14 [or]

separated children are mainly older than 14 [or]

no clear difference [do not know]

1.3 Do you know if there are any infants or young children under the age of 5 who have been separated

from their usual caregivers since the 7th July

Yes No [do not know] [if NO, skip to 1.4]

1.4 Are there children in this [site/neighbourhood] who do not live with any adults (unaccompanied minors)?

Yes No [don’t know] [if NO or Don’t know, skip to 1.5.1]

1.4.1 [If YES to 1.4] How many unaccompanied

children do you think there are? [read out the

options if necessary]

1-5 6-10 11-20 21 – 50

>50 (specify _ _ _ ) [Don’t know]

[if “don’t know”, skip to 1.5.1]

How do you know this?

personal observation

government data

camp management

word of mouth

other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1.4.2 [If yes to 1.4] Do you think that …[read out each block separately and allow the KI to respond block by block. Do not read

out “do not know”]

there are more unaccompanied girls than boys [or]

there are more unaccompanied boys than girls [or]

no clear difference

[do not know]

unaccompanied children are mainly under 5 [or]

unaccompanied children are mainly between 5 and 14 [or]

unaccompanied children are mainly 14 and older [or]

no clear difference

[do not know]

1.5.1 Are there persons unknown to the community who have offered to take children away from this

[site/neighbourhood] promising jobs or better care

Yes No [if NO, skip to 1.5.2]

[if YES to 1.5.1] Tell us what happened: Who came? What did they want? What happened? Were children

taken away? If so, how many girls and how many boys were taken away? What is the age group of removed

children?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1.4.2.1

1.4.2.2

1.2.2

34

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1.5.2 Are there members of the community who have taken or want to take children away from this

community to provide them with assistance, jobs or better living conditions? Yes No [if NO, skip to

1.6.1]

[if YES to 1.5.2] Can you describe who this person is and what s/he promises? Has s/he taken some children

already? If so, how many girls and how many boys were taken away? What is the age group of removed

children? [collect contact information if possible] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1.6.1 Do you know if there is a list of children who don’t know

where their caregivers are (including their names and other

details)?

Yes no [don’t know]

[If YES to 1.6.1 or 1.6.2] Who has the lists?

(contact info if available)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.6.2 Do you know if there is a list of parents who don’t know where

their children are? Yes no [don’t know]

[thank the KI for answering the questions to the previous section and continue to the new section]

2. Care for Separated and Unaccompanied Children

2.1 I want you to think about the children who are no longer with their usual caregivers, where do they live

now?

I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _ _ _ _ _ ]

II. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _ _ _ _ _ ]

III. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _ _ _ _ _ ]

IV. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Other ]

V. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Other ]

[Categories and codes]:

IEF: informal extended

family/neighbours/relatives

arrangement

FFC: formal/ governmental foster care

INC: Orphanage/Institutional care

CHH: live on their own;

CLS: live on the street

SHL: Live in a shelter

CFC: Live independently and caring for

children (child headed family)

EM: At home - married (as a

consequence of separation)

35

2.2 If you come across a child who does not have anyone who can care for him/her, what would you do?

[tick all that apply]

1. care for the child myself

2. keep the child for a short time while I find a long term solution

3. find someone in the community to care for the child

4. inform the police about the child’s situation

5. inform others (specify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)

6. find someone outside the community to sponsor the child

7. take the child to an agency/NGO that deals with children (specify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)

8. do nothing (ask why _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)

other (specify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )

don’t know

2.3 Are there institutions/children

homes in this area that provide

care for orphans or separated

children?

Yes No [don’t know]

[If NO, skip to 3]

2.3.1 [If YES to 2.3] What kind of services do they provide? [tick all that

apply]

Day care Residential care Recreational

activities Psychosocial care (structured activities )

Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Collect contact info if appropriate and possible: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

[thank the KI for answering the questions to the previous section and continue to the new section]

3. Dangers and Injuries; Physical Violence; and Other Harmful Practices

3. What are the existing risks that can lead to death or injury of children in this [site/neighbourhood]

- ENV: Environmental risks at home and

outside (fire, sewer system, electricity)

- CVL: Community violence (e.g. clashes between families,

community violence)

- SVL: Sexual violence (e.g. rape,

touching, etc)

- DMV: Domestic violence

- HTP: Harmful traditional practices (early marriage, honor killing,

celebratory shooting)

-IND - Injuries/deaths resulting from

not being able to access medical care

due to the siege/access restrictions

- CRA: Criminal acts (e.g. gang activities,

looting, etc.)

- SCP : Severe corporal punishment

- WAC: Work-related accidents (e.g. for

pull from SDR)

- CAC: Car accidents

36

- ERW: Landmines or Unexploded

Ordinance

- PHD: Physical injuries/deahs as a result of return to hostilities

INM: Injury/death as a result of movement in the restricted

areas

[Write down the response on the left side and code it based

on the category codes. The supervisors are responsible to

review the codings]

I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category

code: _ _ _ ]

Age of most affected

[tick all if no difference]

<5 6-14 >14

DNK

Sex of most affected

[tick both if no difference]

Boys Girls DNK

II. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ [category

code: _ _ _ ]

<5 6-14 >14

DNK

Boys Girls DNK

III. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category

code: _ _ _ ]

<5 6-14 >14

DNK Boys Girls DNK

IV. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ [Other ]

<5 6-14 >14

DNK Boys Girls DNK

V. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ [Other ]

<5 6-14 >14

DNK Boys Girls DNK

VI. [none] [If NONE, skip to 4]

3.1 Where do you think these risks are high/highest for children? [if not clear, refer the KI to the previous question]

[Tick all that apply] 1. at home 2. In the shelters 3. in school 4.

on the way to school 5. at work 6. on the way to work 7. at the market

8. on the way to market 9. in playgrounds other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[don’t know]

3.2 Can you estimate the number of

deaths and serious injuries to children

due to any and all of the above causes

during the past [since the 7th July

1-5 6-10 11-20 21 –

50

>50 (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

don’t know

[if “don’t know, skip to 3.3]

How do you know this?

personal observation

government data

camp management

word of mouth?

Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3.3 Are there any children in this area who have been or are committing acts of violence since since the 7th July [if

unclear to the KI, use answer options from the following question as examples]

37

Yes No [Don’t know] [If NO or “don’t know”, skip to 4]

3.4 [If YES to 3.3] What kind of violence are children participating in?

I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _ _ _ _ ]

II. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _[category code: _ _ _ _ _ ]

III. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _ _ _ _ ]

IV. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Other ]

V. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Other ]

[Categories and codes]:

CVL: community violence

SVL: sexual assault;

DPF: damage of public facilities such as

schools and/or community

infrastructure;

BUL: Bullying other children

VAC: Violence against other

children/siblings siblings

[thank the KI for answering the questions to the previous section and continue to the new section]

4. Psychosocial Distress and Community Support Mechanisms

4.1 Have you noticed any changes in children’s behaviour since 7th July

Yes No [Don’t know] [If NO or “don’t know”, skip to 4.2]

[If YES to 4.1]

4.1.1 What kind of behaviour changes have you noticed in girls since 7th July ?

4.1.2 What kind of behaviour changes have you noticed in boys since 7th July?

[if unclear to the KI, use answer options below as examples] [ask about girls and boys separately]

- UCS: Unusual crying and screaming - AGG: More aggressive behaviour; anger/frustration

- VAC: Violence against other children/siblings; - CCR: Committing crimes (stealing..)

- UWS: Unwillingness to go to school; - LWH: Less willingness to help caregivers and

siblings;

- DRB: Disrespectful behaviour in the family; - SDN: Sadness (e.g. not talking, not playing, etc.);

- SAB: Substance abuse (specify - - - - - - - -); - NTM: Having nightmares and/or not being able to

sleep

- ATS: Anti-social (isolating themselves) - HPP: Helping parent more than before

- STF: Spending more time with friends - STP: Spending more time on sport and playing

- BWT: Bed wetting - EIC: Excessive interest in the conflict (news etc)

- LHT: Loss of trust/hope -IUM: Increased use of media/internet

- COC: Caring for others in the community - CLG: Clinginess

- ASR: eagerness to return to school/interested in education

- HSB: Engaging in risky sexual/sexualized behavior

4.1.1 Girls 4.1.2 Boys

38

Same as boys

I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _

_ ]

II. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _

_ ]

III. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _

_ _ ]

IV. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[Other ]

V. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Other

]

Same as girls

I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _ _

]

II. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _ _

]

III. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [category code: _ _

_ ]

IV. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Other

]

V. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Other ]

4.2 What do you think makes boys stressed since 7th July [if unclear to the KI, use answer options below as examples]

[Tick all that apply, but try to guide the KI to prioritize his/her responses and tell you which ones are the most important]

1. attacks 2. death/injury of loved ones

3. Going far from home for school 4. Continous sound of drones

5. Witnessing violence (ei: people/relatives/parents) being ingured or dying

6. Presence of UXOs 7. Fear of resumption of conflict

8. Watching extreme violence and destruction of Gaza on social networks and TV

9. Power disruptions/shortages 10. losing their belongings

11. not being able to go back to school 12. being separated from their families

13.sexual violence 14. Bullying

15. being separated from their friends 16. extra hard work;

17. tension within the family 18. nightmares or bad memories

19. lack of shelter/homeless 20. going far from home for work;

21. lack of food 22. not being able to return home/displacement

[Don’t know] other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _

4.2.1 If boys have problems or are stressed, who in the community can best support them? [if unclear to the KI,

use answer options as examples. Tick all that apply, but try to guide the KI to prioritize his responses and tell you which ones are the most important]

1. peer groups (e.g. friends) 2. school teachers 3. community social workers

4. religious leaders Sheikh 5. Father 6. government officials

39

7. siblings 8. Relatives (men) 9. community leaders Mukhtar

10. neighbours 11. clan leaders 12. Mother

13. Relatives (women) [don’t know]

Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _

4.3 What do you think makes girls stressed since 7 July? [if unclear to the KI, use answer options as examples. Tick all

that apply, but try to guide the KI to tell you which ones are the most important]

1. attacks 2. death/injury of loved ones

3. Going far from home for school 4. Continous sound of drones

5. Witnessing violence (ei: people/relatives/parents) being ingured or dying

6. Presence of UXOs 7. Fear of resumption of conflict

8. Watching extreme violence and destruction of Gaza on social networks and TV

9. Power disruptions/shortages 10. losing their belongings

11. not being able to go back to school 12. being separated from their families

13.sexual violence 14. Bullying

15. being separated from their friends 16. extra hard work;

17. tension within the family 18. nightmares or bad memories

19. lack of shelter/homeless 20. going far from home for work;

21. lack of food 22. not being able to return home/displacement

23. Sexual harassment when going to the latrines/bathing facilities in crowded enviroment

[Don’t know] other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _

4.3.1 If girls have problems or are stressed, who in the community can best support them? [if unclear to the KI,

use answer options as examples. Tick all that apply, but try to get to the three most important]

1. peer groups (e.g. friends) 2. school teachers 3. community social workers

4. religious leaders Sheikh 5. parents 6. government officials

7. siblings 8. relatives 9. community leaders

Mukhtar

10. traditional midwives 11.health worker 12. women’s groups

14. neighbours [don’t know]

Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.4 Have you noticed any changes in caregivers’ attitude towards their children since 7 July?

Yes No [Don’t know] [If NO or “don’t know”, skip to 4.5]

40

4.4.1 [if yes to 4.4] What kind of changes (positive or negative) have you noticed in caregivers’ attitude towards their children? [if unclear to the KI, use answer options as examples. Tick all that apply, but try to get to the 3 most

important]

1. Pay less attention to children’s needs 2. Pay more attention to children’s needs;

3. Spend less time with their children 4. Spend more time with their children;

5. More aggressive towards their children 6. Show more love and affection to their

children;

7. Send children away from home 8. Force boys to stay inside the house;

9. Force girls to stay inside the house 10. Force/encourage boys to marry at young

age

11. Keep children from going to school 12. Force/encourage girls to marry at young

age

13. Ensure children’s education despite difficulties;

14. Ensure that children have access to recreational activities

15. Ensure that children have access to MHPSS

[Don’t know] other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.5 What are the main sources of stress for caregivers in the community? [if unclear to the KI, use answer options as

examples. Tick all that apply, but try to guide the KI to prioritize his responses and tell you which ones are the most important]

1. ongoing conflict 2. lack of food

3. lack of shelter 4. loss of property

5. lost livelihood 6. children’s safety

7. violence within community 8. not being able to return home

9. being separated from their community 10. Mobility restrictions

11. Remarriage 12. Domestic violence

13. Changes in the custody of the children

14. Inability to carry out cultural or religious rituals (e.g. proper burial rituals, Friday prayers)

15. Providing assistance/support for injured/affected people (secondary trauma)

16. Changes in living and working patterns (working far from home)

[Don’t know] other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[thank the KI for answering the questions to the previous section and continue to the new section]

5. Access to Services and Excluded Children

5.1 Are there people in this [site/neighbourhood] who are capable of organizing recreational and/or

educational activities for children?

Yes No [Don’t know]

5.1.1 [if yes to 5.1] What kind of skills do these people have? [tick all that apply]

41

1. Teaching 2. Organizing collective activities for children 3. Supporting distressed children

4. Keeping children safe 5. Working/supporting with children living with physical disabilities

6. Teaching children with learning difficulties Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[Don’t know]

5.2 Are there children who have less access to services like food distributions, educational and recreational

activities, and health care? Yes No [Don’t know]

5.2.1 [If yes to 5.2] Is it more boys or more girls who are most excluded?

girls boys No difference [Don’t know]

5.3 [If yes to 5.2] What groups of children are most excluded? [Read out the answer options and guide the KI to

prioritize which groups are most excluded. Tick all that apply]

Please explain why, if possible: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _

1. children living in

institutional centers

2. children living with elderly 3. children from poor households

4. Children from

isolated communities

5. children with a disability 6. children living with disabled

caregivers

7. children in conflict

with the law

8. children living in female headed

households

9. child headed households

10. Working children [don’t know] Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

[thank the KI for answering the questions to the previous section and continue to the new section]

6. Access to information

6. What are the most important sources of information for your community now? [Tick up to three]

1. Radio (name?) _ _ _

_ _ _ _

2. TV (name?) _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Newspapers/magazines

(name?) _ _ _ _ _

4. Telephone voice

call (name)

5. SMS 6. Internet (name of social media)

7. Noticeboards and

posters

8. Community leader 9. Friends, neighbours and family

10. Religious leader

Sheikh, Muktah

11. Government official 12. ICRC

13. Aid workers [don’t know] Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _

[thank the KI for answering the questions to the previous section and continue to the new section]

7. Child Labour

7.1 Are there any children in this community who are involved in types of work that are harsh and dangerous for them?

42

Yes No [don’t know] [if NO or don’t know, go to 8.1]

7.1.1 [if yes to 7.1] What types of work are these children involved in? [modify the options below based on common

types of work identified in the desk review]

1. Fishing 2. Farm work 3. Factory work

4. Begging 5. Domestic labour 6. Selling small goods

7. Other harsh and

dangerous labour

8. Building/construction

9. Collecting items in the rubble to

sell

10. Collecting

rocks/stones for

buildings

11. Transporting/carrying

goods for people from the

market

9 Cleaning (streets, cars)

[don’t know]

Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7.2.1 Can you estimate the number children in your

community who are involved in the types of work

mentioned above since the 7th July

1-5 6-10 11-20 21 – 50

>50 (specify) don’t know [if “don’t know,

skip to 7.2.2]

How do you know this?

personal observation

government data

camp management

word of mouth

Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7.2.2 Do you think the number of children in this site/neighbourhood who are invovled in harsh and

dangerous work has increased since the 7th July

Yes No [don’t know]

7.3.1 Are there new types of harsh and dangerous labour that children are engaged in that did not exist

before the conflict [if NO or don’t know, go to 7.3]

Yes No [don’t know]

7.3.2 [if yes to 7.3.1] which new types of harsh and dangerous labour have emreged since the _ 7 July _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7.4 Do you know if the majority of children who are involved in harsh and dangerous labour: [ and ask the

respondant to tell the most important reason(s) as the answer]

1. are working voluntarily to support themselves and/or their families

2. are sent to engage in such work by their parents/caregivers

43

3. are sent to engage in such work by people other than their caregivers (ask for examples: _ _ _ _

_ _ _ )

4. for other reasons (specify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

)

[Don’t know]

[thank the KI for answering the questions to the previous section and continue to the new section]

8. Sexual Violence

8.1 If you come across a child who has suffered from sexual violence, what would you do?

1. Sexual violence never happens here [if this is chosen, skip to the end part of the interview]

2. take child/talk to parents/caregivers 3. take child/talk to other family members 4. take

child/talk to religious leader/person

5. take child/talk to health centre 6. take child/talk to mobile clinic

7. take child/talk to community social worker 8. take child/talk to teacher 9. take child/talk to

to clan leader (family Elder/ Muktah)

10. report to police/community justice system 11. confront the perpetrator (the person harming the

child)

12. take child/talk to to women’s association 13. take child/talk to to a traditional midwife;

14. Take child to a Counsellor; 15. The child would be married to the person who

sexually abused her 16. The child would be marriedto someone

17. If pregnant, take the child to shelter for the period of the pregnancy

18. do nothing; [Don’t know]

[other (specify)] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8.2 Do you think the number of sexual violence incidents has increased since 7 July?

Yes No [Don’t know]

8.2.1 In which situations does sexual violence occur more often? [Only read out the options if the KI needs examples.

Tick all that apply] [

1. while at home 2. While at the shelter ; 3. while with host family

4. while playing around the camp/village 5. on the way to school 6. when at workplace

7. in common areas, such as around latrines/showers, etc.

[don’t know]; [other (specify)] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8.3. Who is most affected by sexual violence?

more girls are being targeted for sexual violence than boys [or]

more boys are being targeted for sexual violence than girls [or]

no difference [do not know]

mostly younger children (under 14) are targeted for sexual violence [or]

8.3.1

44

mostly older children (over 14) are targeted for sexual violence [or]

no difference [do not know]

8.4 If a child or an adolescent is a victim of sexual violence, would s/he normally seek help [if not clear, say: “is it

culturally acceptable to seek help”]?

Yes No Don’t know [If NO or “don’t know”, skip to 9.5]

8.4.1 [if yes to 9.4] Who do girls normally turn to for help?

1. mother 2. father 3. friends 4. Grandparents 5. other family members

6. religious leader (Sheikh) 7. health worker 8. teacher 9. social worker

10. Muktah 11. Children/adolescents usually don’t seek help

[other (specify)] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Don’t know]

8.4.2 [if yes to 9.4] Who do boys normally turn to for help? [adjust/add context specific options]

1. mother 2. father 3. friends 4. Grandparents 5. other family members

6. religious leader (Sheikh) 7. health worker 8. teacher 9. social worker

10. Muktah 11. Children/adolescents usually don’t seek help [other (specify)] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [Don’t know]

9.5 Do you know of a place where people of this site/neighbourhood can get help if they are victims of sexual violence?

Yes No Don’t know [if NO or don’t know, skip to next

section]

[collect more info if appropriate (e.g. availability of PEP kits): _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_]

9.5.1 [If YES to 9.5] Can children also seek help in that place?

Yes No Don’t know

[Comments: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _]

[thank the KI for answering the questions to the previous section and continue by saying: “Now if you have any other points to make, please mention them in the order of importance to you.”

[Write down points here]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8.3.2