Violence against children is a global crisis affecting close to 1 billion children annually with devastating health consequences for their physical, emotional, and social development (1). Children in humanitarian settings face an increased risk of violence due to the disruption of protective social structures during emergencies such as natural disasters and conflicts (2). However, there is a limited evidence base to inform violence prevention and response programs in humanitarian settings (3, 4).

As part of the Rooted Reflections blog series, guest authors Peter Kisaakye, Francis Obare, George Odwe, Yohannes Wado, and Chi-Chi Undie, share their experiences implementing the first-ever HVACS, gathering vital data about violence against refugee children, and overcoming related challenges with a view to informing future research in similar contexts.

A strategy that we found valuable involved identifying team leaders and interviewers who were well-acquainted with refugee settlements in Uganda, and strengthening their capacity to collect quality data on violence against children in an ethical manner.

In preparation for fieldwork, a total of 26 team leaders and 56 interviewers drawn from the Refugee Alumni Networks of the OPM, UNHCR, and, UNHCR implementing partners were identified and trained using CDC’s VACS training methodology. Team leaders and interviewers comprised a mix of refugees and nationals with experience working in humanitarian settings in Uganda. The training sought to enhance their knowledge of data collection methods and technologies in general, and of specific issues related to violence against children and other sexual and reproductive health and rights issues.

Another data collection strategy entailed incorporating service providers into the data collection teams to enhance care among child/young adult survivors and their families.

Besides distributing information on resources for support services to participants and providing referrals for acute cases of violence, gender-based violence (GBV) caseworkers/counsellors (drawn from UNHCR implementing partner organizations) accompanied the data collection teams to provide first-line psychosocial support to respondents who requested it, or who showed signs of distress during the interview.

Our decision to engage gender-based violence caseworkers in this way was motivated by the recognition that psychological distress could be triggered by sensitive questions in the survey.

As with any fieldwork endeavor, understanding (and adhering to) community entry processes in refugee contexts was critical for gaining access to sampled households and buy-in from household heads, in addition to fostering study participation. Moreover, it was imperative for engaging key stakeholders across a range of sectors, whose collaboration was particularly important for eventual data interpretation and the development of future actions based on the Humanitarian Violence Against Children and Youth Survey (HVACS) findings.

We found that humanitarian setting-centered Technical Working Groups related to child protection, gender-based violence, and assessment (for instance) were key to guiding our community entry approach and ensuring the Humanitarian Violence Against Children and Youth Survey (HVACS) was appropriate for implementation among the population concerned. Furthermore, obtaining study approval and introduction letters from the OPM provided legitimacy for the study, while facilitating our entry into the settlements.

Settlement leaders (OPM staff, Refugee Welfare Council members, and settlement commandants) in the refugee settlements were instrumental in making in-person introductions on the ground and providing permission to the data collection team to access the settlements and sampled zones.

Despite the use of these and other strategies to smoothen the fieldwork process, we inevitably faced some challenges. Some households could not be traced because they had relocated to other sites outside the sampled zones. Many refugees relocate from their initial settlement locations for various reasons, including employment-seeking, return migration, urban residential preferences to gain access to better services (health and education), engaging in small-scale trade, and the desire to live among members of their ethnic group.

Furthermore, a few households could not be traced because they were known in the community by names that varied from those documented in settlement records (e.g., by their children’s names or nicknames). In many of these cases, community guides (i.e., block leaders, village health teams) helped with the identification of the sampled households for interview.

In some instances, household structures (particularly, those within shared compounds) made innovation essential to ensure that confidentiality was maintained during interviews. In some cases, unsampled households within the same compound were curious about the data collection team’s visit to sampled households. When privacy was not feasible within such compounds, interviews were conducted in private locations within the community, such as empty school classrooms, or religious institutions (churches or mosques).

Fieldwork activities were sometimes disrupted due to routine or ongoing activities in refugee settlements, such as food distribution or verification exercises. In addition, some sampled household members were unavailable on market days, while others were away at school. To address this challenge, fieldwork was planned in consultation with UNHCR’s settlement leaders to identify more appropriate days for data collection. Additionally, field teams operated on a flex schedule, which enabled call-backs and the participation of school-going children not available on weekdays.

In summary, a variety of contextual factors need to be considered for future HVAC surveys, while also building strong collaborations with key partners in the humanitarian context concerned. The foregoing approaches and experiences could inform future research in similar contexts.