Assessment of Children's perspective on Child Protection Unit services

Background  
Child Protection Units play a key role, in coordinating with other public and private local and regional levels, to manage and respond effectively to the needs of children and to advocate and raise public awareness regarding child protection issues.  17 Child Protection Units (CPU)  workers have been subject of capacity building in the ‘Mario projec’t and the training have concentrated in the elements of ethics in work with children; legal framework; social work with children and case management.  Based at the social service department of Municipalities and communes, the CPUs’ work is focused on protecting children subject or at risk of violence, abuse, neglect, social exclusion, trafficking, exploitation and other phenomena that affect the welfare of children. 
                                                                                                                 
Purpose/objective  
The Assessment aims to inform the work and efforts of Mario project partners and the local government's CPUs on how children assess the services they receive from CPU workers in order to better meet the needs and rights of children
  
Methodology  
Qualitative methods such as individual interviews and focus groups have been used for this assesment. The individual interviews were conducted with 38 children whose cases were followed systematically by the CPU workers. 7 focus group discussions were conducted with a total number of 56 children who have participated in various information sharing and awareness raising activities organized by the CPU and have therefore benefited from preventive services. The individual interview script was comprised of 18 closed and opened questions. Regarding the structure of the questions, there were three type of questions: a) Yes/No questions (i.e. Do you know what CPU is?), b) Likert scale questions with a range of answers in 1-5 scale where 1 means “very bad” or “very rarely” and 5 means “very good” or “very often” (i.e. How often has the CPU paid visits at your home?), c) opened questions that aimed at receiving descriptive answers. General observations about the participants and the process of the interview were also reported and considered in the process of data analysis.                                                                                                                                                                                            The focus group script included 14 issues for discussion. The information was probed following the line of reasoning and conversation that children developed around the topics and notes regarding the process of discussion, characteristics of the children and group dynamics. These notes were considered in the process of data analysis.
  
Key findings  
The first set of questions asked about the knowledge that children have in general. The main finding was that almost all the children knew the representative of CPU by its name but not as term. He/she was almost all the time associated with his/her work or services offered. Sometimes CPU was identified with an office (this finding was gathered during the focus group) where children can go and talk about their concerns. However, it’s important to point out that they know that CPU identifies the cases of neglected, trafficked and physically abused children and works to help them.
The CPU’s representative was almost all the time described according to his/her personality’s traits as being fun, communicative, caring or helpful. Children were especially sensitive about the relationship he/she has created with their mother, solving her problems. CPU’s representative work was evaluated with “good” to “very good”. Most of the children reported that their parents or relatives (in case relatives were their caregivers) have visited the CPU’s representative in their office. Even if children hadn’t visited the premises of CPU “very often”, this experience was revealed as pleasant.
According to their reports, following the CPU’s assistance, the problems they had at home (such as poverty, unemployment, parent’s death or divorce, child abuse and trafficking and school drop-out etc) had slightly decreased. CPU representatives had greatly helped their parents and themselves.
According to their reports, food, medicines, health checks, books, school materials and invitation to the summer camp or other activities were the main services that CPU had offered to most families. According to the data the situation at home as well as the relationship between family’s members was improved after its intervention.                                                                                                                                          The focus group script included 14 issues for discussion. A considerable number of children put effort to explain the concept of violence and child abuse. Some of them could identify its forms. According to results, family and school are the primary actors that offer information about violence.
It was difficult for children to identify actors that can help reducing violence and child abuse. Parents, school, peers, police and CPU workers were the main actors that they suggested.
According to the frequency analysis, the parents, teachers and peers are the people that can help the most in protecting the children from violence and abuse. It is important to note that the police and CPU were also considered important reference points.
According to the children, the CPU workers have helped to reduce the violence oriented towards children by organizing talks about violence. In these talks, the CPU workers have showed strategies that can help children to protect themselves by others, as well as has shared messages against violence to the community. Even in the focus groups, most of the groups were satisfied with the quantity and quality of the services offered by the CPUs.

Recommendations  
CPUs need to consider children as their primary beneficiaries and partners as well. When assessing the cases of children in need of protection, developing individual plans to help and protect them and implementing those plans, the CPUs need to intentionally keep the child involved throughout the whole process. His/her personal point of view can reflect the child needs and can be a motor of change. Children can be an active part in the identification of cases at risk. Through the information received from CPU about violence and its prevention they can identify and help a child in trouble. They can also assist in planning, implementation and evaluation of activities about child violence and abuse.  

Comments and follow-up from the organisation, if any  
N/A