Improved children psychosocial wellbeing

This indicator measures the effectiveness of interventions in enhancing the psychosocial well-being of children, specifically their sense of safety and connectedness from the perspective of children and young people themselves, also giving an indication of the quality of the intervention. In addition, this indicator provides insights into existing MHPSS needs, and provides an analysis of IR's action according to different ages, genders, regions or types of activities.

The % is calculated as follows :

• Numerator (N): The number of girls and boys involved in IR's interventions or partner interventions who report an improvement in at least two of the well-being pillars: safety and connectedness, within a defined time period among those participating in the assessment exercise.

• Denominator (D): The total number of girls and boys involved in IR's or IR partners' MHPSS interventions in the same geographic area and reference period, participating in the assessment.

To determine if a child report improved well-being for inclusion in the numerator, consider the following:

• Identify Main Needs and MHPSS Areas:

  • Assess the status at the beginning of the intervention and define expected changes.

• Define a Threshold for Improvement:

  • Establish a limit or threshold to declare an improvement. See for example“Tdh well-being data collection toolkits » which includes scoring modalities  for each question

  • As interventions are context -dependent, collaborate with MHPSS specialists and the MEAL (Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning) team to agree on criteria for including a child as an “improved case.”

  • If including a final assessment session is not feasible, consider these options, Work with a representative sample of the group.

Age and gender

Risks:

1. Risk of Bias and Other Issues Related to Quality:

   • The risk of bias in administering questionnaires to children is high due to social desirability. Children may respond in ways they believe will please project staff or align with expected positive outcomes, which can skew results.

   • Standalone monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of subjective well-being can be biased and ethically questionable due to factors such as power imbalances and lack of trust if conducted by enumerators.

   • Data collection tools that generate fatigue, are intrusive, or judgmental can negatively impact the quality of responses.  The tool should fit the context and the public.  Please use open ended questions and prompts to allow the child to give you free narrative.  

2. Risk of Causing Harm:

   • Measuring this indicator must not cause harm to the child. Procedures must ensure that the process is non-intrusive and developmentally appropriate.

   • Asking inappropriate questions in relation to the child's age, culture, or gender can lead to discomfort or distress.

   • There is a risk of disconnection between the MHPSS activities and the expected results, potentially leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the child's well-being.

Precautions :

1. Staff with Competencies:

   • Data collection should be conducted by staff with psychosocial skills and the ability to communicate effectively with children. This includes establishing a trusting relationship, especially with younger children. It is recommended that project staff (e.g., social workers, facilitators, volunteers) conduct the assessments instead of M&E or enumerators.

2. Embedding the Measurement in MHPSS Curricula:

   • Well-being measurement should be systematically embedded in the MHPSS intervention curriculum, ideally during dedicated sessions. This can occur at the beginning and end of the program or only at the end, using recall-reflective methods.

3. Not Measuring for Recreational Activities:

   • The indicator should not be measured for recreational activities where children’s attendance is inconsistent, as this could lead to unreliable data.

4. Contextualisation :

   • The approach to defining well-being should consider the cultural context, age, gender, and developmental stage of the children. The role of community based MHPSS is to support resources for individuals and families without disrupting cultural beliefs and practices.

5. Informed Consent, Supervision, Ethical Protocol:

   • Informed consent from the child’s caregiver is mandatory, ensuring it is given voluntarily and is renegotiable. A robust reporting and follow-up mechanism must be in place to address any concerns. Procedures should ensure confidentiality of the child's information.

6. Age Considerations:

   • It is crucial to be clear about the appropriate minimum age for interviewing children. Consideration must be given to their emotional and cognitive capacity at different ages. For children below 6 (six) years of age, parental involvement in assessing the child's progress is recommended.