Multi-Cluster Needs Assessment (MCNA) – Round V September 2017 Education Cluster Preliminary findings Multi-Cluster Needs Assessment (MCNA) – Round V September 2017 Iraq Assessment Working Group

Overview of Presentation OBJECTIVES & OVERVIEW PROCESS OVERVIEW METHODOLOGY PARTNER COLLABORATION PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION PRELIMINARY FINDINGS NEXT STEPS

OBJECTIVES & OVERVIEW 1. Presentation to AWG on 17th July explaining the objectives and methodology of the MCNA V as well as timeline for dissemination of preliminary findings, in line with the HNO/HRP timeframe. 2. Change in Key Affected Population groups: IDPs in camps IDPs out of camps IDPs in informal sites Returnees “Remainees in recently retaken areas” changed to: Non-displaced in newly accessible and conflict areas Host communities in high IDP density areas 3. Presentation on 17th July used to officially kick-start the indicator review process. All MCNAs are specifically aligned with the HNO/HRP process to inform multi-cluster programming. All clusters consulted on indicators. Feedback received on indicators, process of harmonization carried out. 4. Methodology: Original methodology adapted in line with HNO/HRP humanitarian profile e.g. Assessment of Non-displaced in newly accessible and conflict areas. MCNA V data to support people in need calculation at cluster level.

MCNA to HRP: Process Overview Research design Indicators, forming the basis of the survey tool, are reviewed at the cluster and ICCG level. Data collection Data is collected directly by REACH and partners. Regular updates are provided to clusters. Final Analysis Cluster feedback informs in-depth analysis tailored to cluster-specific needs and triangulation of data Analysis & Preliminary findings presentation Preliminary findings presentations delivered bilaterally with clusters ahead of Joint Assessment Workshop (ICCG). Validation and Dissemination Final output and cluster-specific findings shared with clusters/GBWS, while final report is shared for validation by ICCG and HCT. Time: 1 - 31 July Time: 20 -31 Sept Time: 1 – 31 August Time: 11- 20 September Time: 1 - 14 September

Methodology GROUP 1. IDP families in camps 2. IDP families outside camps 2.a IDP families in informal sites 3. Host community families 4. Returnee families 5. Non-displaced in newly accessible and conflict areas Data set REACH Camp profile VIII REACH MCNA IV REACH Informal Site Assessment / RASP REACH: MCNA V Primary data collection *PARTNERS: MCNA V Primary data collection Data collection date May 2017 April/May 2017 Feb/May 2017 August 2017 Data representative at Camp/District level District level (of accessible districts) Site level National level (High IDP density locations) District level Household interviews (directly accessible districts) Yes, with 95% confidence level / 10% error margin Yes, with 90% confidence level / 10% error margin Yes, to achieve 95% confidence level / 5% error margin Yes, to achieve 90% confidence level / 10% error margin No Key informant interviews (non-accessible districts) Yes The assessment was implemented nationwide through a mixed methods approach, consisting of: Secondary data analysis of existing datasets on IDPs living in camps, informal sites, and in host communities Secondary data review of other relevant data/reports Statistically representative household survey administered in fully directly accessible districts Key informant interviews administered in districts that are not fully directly accessible (Direct, remote via phone and in hard to reach areas, newly displaced families from those locations) *Data collected by CAOFSIR, RNVDO, WFP, and Mercy Hands To highlight that for returnees – the biggest population group for primary data collection – both HH interviews and community level interviews were conducted to make sure all returnee locations were covered.

Partner Collaboration Data collection conducted by partners included: Canadian Aid Organization for International Society Rehab (CAOFISR) Mercy Hands for Humanitarian Aid Representative of Ninewa Voluntary for IDP (RNVDO) World Food Programme (WFP) – Iraq Strategic partnership with ACAPS to enable joint analysis of MCNA V findings

Primary Data collection Mixed methodology Secondary data review of existing datasets Household-level Data Collection in all fully directly accessible districts: representative samples of households from accessible areas Community-level Data Collection in not fully directly accessible areas: purposively selected key informants from sampled locations in not fully accessible districts

IDP families outside camps Host community families Preliminary findings: Education Household-level data is statistically representative and consists of Returnees (95/10 at district level), IDPs out of camps (90/10 at district level) and IDPs living in camps (95/10 at district level). Community-level data is provided alongside HH data as indicative findings only. Household-level analysis for each indicator is structured as follows: National level (with relevant weighting for each population group) By population group (IDPs, returnees etc) IDP families in camps IDP families outside camps Host community families Returnee families Camp/Governorate level District level (of accessible districts) National level (High IDP density locations) District level 95% confidence level 10% error margin 90% confidence level 5% error margin Comparitive results for each population group by district and at national level to identify gaps in needs Summary district level data provided for each population group Additional guidance on how to use and understand the raw data for parners use

Preliminary findings: Community level coverage What areas are covered by the community level assessments? Districts where direct household data collection could not be conducted, KI interviews were conducted by REACH and partners (partner collaboration). Newly accessible & conflict areas (x 6 districts) Returnees (hard to reach) (x 17 districts) Governorate District Anbar Haditha Kirkuk Hawiga Ninewa Baaj, Mosul and Telafar Salah –al’Din Shirqat Governorate District Anbar Fallujah, Haditha and Heet Baghdad Abu Ghraib Kirkuk Ninewa Hamdaniya, Mosul, Sinjar, Telafar and Tilkaif Salah-al’Din Baiji, Balad, Daur, Samarra, Shirqat, Tikrit and Tooz

Type of education received (HH) Across all population groups, the vast majority of families reported children attending formal education services (of those families reporting to have school-aged children attending education services. Breakdown of formal and none produced very similar results between host community and returnees. IDPs residing in camps were the only population group to receive some form of non-formal education (6%). Out-of-camp IDPs reported the highest rate of school-aged children who were not receiving any type of educational service (22%). Table 1: Breakdown of population groups reporting education type Host community IDPs (in camps) IDPs (out of camps) Returnee Formal 87% 78% 88% Non-formal 0% 6% None 12% 16% 22% Results reported for formal education are in the higher percentiles for returnees when compared remainee areas. Non-formal in camps, easier to target by NGOs due to concentration of IDPs in one place. During MCNA V, due to the timing of data collection, the question specified during term-term or school season

Type of education received (Community level) At the community level, key informants were asked what percentage of the population were receiving formal and non-formal educational services and what percentage were not receiving any form of education. Returnee: Higher population % receiving formal education and lower population % receiving non-formal or no educational services. Newly accessible and conflict areas: Varying results for population % receiving formal education (atleast 39% reporting that less than 25% of the community are receiving formal education). Compared to returnees, more of the community level population are receiving no education. Newly accessible and conflict areas Returnee Less than 25% Between 25-59% Between 50-75% Over 75% Formal 39.2% 8.9% 22.8% 29.1% Non-formal 81.0% 10.1% 3.8% 5.1% None 48.1% 15.2% 31.6%   Less than 25% Between 25-59% Between 50-75% Over 75% Formal 2.7% 10.2% 39.0% 48.1% Non-formal 89.8% 8.6% .5% 1.1% None 86.1% 11.8%

Not attending any form of education (HH) sub-set Host community: Those not attending are more likely to have never attended formal or non-formal education. The 12% who reported not receiving any education, 79% reported never attended and 21% reported dropping out. IDPs out of camps: Comparatively higher drop out rate than other groups (54%) but lower percentage for never attended (46%). Returnee: 66% not received any education and 34% dropped out. Table 3: Breakdown of population groups reporting none for education type Host community (12%) IDPs (out of camps) (22%) Returnee Dropped out 21% 54% 34% Never 79% 46% 66% Not same confidence levels as question is a sub-set for all population group. * Does not include IDPs in camps

Not attending any form of education (HH) sub-set Pie charts showing ratio between population groups for dropped out and never attended. IDPs out of camps: more likely to have dropped out (50%) if not receiving any educational services, compared to returnee and host community. Host community: more likely to have never attended if they are not receiving any educational services (41%).

Reasons for not attending school (HH) IDPs out of camps report cost as the most commonly cited barrier to education (40%) compared to host community and returnee populations (indicating comparatively less barriers to education). For IDPs in camps missed too much was the main barrier (12%) and was higher compared to the other population groups. Table 4: Breakdown of population groups reporting barriers to education Host community IDPs (in camps) IDPs (out of camps) Returnee Cost 16% 14% 40% 12% Space 2% 1% Bad condition 0% 8% Quality Chores 9% Working 4% Marriage 3% N/a Moving 6% 7% New arrival Customs 5% Host community IDPs (in camps) IDPs (out of camps) Returnee Security 0% 2% 1% 3% Disabled Traumatized Unnecessary N/a Missed too much 12% 6% School too far 8% 7% 9% No transport 4% Too young 69% 31% 60% Other Refers to formal education only. Missed too much refers to school-age children, who due to displacement have missed a significant amount of school. (this is likely to be reported highly as for these population groups as barriers to education are fairly low)

Reasons for not attending school (community level) Returnee (hard to reach): Top 3 barriers reported as cost, bad condition and distance. Newly accessible and conflict areas: Top 3 barriers reported as quality, security situation and bad condition of school. Cost is reported as much lower in comparison to returnee population. Graph 1: Breakdown of population groups reporting barriers to education Cost: See next slide but this includes books, writing materials, school bag, tuition fees, uniform, and cost associated with getting to school. Through previous MCNAs these options have been agreed to cover the definition of cost. Bad condition refers to physical condition of school building which may prevent the full functioning of a school. Quality loosely refers to the perceived standard of the school including staffing, resources, class sizes and curriculum. Quality is a catch all term for

Expenditures unable to afford (sub-set) Asked of those who reported cost as a barrier to education (respondents were asked to pick up to 3 options). Transportation is the highest reported cost across the three population groups, followed by uniform. Books, writing materials and bag costs were more prevelant amongst returnees and IDPs out of camps. Table 5: Breakdown of population groups reporting education costs they cannot afford Books Writing materials Bag Tuition Uniform Transportation Other Host community 0% 30% 60% 90% IDPs (out of camps) 81% 78% 13% 86% 85% 1% Returnee 27% 18% 9% 73% 82%

Priority needs as reported by HHs Although food, medical care and employment are the highest reported priority needs across the different population groups, returnee HHs reported the highest for education as a need (21%). Whereas other groups have prioritised basic needs, for host community this could be because access to formal education is higher. Table 6: Breakdown of population groups reporting priority needs (3 options) Documentation Education Employment Food Medical care Psychosocial support Shelter support Water Registration Sanitation Vocational training Host community 0% 9% 41% 50% 55% 21% 6% 17% 2% 8% 10% IDPs (in camps) 3% 54% 71% 24% 14% 7% 4% 1% IDPs (out of camps) 20% 48% 62% 37% 23% 5% Returnee 34% 60% 56% 15% 25%

MCNA V: Next Steps Feedback on preliminary findings To feed into Joint Assessment Workshop (20 September 2017) including areas of interest and level of detail. Informing of Humanitarian Needs Overview (People in Need figures). Access to raw validated data. Finalisation and sign off Finalisation of report and other outputs (cluster-level hand outs and maps). Presentation of lessons learned (ICCG meeting). Sharing of gender analysis output in coordination with the IASC GBV guidelines (October 2017).