1. 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

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

3. 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.

4. 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: July
Time: Sept
Time: 1 – 31 August
Time: September
Time: September

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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%

12. 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

13. 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%).

14. 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)

15. 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

16. 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%

17. 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%

18. 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).