1. Multi-Sector Needs Assessment Joint Analysis Workshop Education Sector
Joint REACH-OCHA-Sectors analysis of MSNA sectoral preliminary findings
August 2018

2. Introduction 01

3. Northeast Nigeria humanitarian situation
Now in its ninth year, the crisis in north‐east Nigeria remains one of the most severe in the world. In the three worst‐affected states of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe, 1.8 million people are internally displaced and human rights violations continue to be reported daily. Over eighty per cent of internally displaced people (IDPs) are in Borno State, the epicentre of the crisis, and over sixty percent are living in host communities, making it harder to access them with assistance and putting additional pressure on the already stretched resources of these communities.
In preparation for the 2019 Humanitarian Needs Overview, data collection for a multi‐sector needs assessment was launched mid‐June in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe. The preliminary findings from this MSNA will be presented to you during this analysis workshop session.
CONTEXT

4. HOW CAN REACH HELP IN THIS CONTEXT?
MSNA covering the three most affected States
Through this assessment, REACH will be able to inform the humanitarian community on needs and vulnerabilities of affected populations in the three Northeastern States of Nigeria
Strong assessment capacity
HOW CAN REACH HELP IN THIS CONTEXT?
REACH is bringing to the Nigerian context a strong assessment background and capacity, implementing the MSNA, which is an exercise that has been conducted since several years in many other missions.
Coordination and communication effort
Throughout the whole research design process, REACH coordinated with all the sectors and the Inter-Sector Working Group to ensure the highest buy-in and input from all stakeholders. REACH also communicated regular data collection updates with OCHA counterparts
Main objective and outcome
Through the main objective of this assessment, informing on humanitarian nedds and vulnerabilities of all affected populations in three States, REACH Will be able to feed its data into key humanitarian milestones such as the 2019 HNO/HRP coordinated by OCHA.

5. OBJECTIVES Main objectives Research questions
Provide a comprehensive evidence base of multi-sectorial needs among conflict-affected populations in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states, including:
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) residing in formal camps, informal camps and within host community populations
Returnees
Non-Displaced Population
Provide robust evidence to support the Humanitarian Needs Overview and Humanitarian Response Plan for
Research questions
What is the situation for specific population groups (IDPs, returnees and non-displaced) regarding:
Levels of needs, access and vulnerabilities across Protection, Food Security, Health, Livelihoods, NFI, Shelter, WASH, and Education sectors?
Intentions regarding onward/return movement or remain in location of current displacement?

6. Defining Scope & Indicators
COORDINATION PROCESS
Defining Scope & Indicators
Early coordination with OCHA and the ISWG to define the scope and methodology
Joint process between REACH and each of the Sectors to define indicators for the MSNA
Coordination between OCHA, Sectors and REACH means that indicators covered will directly feed into 2019 HNO/HRP
Updates During Data Collection & Processing
Regular communication to OCHA of data collection advancement and achievement during the month of July
Quick process of data cleaning meant that OCHA and sectors had access to a clean dataset few days after data collection ended
Sharing with the sectors of preliminary sectoral findings ahead of the Joint Analysis Workshops
Joint Analysis Initiative
Sectoral Joint Analysis Workshops from mid- to end-August
Joint Inter-sectoral Analysis Group end-August and early September with joint meetings in each of the States covered

7. METHODOLOGY Methodology Overview
Mixed method – household surveys and key informants interviews
Household surveys sample was produced using a probability / stratified cluster sample
Key informants were targeted purposively for interviews
Household Surveys – Total initial target: 10,084
The sampling has been created to cover all accesible areas within Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States
An additional data collection still ongoing (only purposive, not representative, due to methodological challenges) will capture information from hard to reach areas in Borno State.
For more detailed sampling frames per State, see following slides.
Sampling design: Confidence level: 95%, Margin of error: 10%
Key Informant Interviews – total: 1,481
Main objective: Confirming population estimates in cluster / community to triangulate initial secondary data
Sampling: Purposive, indicative and not representative
Targets for interviews: Recently arrived IDPs, recently arrived IDP Community Leader, non-displaced person, returnees, current NGO worker, current Polio/ health care worker, current Civilian Joint Task Force member ...
8. Current Nigeria Armed Forces member
9. Government official

8. METHODOLOGY – Sampling frame - Borno

9. METHODOLOGY – Sampling frame – Adamawa/Yobe

10. GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE

11. TARGETS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CLUSTERS SAMPLED AND SURVEYED
TOTAL OF SURVEYS COMPLETED
PROJECTED NUMBER OF OUTPUTS
10,606 household surveys completed in 3 States, 63 LGAs (target = 10,084)
Non-response rate: 2.1%
1,481 Key informant interviews conducted
1,489 clusters surveyed
402 wards covered
Data collection from 25 June to 4 August
1 Factsheet per LGA covered (63)
1 Factsheet per sector and per State (27)
1 Final report
1 clean, anonymised dataset

12. Findings 02

13. CROSS SECTORAL FINDINGS
DEMOGRAPHICS
Household
Household Size (mean)
Male HoH
Female HoH
Female HoH %
Avg. Age of HoH
BORNO STATE
5.3
3530
1099
23.7%
43.5
Central Borno
5.5
856
283
24.8%
43.6
East Borno
5.0
723
288
28.5%
MMC and Jere
6.1
323
184
36.3%
44.2
Northern Borno
4.1
599
233
28.0%
40.5
Southern Borno
5.7
1029
111
9.7%
45.2
YOBE STATE
7.8
2532
320
11.2%
47.7
Central Yobe
7.9
695
101
11.9%
Northern Yobe
681
107
13.6%
49.7
Southern Yobe
7.7
1156
112
8.8%
46.4
ADAMAWA STATE
5.9
2639
258
8.9%
44.9
Northern Adamawa
6.5
958
132
12.1%
45.8
Southern Adamawa
1681
126
7.0%
44.3
TOTAL
8701
1677
16.2%
45.0

15. MAIN INDICATORS COVERED
Formal school attendance
Informal school attendance
Access to child friendly spaces
Access to school supplies
Education expenses
Education barriers
Food and nutrition
Displacement
Prefered assistance and cash for education

16. Indicator 1 – FORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
SECTORAL FINDINGS
Indicator 1 – FORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
FORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
What is the current FORMAL school attendance status of ${name_hh}?
Choices
Adamawa
Borno
Yobe
IDP
NONDISPLACED
RETURNEE
Attending preschool
7.0%
2.1%
7.6%
3.6%
5.5%
5.9%
0.7%
3.7%
13.9%
Attending primary school
50.8%
32.5%
45.2%
26.3%
35.5%
35.3%
27.9%
32.6%
37.8%
Attending junior secondary school
14.6%
9.6%
14.0%
6.6%
12.2%
8.9%
10.1%
11.4%
6.0%
Attending senior secondary school
3.5%
7.8%
1.7%
10.0%
5.4%
6.5%
8.0%
Did not attend any formal school this year
4.7%
1.4%
1.8%
2.9%
1.6%
1.5%
0.5%
0.3%
Dropped out this year
1.0%
0.4%
0.6%
0.1%
Never attended any formal school
16.5%
49.9%
22.6%
58.2%
40.9%
37.7%
53.7%
44.9%
33.9%
Primary school attendance for school aged childern varies between %, with lowest of IDPs in Borno, highest among IDPs in Adamawa.
High percentages ( %) of school aged who never attended any formal schooling. Worst rates among IDPs in Borno, lowest among IDPs in Adamawa.

17. Indicator 1 – FORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE - Female

18. Indicator 1 – FORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

19. Indicator 2 – INFORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
SECTORAL FINDINGS
Indicator 2 – INFORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
INFORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
What is the current INFORMAL school attendance status of ${name_hh}?
Choices
Adamawa
Borno
Yobe
IDP
NONDISPLACED
RETURNEE
Attending Accelerated Learning Programme
6.5%
4.9%
1.2%
0.5%
3.7%
0.1%
3.4%
0.7%
0.0%
Attending Islamia school
33.5%
26.5%
27.3%
64.0%
56.7%
59.6%
59.1%
66.6%
92.4%
Dropped out of non-formal education this year
0.4%
0.3%
0.6%
5.5%
Did not attend non-formal education this year
2.1%
1.4%
1.5%
2.3%
1.1%
1.3%
Never attended any non-formal education
57.2%
67.5%
70.6%
36.9%
37.5%
30.8%
6.3%
In Adamawa, among all population groups 1/3 attends Islamic schools, 2/3 never atteneded any non-formal education. In Borno the rates are the opposite.
Very high percentage of returnees in Yobe (92,4%) attend Islamic school.
Accelerated Learning Program mostly prevalent among IDPs and non-displaced in Adamawa, and non-displaced in Borno.

20. Indicator 2 – INFORMAL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

21. Indicator 3: ACCESS TO CHILD FRIENDLY SPACES

22. Indicator 4: Access to school supplies

23. Indicator 5: HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE
Expenses
Housing
Food
Energy
Health
Water
Education
Debt
Adamawa
Northern Adamawa
IDP
9.0%
39.0%
3.3%
17.3%
1.4%
9.1%
10.3%
NONDISPLACED
3.6%
50.5%
3.2%
17.9%
0.8%
6.8%
5.3%
RETURNEE
3.5%
36.8%
18.2%
1.3%
14.7%
8.6%
Southern Adamawa
14.2%
35.9%
6.3%
12.5%
5.2%
3.0%
46.5%
3.1%
17.4%
6.4%
7.2%
0.6%
45.3%
4.6%
17.1%
1.5%
7.6%
8.7%
Borno
Central Borno
8.1%
58.1%
5.9%
2.1%
11.8%
7.8%
56.1%
5.5%
6.5%
2.7%
11.0%
8.4%
58.8%
5.6%
6.6%
3.8%
5.0%
6.9%
East Borno
14.1%
43.4%
10.0%
4.0%
11.6%
6.2%
42.8%
24.9%
1.1%
9.2%
47.5%
6.1%
2.5%
9.3%
MMC and Jere
55.6%
4.2%
10.2%
NONDISPLCED
9.8%
43.7%
6.7%
8.8%
9.6%
7.0%
4.3%
11.3%
10.5%
8.3%
Northern Borno
3.4%
67.9%
6.0%
2.2%
0.0%
71.9%
4.4%
74.3%
0.3%
1.7%
Southern Borno
51.5%
9.7%
9.4%
44.0%
5.7%
17.2%
1.8%
7.9%
46.2%
5.1%
1.9%
10.8%
Yobe
Central Yobe
4.5%
56.8%
10.9%
57.7%
2.8%
4.9%
9.5%
55.2%
4.1%
3.7%
12.4%
Northern Yobe
54.7%
9.9%
61.6%
10.4%
1.6%
0.9%
64.5%
Southern Yobe
5.4%
20.6%
52.3%
51.8%
3.9%
10.7%
13.6%

24. Indicator 5: Education expenses

25. Indicator 6: Education barriers
What barriers does your household face in sending children to school, either formal or informal?

26. Indicator 7: Food and nutrition

27. Indicator 8: Displacement

28. Indicator 9 – Preference for education assistance

29. Education Index Existing vulnerabilities and risks
Vulnerability indicators
Questionnaire question - Example questions only, to be identified depending on local context
Response if Vulnerable
Example: Household is Vulnerable caseload (>=5 out of 10):
Scale Contribution
Household has children that have not currently attending any formal or informal school
What is the current FORMAL school attendance status of the child?
What is the current INFORMAL school attendance status of the child?
“Not currently attending” or “Dropped Out”
“Not currently attending 3
Household has children that have never attended any formal school
“Never attended any formal school”
“Never attended”
Household reports any barrier in accessing schools
What barriers does your household face in sending children to school, either formal or informal?
Reports at least 1 barrier
“1 barrier 2
Household reports not having access to school supplies
Does your household have access to any of the following items?
Does not mention “school bags” “school notebooks” or “school text books”
“no school supplies”

30. EDUCATION SECTOR INDEX
Borno
LGA
Education Index
konduga
76.8%
magumeri
73.8%
nganzai
70.5%
gubio
66.5%
bama
66.0%
ngala
65.7%
kwayakusar
64.8%
kaga
63.8%
guzamala
63.6%
bayo
61.2%
mafa
61.1%
gwoza
59.6%
maiduguri
59.1%
askirauba
58.9%
jere
56.5%
chibok
56.4%
damboa
53.9%
dikwa
53.0%
biu
50.0%
kukawa
49.5%
kalabalge
49.2%
monguno
47.2%
mobbar
36.7%
Adamawa
LGA
Education Index
hong
81.6%
maiha
77.7%
shelleng
76.3%
lamurde
74.8%
mubinorth
73.9%
fufore
73.3%
mayobelwa
73.0%
jada
72.9%
toungo
72.3%
demsa
70.8%
song
70.6%
ganye
70.2%
numan
67.2%
yolasouth
66.5%
gombi
65.5%
michika
64.4%
madagali
63.2%
guyuk
61.1%
girei
60.3%
mubisouth
50.1%
yolanorth
46.7%
Yobe
LGA
Education Index
bursari
81.3%
nangere
76.6%
karasuwa
76.2%
yusufari
75.4%
fune
75.3%
jakusko
74.8%
yunusari
72.6%
shani
71.9%
machina
68.8%
tarmua
67.5%
nguru
66.7%
fika
62.3%
hawul
60.6%
bade
59.7%
geidam
58.0%
damaturu
57.6%
gujba
55.2%
potiskum
53.2%
gulani
50.9%

31. Food Security Index Existing vulnerabilities and risks
Vulnerability indicators
Questionnaire question - Example questions only, to be identified depending on local context
Response if Vulnerable
Example: Household is Vulnerable caseload (>=5 out of 10):
Scale Contribution
Food Consumption Score is borderline or poor
Food Consumption Score calculation
“Poor” or “Borderline”
Poor 2
reduced Coping Strategies Index
Reduced Coping Strategies Index (for food coping)
>9 15
Household reports no market access in last two weeks
Have you had physical access to a market in the last two weeks?
“No” No
Not enough fuel to meet their needs
Yesterday, did you have enough fuel to meet your cooking fuel needs?
Any unsustainable food sources utilized in the last month
What sources of food has your household used in the last month?
(aid, foraged wild foods, consumed seed stocks)
Only food assistance

32. CROSS-SECTORAL ANALYSIS - % HOUSEHOLDS WITH BOTH Education / Protection / Food Security
Borno
LGA
Education Index
Edu-FoodSec
konduga
76.8%
22.3%
magumeri
73.8%
34.6%
nganzai
70.5%
29.6%
gubio
66.5%
20.8%
bama
66.0%
41.4%
ngala
65.7%
36.6%
kwayakusar
64.8%
8.0%
kaga
63.8%
18.8%
guzamala
63.6%
32.8%
bayo
61.2%
5.3%
mafa
61.1%
21.5%
gwoza
59.6%
18.6%
maiduguri
59.1%
17.4%
askirauba
58.9%
19.7%
jere
56.5%
14.6%
chibok
56.4%
16.9%
damboa
53.9%
20.7%
dikwa
53.0%
29.8%
biu
50.0%
9.2%
kukawa
49.5%
13.2%
kalabalge
49.2%
monguno
47.2%
38.1%
mobbar
36.7%
12.0%
Adamawa
LGA
Education Index
Edu-FoodSec
hong
81.6%
27.4%
maiha
77.7%
21.0%
shelleng
76.3%
6.9%
lamurde
74.8%
33.7%
mubinorth
73.9%
46.9%
fufore
73.3%
3.8%
mayobelwa
73.0%
8.4%
jada
72.9%
19.2%
toungo
72.3%
19.7%
demsa
70.8%
20.7%
song
70.6%
8.5%
ganye
70.2%
14.2%
numan
67.2%
21.2%
yolasouth
66.5%
6.5%
gombi
65.5%
23.9%
michika
64.4%
23.1%
madagali
63.2%
20.9%
guyuk
61.1%
8.7%
girei
60.3%
3.3%
mubisouth
50.1%
10.0%
yolanorth
46.7%
Yobe
LGA
Education Index
Edu-FoodSec
bursari
81.3%
12.5%
nangere
76.6%
16.8%
karasuwa
76.2%
15.3%
yusufari
75.4%
14.9%
fune
75.3%
15.6%
jakusko
74.8%
23.3%
yunusari
72.6%
23.5%
shani
71.9%
4.2%
machina
68.8%
17.1%
tarmua
67.5%
9.6%
nguru
66.7%
14.6%
fika
62.3%
9.1%
hawul
60.6%
4.6%
bade
59.7%
16.0%
geidam
58.0%
10.0%
damaturu
57.6%
gujba
55.2%
13.9%
potiskum
53.2%
11.0%
gulani
50.9%
19.1%

33. Discussion 03

34. SECTORAL FINDINGS – Group discussions
What are the key trends across geographical areas and population groups?
What information is most striking and relevant to Education partners?
Does this information confirm or contradict other data sources, contextual information or action plans?
What are the key information gaps, or questions that the data raises?
What are key recommendations going forward?
Your own questions!