DTM Round XVIII Report-CANADA LOGO REMOVED€¦ · DTM Round XVIII Report - August 2017 Round XVIII of DTM assessments were conducted from 25 July to 15 August 2017 in Adamawa, Bauchi,

Round XVIII Report - August 2017

© IOM 2017 (Photo: Tope Omoyemi)

DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Nigeria

DTMNigeria

IOM OIM

Table of Contents

1

DT MDT M

Execu�ve Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Overview: DTM Round XVIII Assess

Key Highlights ............................................................................................................................................

ments .................... ......... ...................................................................... 2

4

1. BASELINE ASSESSEMENT OF DISPLACEMENT ............................................................................................ 5

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTHEAST NIGERIA ........................................................................ 5

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ............................................................. ............................................................ 7

1C: REASON FOR DISPLACEMENT ........................................................................................................... 7

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT .................................................................................................................... 71E: MOBILITY ............................................................ .... ................................................................................................ ................................ 81F: LOCATION AND ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS ................................................................ ................................ 8 1G: DWELLING TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS .................................................................................. 9

1H: UNMET NEEDS OF IDPs ....................................................................................................................... 9

2. RETURNEES................................................................................................................................................ 10

2A: SHELTER CONDITION OF RETURNEES ................................................................. .............................. 10

3 SITE ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 11

3A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs .................................................................................................... 11

3B: SECTOR ANALYSIS ......................................................... .................................................................... 12

SHELTER ............................................................................................................................................... 12

NON-FOOD ITEMS ........................................................................................................................ 13

WASH ......................................... ......................................................................................................... 14

FOOD AND NUTRITION ....................................................................................................................... 18

HEALTH ............................................................................................................................................... . 19

EDUCATION ......................................................................................................................................... 20

COMMUNICATION .............................................................................................................................. 21

LIVELIHOOD ............................................................................................ ............................................. 22

PROTECTION........................................................................................................................................ 23

4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 25

DTM Round XVIII Report - August 2017

Round XVIII of DTM assessments were conducted from 25 July to 15 August 2017 in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe states, covering 776 wards (an increase from 772 in June round and 767 in May round, showing a steady increase in coverage owing to the improved security situa�on) in 109 LGAs. In Borno, the epicentre of the conflict, DTM con�nued to have par�al access to 25 LGAs out of the 27 LGAs in the north-eastern state, i.e., an increase of one LGA -- Guzamala -- since last round. For the first �me since the escala�on of the conflict, DTM was able to assess two wards in Guzamala LGA. The LGA has been inaccessible due to security situa�on so far. DTM also assessed one addi�onal ward in Kukawa LGA. Only two other LGAs, namely Abadam and Marte, now remain completely inaccessible to the humanitarian community in Borno.

This report of the Round XVIII Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessment by the Interna�onal Organiza�on for Migra�on (IOM) aims to improve understanding of the scope of displacements, returnees and the needs of affected popu-la�ons in conflict-affected states of northeast Nigeria. The report covers the period of 25 July to 15 August 2017 and includes the six most-affected States of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe.

Round XVIII iden�fied 1,757,288 individuals as displaced in the affected states, represen�ng a decrease of 68,033 persons compared to the popula�on of 1,825,321 that was iden�fied in Round XVII (June 2017). This is in-line with the earlier decrease of 59,010 persons which was recorded in Round XVI (May 2017). The number was arrived at through data collected by different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administra�ve levels, i.e., at Local Government Areas (LGAs), wards and displacement sites. For insights into demographic profile of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), reasons for displacement, changes in the percentages of displaced persons over �me, origin, dwelling types, mobility and unful-filled needs, 66,080 displaced people in this round of assessment. This sample represents four per cent of the iden�fied IDP popula�on.

To be�er understand the needs of the affected popula�on, this report includes site assessments that were carried out in 2,174 sites. The sites included 241 camps and camp-like se�ngs and 1,933 loca�ons where IDPs were residing with host communi�es. This report also presents an analysis of sector-wise needs and response including shelter and non-food Items, water sanita�on and hygiene, food and nutri�on, health, educa�on, livelihood, protec�on and communica�on. Lastly, this report includes assessments of increasing number of returnees and their shelter condi�ons.

Executive Summary

The escala�on of Boko Haram violence in 2014 resulted in mass displacement around north-eastern Nigeria. To be�er understand the scope of displacement and assess the needs of affected popula�ons, IOM began implemen�ng its DTM programme in September 2014 in collabora�on with the Na�onal Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and the State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs).

The main objec�ve of ini�a�ng DTM programme in north-eastern Nigeria was to support the Nigerian government and humanitarian partners by establishing a comprehensive system to collect, analyse and disseminate data on IDPs in order to provide assistance to the popula�on affected by the insurgency. In each round of assessment, staff from IOM, NEMA, SEMAs and the Nigerian Red Cross Society collate data in the field, including baseline informa�on at LGA and ward-levels, by carrying out detailed assessments in displacement sites, such as camps and collec�ve centers, and in host communi�es where IDPs were living during the repor�ng period. IOM’s DTM programme is funded by the United States Agency for Interna�onal Development (USAID), the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protec�on Office (ECHO), the Swedish Interna�onal Development Coopera�on Agency (SIDA) and the Government of Germany. NEMA also provides financial support.

Background

2

DT M

Overview: DTM Round XVIII Assessments


Figure 1: DTM round and number of states covered

Map 1 : DTM accessibility map

StateRound I

Round II

Round III

Round IV

Round V

Round VI

Round VII

Round VIII

Round IX

Round X

Round XI

Round XII

Round XIII

Round XIV

Round XV

Round XVI

Round XVII

Round XVIII

Abuja - - - - - - - -AdamawaBauchiBenue - - - - - - - - - -Borno -GombeKaduna - - - - - - - - -Kano - - - - - - - - - -Nasarawa - - - - - - - -Plateau - - - - - - - - -TarabaYobeZamfara - - - - - - - - - -Total 5 6 6 6 8 10 13 13 13 13 13 6 6 6 6 6

-

-

----

-6 6

-

-

----

-

-

-

----

-

3

Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Biu

Gashaka

Ningi

Bama

Gassol

SongAlkaleri

Toungo

Fufore

Kurmi

Konduga

Damboa

Kukawa

Jada

Mafa

Tarmua

Gujba

DukkuGanjuwa

Bauchi

Bursari

Kirfi

Wukari

Kaga

Fika

Marte

Yusufari

Geidam

Hong

Sardauna

Jakusko

Akko

Magumeri

Abadam

Donga

Karim-Lamido

Yunusari

Lau

Gubio

GwozaDarazo

Mobbar

Ganye

Gulani

Hawul

Gombi

Dikwa

Shira

Ngala

Kwami

Girei

Zing

Shani

Chibok

Zaki

Takum

Gamawa

Ussa

Nganzai

Guzamala

Damaturu

Yorro

Maiha

Askira/Uba

Demsa

Nafada

Ardo-Kola

Jere

Monguno

Balanga

Bayo

Mayo-Belwa

Misau

Funakaye

Tafawa-Balewa

Machina

Itas/Gadau

Dass

Katagum

ShellengBilliri

Yamaltu/Deba

Karasuwa

Damban

Nguru

Giade

Kaltungo

Nangere

LamurdeBogoro

Warji

Numan

Guyuk

Michika

Bade

Madagali

Yola South

Shomgom

Mubi North

Bade

Potiskum

Kwaya Kusar

Jamaare

Mubi South

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Yola North

Borno

Yobe

Adamawa

Taraba

Bauchi

Plateau

Jigawa

Benue

Kano

Nasarawa

Gombe

Kaduna

Cross River

Katsina

Kaduna

±

0 50 10025 Km

Cameroon

NigerLake Chad

Chad

AccesibilityFully accessiblePartial accessibilityInaccessible

±

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

Returnee individuals1,268,140

Returnee households200,786

322,931Displaced households

1,757,288Displaced individuals

• Survey of unmet needs showed that food remains the

predominant need in majority (72%) of IDP sites

June to August 2017

• Total number of iden�fied IDPs decreased by

68,033 (4%) individuals from last DTM round 4%• The number of iden�fied people who have returned to their places of usual residence increased by

10,229 (1%) individuals from last DTM round

Predominant Need

Returnees

Round XVIII Figures

BORNO (78%), ADAMAWA (8%) and YOBE (6%)

92% of the total IDP population

• 96% of displacements were due to the insurgency

Main cause of displacement

IDPs and Returnees Caseload Profiling

• Largest IDP popula�ons are located in

General Overview

56%of the IDP popula�on

are children (0 - 18 Years)

54%of the IDP popula�on

are female

DTM Round XVIIIReport

August 2017

Figure 2: DTM Nigeria IDPs and Returnees Caseload

4

DT M

IDPs

Total IDPs & Returnees

Returnees1,268,140

1,757,288 511,591

1,373,564

110,787

Refugee Returnees

Borno

Adamawa

Yobe

Gombe

TarabaBauchi

3,025,428 1,885,155

806,164

139,362

666,802

89,747

106,736

196,48355,611

27,339

54,676

1 BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT

As of 15 August 2017, the es�mated number of IDPs in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe was 1,757,288 (322,931 households), represen�ng a decrease of 68,033 persons or four per cent compared to the popula�on of 1,825,321 iden�fied in Round XVII (June 2017), as shown in figure 1 below. This decrease is in line with the decreasing trend noted over the last two rounds. The chief drivers of mobility were people returning to their places of origin and or searching for be�er livelihood opportuni�es. Other reasons for the changes in numbers included the reloca�on of Nigerians from neighbouring Cameroon and more areas becoming newly accessible on account of improved security.

Table 1 shows the change in IDP figures by state from Round XVII in June to Round XVIII in August 2017. All states except Taraba saw a decrease in the number of IDPs hosted. Borno: Despite the reduc�on in Borno, the state con�nues to host the highest number of IDPs in Nigeria. Within Borno, the biggest reduc�on was recorded in Maiduguri M.C. which saw an 11 per cent decrease in the number of IDPs against the previous round. 36,975 IDPs le� Maiduguri M.C. for Damboa, Dikwa, Gwoza, Kala Balge, Kukawa, Mafa, Mobbar, Monguno and Ngala. The second highest reduc�on in IDP numbers (25,133) was noted in Dikwa LGA. Gwoza LGA saw the highest increase in the number of IDPs (4,110) due to returns from Cameroon and the movement of people in Pulka/Bokko wards of Gwoza LGA.

Adamawa: The State of Adamawa hosts the second highest number of IDPs with 139,362 displaced persons, a minor reduc�on since the number of 140,875 reported in the last round. Within Adamawa, the LGA with the highest number of displaced persons was Michika with 26,179 persons. Followed by Madagali (18,515) and Girei (15,888).

Yobe: Yobe had the third highest concentra�on of IDPs at 106,736. The state capital of Damaturu hosts the highest number of IDPs at 19,524, a slight decrease from June round on account of people returning to their places of origin. The second highest concentra�on of displaced persons in Yobe was in Gujba (18,832) followed by Po�skum (15,006).

Taraba: The only state that witnessed an increase in number of IDPs was Taraba, where an es�mated 54,676 displaced people were iden�fied compared to 52,961 in the last round. The increase was a�ributed to communal clashes that affected Bali, Sardauna and Takum LGAs. The LGA with the highest number of IDPs in the state was Wukari.

Figure 3: IDP population per round of DTM assessment

5

DT M1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH-EASTERN NIGERIA

Table 1: Change in IDP figures by state

StateRound XVII Total (June 2017) Change

ADAMAWA -1,513BAUCHI -748BORNO -66,376GOMBE -646TARABA +1,715YOBE -465Total

140,87556,359

1,439,94027,98552,961

107,2011,825,321

Round XVIII Total (August 2017)

139,36255,611

1,373,56427,33954,676

106,7361,757,288 -68,033


-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Dec-

14

Feb-

15

Apr-

15

Jun-

15

Aug-

15

Oct

-15

Dec-

15

Feb-

16

Apr-

16

Jun-

16

Aug-

16

Oct

-16

Dec-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug-

17

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII

Map 2: LGA level displacement severity map

6


Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Gashaka

Ningi

Biu

Song

Gassol

Alkaleri

Kaga

Fufore

Mafa

Teungo

Fika

Kurmi

Bama

Jada

Ganjuwa Dukku

Wukari

Geidam

Yusufari

Konduga

GwozaDamboa

Tarmua

Akko

Jakusko

Borsari

Sardauna

Gubio

Gujba

Abadam

Hong

Donga

Bauchi

Kirfi

Karim Lamido

Lau

Magumeri

Yunusari

Darazo

Kukawa

Ngala

Gulani

Nganzai

Guzamala

Hawul

Ganye

Gombi

Kwami

Shani

Dikwa

Zing

Girei

Chibok

Zaki

Monguno

Takum

Mobbar

Ussa

Marte

GamawaKala-Balge

Demsa

Askira-Uba

Bayo

Shira

YorroArdo-Kola

Balanga Maiha

Damaturu

Barde

Nafada

Misau

ShellengTafawa-Balewa

Itas/Gadau

Machina

KatagumNangere

Funakaye

Dass

Mayo-Belwa

Jere

Karasuwa

Billiri

Giade

Damban

Michika

Yamaltu/ Deba

Numan

Bogoro Larmurde

Guyuk

Nguru

Warji

Madagali

Kaltungo

Shomgom

Mubi North

Yola South

Kwaya Kusar

Mubi South

PotiskumJama'Are

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Yola North

Konduga

BornoYobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Plateau

Benue

Kano

Gombe

Nasarawa

Cameroon

NigerLake Chad

±

Jigawa

Inaccessible area

IDPs_Severity

Less than 1,000

1,001 - 5,000

5,001 - 10,000

10,001 - 50,000

More than 50,0000 70 14035 Km

Figure 4: IDP population by major age groups and gender

Figure 6: cause of displacement

Figure 7: Year of arrival of IDPs

Figure 5: % of IDP population by gender

7

DT M

A detailed and representa�ve sample of age and gender breakdown was obtained by interviewing a sample represen�ng four per cent of the iden�fied IDP popula�on. The results are depicted in figure 4 and 5. The average household size consisted of five persons.

The percentages and reasons for displacement remained more or less unchanged over �me. Insurgency was the leading cause of displacement in all states except Taraba where community clashes accounted for 75 per cent of displacements. All the displacements in Borno, Gombe and Yobe were due to the ongoing conflict.

Taraba and Borno, in that order, con�nue to have high number of displacements in 2017 as well. In Borno, the percentage of peopled displaced so far in 2017 went up to 15 per cent from 12 per cent (as per Round XVII, June).

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT


4.71%

10.72%

14.85%

19.93%

3.68%

3.83%

8.46%

12.90%

17.14%

3.79%

less than 1

1-5

6-17

18-59

60+

% popula�on by genderAg

e ca

tego

ryMale Female

Female, 54%

Male, 46%

75%

38%

3%

100%

22%

100%

100%

62%

97%

2%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

Community clashes Insurgency Natural disasters

27%

5%

4%

31%

38%

27%

43%

45%

46%

38%

29%

28%

29%

19%

17%

23%

5%

31%

21%

14%

31%

8%

1%

14%

2%

18%

6%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

1)Before 2014

2)2014

3)2015

4)2016

5)2017

DT M

7


100%54%

46%

7%

88%

93%

12%88%

12%

Abadam

Marte

Yobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Borno

Plateau

Jigawa

Benue

Kano

Nassarawa

Cross River

Katsina

Lake Chad

Cameroon

Niger

±

100%

IDPs in Camps &

IDPs with Host Communities

Camp-like settings

Inaccessible areas

IDPsLess than 30,00030,001 - 60,00060,001 - 120,000More than120,000 0 80 16040 Km

Gombe

Map 3: Number of IDPs by state

Figure 8: Current location and place of origin of IDPs

Figure 9: % of total IDP population by state of origin

8

DT M

Borno con�nued to be the state of origin for highest propor�on of displaced people, followed by Adamawa and Yobe. The state of displacement for majority of the displaced people is within Borno itself.


Displacement sites: Many IDPs had been displaced more than once. In 94 (39%) displacement sites, IDPs were displaced before. Thirty-four per cent had been displaced twice, four per cent three �mes and one per cent had been displaced four �mes.

Almost all (98 per cent) IDPs intended to return to place of origin. IDPs intended to stay where they were in only one per cent of sites.

Displacement in host communi�es: Of 1,933 sites in host communi�es, IDPs had been displaced previously at 522 (26%) sites. IDPs reported being displaced twice (24%), or three �mes (2%) and remaining had not been displaced previously. Ninety-three per cent said they intended to return to their place of origin, six per cent said they want to stay where they were and remaining did not know.

1E: MOBILITY

1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

State of originState of displacement

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBEADAMAWA

BAUCHIBORNOJIGAWAKADUNA

NASARAWAPLATEAUTARABA

YOBE

62.69%

36.74%

0.56%

37.62%

26.63%

16.43%

3.65%

0.74%

99.52%

0.03%

0.46%

62.06%

30.45%

7.49%

15.30%

75.21%

9.48%

39.33%

60.67%

5.5%

0.3%

85.8%

0.8%

2.5% 5.1%1

Tota

l IDP

Pop

ula�

n(1

,757

,288

)

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO PLATEAU TARABA YOBE

Figure 10: IDP settlement type Figure 11: IDP settlement type by state

9

DT MDTM Round XVIII Report - August 2017

Figure 13: Main needs of IDPs

Figure 12: Trend of main IDP needs

While majority of IDPs con�nue to reside with host communi�es, Borno has almost as many IDPs living with host communi�es as in camps (figure 11 and 12).

Food con�nues to be the main unmet need in IDP se�lements (figure 14) and the need for food has been steadily increasing (figure 13).

1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

1H: UNMET NEEDS OF IDPs

Host Community

63%

Camp37%

93%

100%

100%

88%

88%

54%

7%

12%

12%

46%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

BORNO

Host Community Camp

1%

1%

1%

1%

4%

8%

12%

72%

Security

Sanita�on and Hygiene

Water for washing and cooking

Drinking water

Medical services

Shelter

NFI

Food

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

47%

61%

66%

68%

69%

70%

68%

72%

10%

7%

7%

6%

5%

6%

5%

4%

20%

17%

15%

15%

16%

13%

15%

12%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

11%

7%

7%

6%

6%

6%

7%

8%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Rnd 11-Aug 2016

Rnd 12-Oct 2016

Rnd 13-Dec 2016

Rnd 14-Jan 2017

Rnd 15-Mar 2017

Rnd 16-May 2017

Rnd 17-Jun 2017

Rnd 18-Aug 2017

Potable water Food Medical services NFI Sanita�on and Hygiene Security Shelter Water domes�c use

10


DT MThe trend of increasing numbers of returnees con�nued in DTM Round XVIII assessment. A nominal increase of one per cent was recorded in the number of returnees (from 1,257,911 to 1,268,140) during Round XVII in June 2017. The increase was in-line with the increasing trend since DTM started recording data on returnees in October 2015. Adamawa once again recorded the highest number of returnees (666,802), followed by Borno at 511,591 and finally Yobe at 89,747. Within Adamawa, the LGA with the highest number of returnees was Hong (166,476), followed by Michika (124,280) and Mubi South (110,550), in line with the results of the last round of assessments. In Borno, the LGA with the highest number of returnees was Askira/Uba at 164,768, followed by Konduga (45,056) and Ngala (37,442). In Yobe, the LGA with highest number of returnees was Gujba (35,838), followed by Geidam (29,572) and Gulani (17,221).

In comparison with the last round of assessment, the LGA with the highest increase in absolute number of returnees was Hawul and the LGA with the highest number of decrease was Damboa, both in Borno.

2. RETURNEES

Figure 14: Trend of population return

Map 4: Number of returnees by state

Round XVIII Total (August 2017) Change

Adamawa 666,802 725Borno 511,598 7,582Yobe 89,747 1,929Total 1,268,140

Round XVII Total (June 2017)

666,077504,016

87,8181,257,911 10,229

State

Table 2: Number of returnees by state (Round XVII vs Round XVIII)

262,

324

320,

365

332,

333

389,

224

599,

164

663,

485

910,

955

1,02

6,48

1

1,09

9,50

9

1,15

1,42

7

1,23

4,89

4

1,25

7,91

1

1,26

8,14

0

Oct

-15

Dec-

15

Feb-

16

Apr-

16

Jun-

16

Aug-

16

Oct

-16

Dec-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug-

17VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII

12%

88%5%

664,633

Borno

Yobe

Taraba

Bauchi Adamawa

Marte

Abadam

Gombe

Jigawa

90%

10%

89,747 509,947

666,802

90%

95%

Inaccessible area

Returnees Total Per State

89,747

509,947

666,802

Cameroon

Niger

Lake Chad

Chad

Returned IDPs

Returned regugees

4.24% fromCameroon

2.75% fromNiger 0.98% from

Chad

±

Shelter condi�ons of 200,786 returnees, which is 16 per cent of the total iden�fied popula�on of returnees, were assessed. Seventy six per cent shelters were not damaged, twenty per cent were par�ally burned and four per cent were makeshi� shelters. Borno had the highest propor�on of returnees residing in makeshi� shelters, followed by Adamawa and Yobe.

2A: SHELTER CONDITION OF RETURNEES

Figure 15: Return shelter condition Figure 16: # of returnees by shelter condition and state

76%

20%

4%

No Damage

Par�allyBurned

Makeshi�Shelter 88,410

55,831

9,142

13,113

23,355

4,050

1,580

4,992

313

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

No Damage

Par�ally Burned

Makeshi� Shelter

DTM Round XVIII site assessments were conducted in 2,175 sites, involving a popula�on of 1,757,288 people (322,931 households). The sites included 242 camps and camp-like se�ngs and 1,933 loca�ons where IDPs were residing with host communi�es. Assessments in camps and camp-like se�ngs iden�fied 658,841 displaced people (down by one per cent since the last assessment), while the assessment in sites where IDPs resided with host communi�es iden�fied 1,098,447 IDPs (down five per cent since the June assessment). Table 3 below shows the number and percentage of camp/camp-like sites and number of IDPs residing in these sites, by states.

Table 3: % and number of IDPs by states

11


3 SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS

3A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs

Displacement sites: Seventy per cent of displacement sites were classified as collec�ve se�lements or centers. Twenty-nine per cent were camps and one per cent were classified as transi�onal centers. Almost all assessed sites (96 per cent) were classified as spontaneous, only three per cent were planned and one per cent of sites were earmarked as reloca�on sites. Of the 242 sites, 50 per cent were on public or government owned land and almost an equal number were on private owned land. Of the 1,933 sites where IDPs were residing with host community, 92 per cent were privately owned, six per cent were public or government owned and two per cent were ancestral.

Figure 17: Availability of services at displacement sites in camps/camp-like settings Figure 18: Availability of site management committee on site

173

161

123

220

204

235

218

69

81

119

22

38

7

24

WASH

Health

Educa�on

Protec�on

Food

Livelihood

Shelter

Yes No

96

146

No

Yes

State Camp/camp-like se�ngs Sites in host communi�es # sites % sites # IDPs # sites % sites # IDPs

Adamawa 21 9% 9,750 434 22.5% 129,612 Bauchi 0 0 0 324 16.8% 55,611 Borno 194 80% 629,502 389 20% 744,062 Gombe 0 0 0 159 8.2% 27,339 Taraba 14 5.5% 6,383 218 11.3% 48,293 Yobe 13 5.5% 13,206 409 21.2% 93,530 Total 242 100% 658,841 1,933 100% 1,098,447

Figure 19: Most common forms of shelter in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 20: Most common forms of shelter in camps/camp-like settings by state

Figure 21: Most common forms of shelter in host community

12


3B: SECTOR ANALYSIS

SHELTER

Camps/camp-like settings

The assessment in camps and camp-like se�ngs showed that self-made shelters are the most common forms of shelter in 33 per cent of sites, followed by emergency shelters and school building, with 28 per cent and 11 per cent respec�vely. Other forms of shelter include host-family houses, government buildings, individual houses, community centers and Bunk houses.

In Borno, 36 per cent of IDPs were residing in self-made tents (same as last round), 32 per cent in emergency shelters, 12 per cent in school buildings, seven per cent in host family house, six per cent in government buildings and five per cent in individual houses.

Host Communities

In 89.5 per cent of sites where IDPs were living with host communi�es, residing in a host family house was the most common shelter arrangement for IDPs. Thirty-one per cent of IDP households residing with host communi�es had no access to electricity, 27 per cent of sites had less than 25 per cent of IDP households with access to electricity, 22 per cent of sites had less than 50 per cent of displaced families with access to electricity.

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

Community center

Bunk houses

Individual house

Government building

Emergency shelter

School

Self-made/makeshi� shelter

Host family house

10%

36%

38%

38%

24%

5%

5%5%

5%

12%

7%

6%

19%19%

14%

32%

15%

8%

8%

2%

31%

8%

54%

1%

4%

5%

8%

10%

11%

28%

33%

Bunk houses

Community center

Individual house

Government building

Host family house

School

Emergency shelter


0.1%

0.3%

1.5%

8.6%

89.5%

Emergency shelter

Government building


Individual house

Host family house

Table 4: Most common forms of shelter in host communities by state

Figure 22: % of camps/camp-like settings by most requested top priority NFI

Figure 23: % of host community sites by most requested top priority NFI

Figure 24: Most requested top priority NFI by state

13

DT M

Non-Food Items (NFIs)


Camps/camp-like settingsOut of 242 sites assessed, IDPs at 101 camps/camp-like se�ngs requested blankets and mats. At a state level, blankets/mats were the most needed non-food items (NFIs) by 67 per cent of displaced households in Adamawa, followed by 43 per cent in Taraba, 39 per cent in Borno and 38 per cent in Yobe. Thirty-one per cent of IDPs in Borno said their most needed NFI was mosquito nets.

Among 1,933 sites hos�ng IDPs in host communi�es, blankets/mats, kitchen sets and mosquito nets figured as the most common requested NFIs.

In Borno, 88 per cent of IDPs were residing with host family, while eight per cent respec�vely resided in individual house and s e l f - m a d e / m a k e s h i � shelters. In Adamawa, 87 per cent resided with host families, 12 per cent resided in individual houses and one per cent resided in government building. In Yobe nearly all displaced persons (94 per cent) were residing with host families. Five per cent resided in individual houses and only one per cent were living in self-made or makeshi� shelters. In Gombe, all the IDPs were residing with host families. In Bauchi 95 per cent of the IDPs were residing with host families and five per cent resided in individual houses. In Taraba the majority of the IDPs, 74 per cent were living with host families and 25 per cent lived in individual houses.

Shelter material was needed in 88 per cent of all IDPs but it was needed most in Yobe (93 per cent), followed by Borno (90 per cent), Adamawa (81 per cent) and Taraba (64 per cent). Of all shelter materials, tarpaulins were most needed by 58 per cent of all displaced persons and Borno had highest number of IDPs seeking tarpaulins (66 per cent). The second most needed item was �mber/wood (40 per cent).

NFI

Host Communities

Most Common type of Shelter

Community center

Bunk houses

Emergency shelter

Government building


Individual house

Host family house

ADAMAWA 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 12% 87%BAUCHI 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 95%BORNO 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 88%GOMBE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%TARABA 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 74%YOBE 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% 94%

1%

1%

3%

5%

20%

29%

41%

Soap

Plas�c shee�ng

Hygiene kits

Bucket/Jerry Can

Kitchen sets

Mosquito nets

Blankets/Mats

1%

1%

3%

3%

24%

32%

36%

Plas�c shee�ng

Soap

Bucket/Jerry Can

Hygiene kits

Kitchen sets

Mosquito nets

Blankets/Mats

32%

38%

30%

38%

55%

33%

2% 1%

6% 4%

1%

3%1% 2% 3%

8%

1% 2%

28%

23%

33%

25%

13%

22%

36%

33%

28%

23% 26

%

40%

1% 1% 0% 1%

3%

0%0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0%

A D A M A W A B O R N O T A R A B A Y O B E G O M B E B A U C H I

Blankets/Mats Bucket/Jerry Can Hygiene kits Kitchen sets

Mosquito nets Plas�c shee�ng Soap

14

DT M

Camps/camp-like settingsMost common source of water in displacement sites con�nued to be hand pumps with most sites receiving an average of 10 to 15 liters of water per person per day.

Though majority of sites reported improvement in water points, most residents were not differen�a�ng between drinking and non-drinking water.


Figure 25: Most common source of water among people living in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 27:Number of sites reporting improvement to water points in camps and camp-like settings

Figure 28: Number of camp/camp-like settingswith potable water

Figure 26: Average amount of water available per person per day in camps/camp-like settings

WASH

Water sources

1

5

6

7

57

2

1

93

14

5

5

39

7

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

<5 ltr

>15 ltr

10 - 15 ltr

5 - 10 ltr

Figure 29: Number of camps/camp-like settings where IDPs differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

Protected wellSpring

Water truck

Unprotected well

Piped water supply

Lake/dam

Hand pumps

13

103

1

60

1109

218

3 1

11

3

25

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

Potable

Not potable

1

12

10

4

28

166

2

19

3 8

98

1210 6

96

9

No improvement

Improved

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

10

28

Yes

No

103

113

188

6

17

4

Host Communities Hand pumps remained the main source of drinking water with current percentage at 56% in host community displacement loca�ons, this is followed by piped water supply at 20%. Unprotected well is the main non-drinking water source in 32% of the loca�ons while hand pumps with 27% is the second main source of non-drinking water.

Figure 30: Most common source of water among people living in host communities

Figure 32: % of host community settings reporting improvement to water points

Figure 31: Average amount of water available per person per day in host communities


15

Figure 34: % of host community settings where residents differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water

2%

1%

2%

19%

27%

31%

23%

43%

60%

65%

41%

39%

52%

35%

27%

15%

23%

28%

23%

22%

3%

6%

1%

10%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

<5 ltr

>15 ltr

10 - 15 ltr

5 - 10 ltr

Unknown

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

10

28

Ponds/canals

Protected well

Spring

Water truck

Unprotected well

Piped water supply

Lake/dam

Hand pumps

76%

7%3%

1%2%9%

2%

39%

37%

11%

4% 9%

53%

6%9%

5%7% 17%

3%

52%34%

11%

1%2%

48%

1%9%12%15%4%

11%

61%11%

8%

1%

19%

BauchiGombe

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWABauchi

Gombe

Potable

Not potable

29%

71%

33%

67%

70%

30%

20%

80%

23%77%

27%

73%

Figure 33: % of host community settings with potable water

29% 33

%

70%

20% 23

% 27%

71%

67%

30%

80%

77%

73%


No improvement

Improved

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWABauchi

Gombe

Yes

No

31%

69%

80%

20%

59%41%

67%

33%

42%58%

29%

71%

16

DT MCamps and camp-like settings

A dip was noted in the number of separate toilets for males and females in this round of assessment, down from 94 to 71 per cent. No separate bathing areas were provided in 69 per cent (down from 93 per cent) of sites and toilets/bathrooms did not lock from inside in 53 per cent (down from 85 per cent) of sites.


Figure 35: Conditions of toilets in camps/camp-like settingsFigure 36: % of sites reporting evidence of handwashing practice in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 39: Open defecation evidenced in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 38: Main method of solid waste disposal in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 37: % of camps/camp-like settings with availability handwashing facilities

Personal Hygiene Facili�es

7%

10%

14%

7%

4%

100%

86%

86%

86%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

Good (Hygienic) Non usable Not so good (Not hygienic)

46%

93%

77%

71%

54%

7%

23%

29%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

No Yes

54%

7%

44%

43%

46%

93%

56%

57%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

No Yes

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWABauchi

Gombe

31%

59%Yes but no soap/water inside

Yes

33%67%

27%

73%

43%

57%

46% 54%

43%

62%

50%

92%

24%

11%

7%

0%

33%

27%

43%

8%

A D A M A W A B O R N O T A R A B A Y O B E

Burning Garbage pit No waste disposal system

Host Communities

In host communi�es, 96 per cent (same as the last round) of toilets were rated as ‘not so good’. Availability of handwashing facili�es, soap and evidence of prac�ce also consistent with last round findings.

Figure 40: Conditions of toilets in host communitiesFigure 41: Evidence of handwashing practice in host communities

Figure 44: Open defecation evidenced in host communities

Figure 43: Solid waste disposal in host communities

Figure 42: Availability of handwashing facilities in host communities

5% 1%

6% 3%

4% 3%

1%

1% 1%

1%

94%

91%

100%

93%

98%

98%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

Good (Hygienic) Non usable Not so good (Not hygienic)

75%

94%

70%

91%

96%

97%

25%

6%

30%

9%

4%

3%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

No Yes

67%

59%

40%

37%

76%

63%

33%

41%

60%

63%

24%

37%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

No Yes

DT M

17


56% 67

%

36%

61%

42%

67%

20%

3%

17% 19%

18%

18%24

% 30%

47%

20%

40%

15%


Burning Garbage pit No waste disposal system

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWABauchi

Gombe

31%

59%None

Yes but no soap/water inside

Yes

2%

98%

7%

92%

4%

96%

21%

79%

30%

1%

1%

69%

3%

97%

Camps and camp-like settings

Cash (49 per cent) and food distribu�on (43, up from 38 per cent in previous round of assessment) were the main sourc-es of obtaining food in camps/camp-like se�ngs. Only five per cent of IDPs said they were cul�va�ng. Borno had almost equal percentage of people relying on cash and food distri-bu�on with 48 per cent each, while 4 per cent relied on cul�vated food.

Host Community

Malnutri�on screening was reported in 30 per cent of assessed sites in host communi�es. Blanket supplementary feed-ing was not evidenced in 81 per cent of sites, supplementary feeding for lacta�ng and pregnant women was not seen in 89 per cent of sites, counselling on infant and young child feeding prac�ces was not evidenced in 87 per cent of sites, micronutrient powder distribu�on was not observed in 84 per cent sites and supplementary feeding for the elderly was not found in 97 per cent of sites.

In 69 per cent of sites, screening for malnutri�on was reported. No blanket supplementary feeding of children was reported by 49 (down from 56) per cent of displaced persons, no distribu�on of micronutrient powders was evidenced in 65 (down from 72) per cent of sites, no supplementary feeding for the elderly was reported in 88 (down from 91) per cent sites and no supplementary feeding for pregnant and lacta�ng women was reported in 64 per cent of sites. In 32 (up from 24) per cent of sites, counselling on infant and young child feeding prac�ces was found.

Figure 45: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 46: Access to food in host communities

Table 5: Frequency of food distribution in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 47: Frequency of food distribution in host communities

FOOD AND NUTRITION

36%

4%

5%

8%

11%

10%

92%

64%

85%

86%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

No Yes, off site Yes, on site

4%

45%

13%

24%

14%

22%

17%

11%

7%

22%

82%

33%

83%

76%

93%

54%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

No Yes, off site Yes, on site

DT M

18


State Every 2 weeks

Everyday Irregular Never Once a month

Once a week

Twice a week

ADAMAWA - 3 16 1 1 - -BORNO 5 1 140 7 34 6 1TARABA - - 9 5YOBE - - 5 - 6 1 1

4% 2% 3%

14%

5%

72% 80

%

55% 61

%

79% 94

%

24%

13%

45%

4% 1%4%

32%

1%

7%


Everyday Irregular Never

Twice a week Once a month Once a week

Camps and camp-like settings

All except seven sites in Borno reported access to health facili�es (figure 58) but a significant propor�on report lack of available medicine (figure 67). Malaria is the most common health problem in the greatest number of sites in all states except Yobe which reports fever as the most common health problem in seven of fi�een sites (Figure 66).

Host Community

Figure 48: Most common health problem in camps/camp-like settings by state

Figure 52: Most common health problem in host communities

Figure 49: % of camps/camp-like settings reporting availability of medicine for IDPs settings

Figure 53: % of host community settings reporting availability of medicine for IDPs

Figure 50: Access to health facility in camps/camp-like settings Figure 51: Main health providers in camps/camp-like settings

Health

15%

29%

28%

38%

85%

71%

72%

62%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

No Yes

54%

50%

20%

62%

8%

53%

5%

23%

43%

2%

14%

15%

7%

22%

19%

4%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

Government INGO Local clinic NGO None

4%

100%

100%

96%

100%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

No Yes

6%

4%

6%

13%

9%

11%

7%

3%

6%

10%

2%

3%

22%

32%

8%

17%

17%

14%

48%

51%

76%

56%

68%

70%

14%

10%

3%

2%

2%

3%

2%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

Cough Diarrhea Fever Malaria Malnutri�on RTI Others

51%

43%

25%

39%

17%

61%

49%

57%

75%

61%

83%

39%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

No Yes

DT M

19


11% 13%

4% 6% 6% 9%

3%

10%

3%

7% 6%

2%

14% 17

%

32%

22%

8%

17%

70%

56%

51%

48%

76%

68%

0% 3%

10% 14

%

3% 2%1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0%2% 1% 1% 0%


Cough Diarrhea Fever Malaria Malnutri�on RTI Skin disease None

2%

3%1%

Education


The high costs associated with school was the biggest deterrent to children a�ending schools, with 70 per cent ci�ng as the main cause. While 13 per cent of displaced persons said lack of school was the cause for out of school children.

Host Communities Among IDPs residing with host communi�es also 73 per cent of displaced persons said that the main reason for children not a�ending school was the high costs and fees involved.

4%

2%

1%

3%

3%

96%

98%

99%

97%

100%

97%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

No YesFigure 54: Access to health facility in host community settings

Figure 56: Access to education in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 60: Access to education in host community settings

Figure 57: % of children attending school in camps and camp-like settings Figure 58: Distance of nearest education facility in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 59: Distance of nearest education facility in host community settings

Figure 55: Main health providers in host community settings

68%

38%

65%

53%

69%

65%

2%

0%

21%

4%

16%

59%

33%

13%

31%

25%

11%

1%

9%

2%

4%

2%

1%

3%

3%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

Government INGO Local clinic NGO None

7%

93%

N O Y E S

0%7% 7%

31%

55%

<10 km <5 km Unknown <2 km <1 km

3%

97%

N O Y E S

1% 1% 2%11%

32%

52%

>10 km <10 km Unknown <5 km <2 km <1 km

DT M

20


77 75

39

14

37

<25% <50% <75% >75% None

DT MCommunication


No significant change was no�ced around the findings under communica�on against the last round of assessment.

Host Communities In contrast to findings in camp and camp-like se�ngs, the propor�on of IDPs seeking informa�on on distribu�on was lower in host communi�es as against camp and camp-like se�ngs.

21


Figure 61: Main sources of information in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 63: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 64: Main source of information in host communities

Figure 62: Most important topic for displaced people in displacement camps/camp-like settings

Figure 65: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities

77%

14%

6%

3%

Radio

Word of Mouth

Telephone voicecallCommunitymee�ngs

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

13%

17%

21%

41%

How to contact aid providers

How to get informa�on

Shelter

Registra�on

Access to services

Other relief assistance

Situa�on in areas of origin

Safety and Security

Distribu�on

65%

18%

11%6% Radio

Word of Mouth

Telephone voice call

Communitymee�ngs

1%

2%

4%

4%

16%

33%

41%

Military official

Government official

Aid worker

Tradi�onal Leader

Religious leader

Friends, neighbors and family

Local leader/Community leader

1%

2%

3%

5%

5%

38%

47%

Tradi�onal Leader

Aid worker

Government official

Military official

Religious leader

Friends, neighbors and family

Local leader/Community leader

Figure 67: Access to livelihood activities in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 69: Access to livelihood activities in host communities

Figure 68: Most common form of livelihood in camps and camp-like settings

Figure 70: Most common form of livelihood in host communities

LIVELIHOOD


Most common form of livelihood was to work as daily laborers in camp and camp-like se�ngs.

Host Communities

In sites where IDPs are living with host communi�es, 91 per cent have access to income genera�ng ac�vi�es. In 55 per cent of sites, farming was reported as the most common form of income genera�ng ac�vity, followed by pe�y trade at 19 per cent and 16 per cent of sites reported daily labour to be the most common form of livelihood ac�vity IDPs engage in.


22

Figure 66: Most important topic for displaced people in displacement host community settings

1%

2%

2%

3%

16%

19%

25%

31%

How to get informa�on

Shelter

Registra�on

Access to services

Safety and Security

Other relief assistance

Situa�on in areas of origin

Distribu�on

2%

5%

100%

100%

98%

95%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

No

Yes

1%

15%

12%

23%

14%

47%

38%

23%

43%

18%

48%

8%

7%

1%1%

31%

36%

21%

14%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA Agro-pastoralism

Collec�ng firewood

Daily labourer

Farming

Fishing

Pastoralism

Pe�y trade

4%

1%

7%

2%

2%

8%

2%

3%

5%

6%

10%

13%

9%

24%

13%

12%

56%

56%

62%

36%

67%

67%

4%

3%

1%

1%

2%

2% 22%

27%

18%

31%

11%

12%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

Agro-pastoralism

Collec�ng firewood

Daily labourer

Farming

Fishing

Pastoralism

Pe�y trade

10%

3%

14%

10%

4%

6%

90%

97%

86%

90%

96%

94%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

No

Yes

DT MPROTECTION

23


Figure 71: % of camps/camp-like settingswhere protection was provided Figure 72: Main security provider in camp and camp-like settings

Host Community

No security-related incidents were reported by 82 (up from 78) per cent of respondents. The most common type of security incident was the� (eight per cent), followed by fric�on with other residents (four per cent) and crime (three per cent).

Domes�c violence was the main reason for gender based violence (seven per cent) while no such incident was reported by 89 per cent of respondents. No form of physical violence was reported by 87 per cent.

No child protec�on issues was reported by 85 per cent though forced child labour/forced begging incidents were cited by some. There were 50 recrea�on places for children and none in Borno. There were six recrea�on places for women but none in Borno.


No security incidents were reported by 92 per cent (up from 85 per cent) of IDPs in assessed displacement sites. The� incidents were reported by four per cent of respondents and fric�on among site residents was the reason for two per cent (down from five per cent in previous assessment) incidents.

No incident of gender based violence were reported by 91 per cent of IDPs. Domes�c violence was the leading form of reported gender-based violence by seven per cent of IDPs. No cases of physical violence were reported by 97 per cent of IDPs.

Child physical or emo�onal abuse was reported by nine per cent (up from five per cent), Separated child by one per cent (down from three per cent) and no incident reported by 90 per cent of displaced persons.

While 67 (up from 56) per cent of displaced people did not report any problems in receiving support, 22 per cent said that the assistance was not enough for all those en�tled to it. Figh�ng between recipients was reported by six per cent respondents and two per cent of IDPs said assistance was physically inadequate.

There were 23 recrea�onal places for children in the sites assessed and out of these 19 were in Borno. There were nine recrea�onal places for women and all but one was in Borno.

Forty-three per cent of IDPs have ID cards.

7%

8%

14%

54%

7%

22%

14%

43%

4%

38%

8%

7%

7%

5% 5%

38%

36%

59%

24%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

Local Authori�es

Military

None

Police

Religious Leaders

Self organized

43%

4%

38%

100%

57%

96%

62%

YOBE

TARABA

BORNO

ADAMAWA

No

Yes

DT MTwo per cent of women, one per cent of men and one per cent of children felt unsafe. Fi�y per cent people said they had ligh�ng in the camp but it was inadequate. Forty-four per cent people said there was no ligh�ng.

While 41 (up from 36) per cent of respondents reported no problem in receiving humanitarian assistance, 39 per cent said assistance was not enough, in seven per cent sites assistance was found to be physically inadequate for the most vulnerable, four per cent respondents said figh�ng among recipients took reported and three per cent people said assistance was reportedly given to non-affected groups.

Ninety-five per cent of respondents said rela�onship among IDPs was defined as good, while it was excellent accord-ing to four per cent of IDPs. The rela�onship between IDPs and host community was defined as poor by one per cent people, and good by 95 per cent of people and excellent by five per cent of IDPs.

242


Figure 73: % of host community sites where protection was provided

Figure 74: Main security provider in host communities

14%

24%

2%

9%

24%

86%

76%

100%

98%

91%

76%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

No

Yes

3%

35%

28%

7%

20%

19%

22%

15%

27%

18%

38%

21%

13%

6%

1%

28%

4%

14%

14%

24%

2%

9%

24%

26%

14%

27%

7%

15%

16%

22%

6%

17%

38%

14%

6%

YOBE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

Community Leaders

Local Authori�es

Military

None

Police

Self organized

Contacts:IOM: Henry KWENIN, DTM Project [email protected] +234 9038852524

NEMA: Alhassan NUHU, Director, Disaster Risk [email protected] +234 8035925885

http://www.nigeria.iom.int/dtm

Humanitarian AidAnd Civil Protec�on

The data collected in this report comes from different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administra�ve levels. The type of respondent for each tool is different and focuses on different popula�on types:

TOOLS FOR IDPs

Local Government Area Profile-IDP: This is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA-level. The type of informa�on collected at this level includes: displaced popula�on es�mates (households and individuals), date of arrival of IDPs, loca�on of origin, reasons for displacement and type of displacement loca�ons. The assessment also records contacts of key informants and organiza�ons assis�ng IDPs in the LGA. The main outcome of this assessment is the list of wards where IDP presence has been iden�fied. This list will be used as a reference to con�nue the assessment at ward level (see Ward-level profile for IDPs).

Ward level Profile-IDP: This is an assessment conducted at ward level. The type of informa�on collected at this level includes: displaced popula�on es�mates (households and individuals), �me of arrival of IDPs, loca�on of origin, reasons of displacement and type of displacement loca�ons. The assessment also includes informa�on on displacement origina�ng from the ward, as well as a demographic calculator based on a sample of IDPs in host communi�es and camp-like se�ngs. The results of the ward level profile are used to verify the informa�on collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all those wards iden�fied as having IDP popula�ons in the LGA list.

Site assessment: This is undertaken in iden�fied IDP loca�ons (camps, camp-like se�ngs and host communi�es) to capture detaileisd informa�on on the key services available. Site assessment forms are u�lized to record the exact loca�on and name of a site, accessibility constraints, size and type of the site, whether registra�ons is available, and if natural hazards put the site at risk. The form also captures details about the IDP popula�on, including their place of origin, and demographic informa�on on the number of households with a breakdown by age and sex, as well as informa�on on IDPs with specific vulnerabili�es. Furthermore, the form captures details on key access to services in different sectors: shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutri�on, health, educa�on, livelihood, communica�on, and protec�on. The informa�on is captured through interviews with representa�ves of the site and other key informants, including IDP representa�ves.

TOOLS FOR RETURNEES

Local Government Area Profile-Returnees: is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of informa�on collected at this level includes: returnee popula�on es�mates (households and individuals), �me of return, loca�on of origin and ini�al reasons of displacement. The main outcome of this assessment is the list of wards where returnee presence has been iden�fied. This list will be used as a reference to con�nue the assessment at ward level (see Ward-level profile for returnees).

Ward level Profile-returnee: is an Assessment conducted at ward level. The type of informa�on collected at this level includes: returnee popula�on es�mates (households and individuals), �me of return, loca�on of origin and reasons for ini�al displacement. The results of this kind of assessment are used to verify the informa�on collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all those wards iden�fied as having returnee popula�ons in the LGA list.

Data is collected via interviews with key informants such as representatives of the administration, community leaders, religious leaders, and humanitarian aid workers. To ensure data accuracy, assessments are conducted and cross checked with various key informant. The accuracy of the data also relies on the regularity of the assessments and field visits that are conducted every six weeks.

DT M

25

METHODOLOGY


The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names, and related data shown on maps and included in this report are not warranted to be error free nor do they imply judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries by IOM.

Documents

DTM Round XVIII Report-CANADA LOGO REMOVED€¦ · DTM Round XVIII Report - August 2017 Round XVIII of DTM assessments were conducted from 25 July to 15 August 2017 in Adamawa, Bauchi,