Nigeria Multi-Sector Needs Assessment (MSNA)

Nigeria Multi-Sector WASH September 2018 Needs Assessment (MSNA) ADAMAWA STATE

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT COVERAGE

Despite the increase in the number of humanitarian actors responding to the crisis in north-eastern Nigeria, humanitarian needs continue to grow as the conditions of Borno ² civilians displaced by the violent nine-year conflict remain dire. The conflict between MADAGALI armed opposition groups (AOGs) and Nigerian and regional security forces has resulted in 10.2 million affected people including remainees, internally displaced MICHIKA persons (IDPs), returnees and populations in hard-to-reach areas. These groups MUBI NORTH HONG are largely congregated in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe, the three most affected GOMBI MUBI SOUTH states in north-east Nigeria.1 Information gaps persist, which complicate the humanitarian community’s capacity for action grounded in verifiable evidence and Gombe GUYUK SHELLENG MAIHA effective coordination. SONG

Amidst this context, and within the coordination framework of the United Nations LAMURDE Adamawa NUMAN GIREI Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and its Inter-Sector DEMSA YOLA SOUTH Working Group (ISWG), REACH facilitated a multi-sector needs assessment YOLA NORTH (MSNA) in all accessible areas of the most affected northeastern states of Nigeria. FUFORE Indicators and questions used in the assessment were developed with all relevant MAYO-BELWA sectors, validated and endorsed by the ISWG. This assessment, funded by the C A M E R O O N European Union Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO), was conducted Taraba JADA from 25 June to 6 August 2018 through a total of 10,606 household (HH) surveys and 1,481 key informants interviews in 63 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the GANYE three north-eastern states.

2,980 HH surveys were collected in accessible areas of Adamawa state with a TOUNGO Adamawa State confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 10% unless stated otherwise. Accessible Areas (assessed) The results presented are statistically representative at the state level for each of Inaccessible Areas (unassessed) the population groups assessed. 0 25 50 75 km

SECTORAL INDEX / SEVERITY METHODOLOGY % of households in need of Severity of needs in WASH support WASH sector Two composite indices were created to estimate levels of needs among assessed households in accessible areas. The severity score indicates how severe the need of Non-Displaced Non-Displaced a household was in a given sector, with 0 representing no needs and 10 representing the maximum reported needs. The sectoral index of needs shows households scoring four or greater on the severity scale, which are then categorised as being in 63% 5.2 need of sectoral support. Below is the list of all indicators feeding into the WASH sectoral composite index, with 63+37I 52+48I their corresponding weights, used to generate the sectoral severity scale and sectoral index of need. IDPs IDPs

Sector Indicator Weighting 16% 4.7 HH is without access to any improved water source 2

HH has access to less than 15 litres per person per day 3 WASH 16+84I 47+53I HH is without access to a functioning latrine 2

HH reports spending more than 30 minutes to collect water 2 Returnees Returnees

HH reports that there is no soap in the HH 1 4040% +60I 515.1 +49I

(1) OCHA (February 2018) Nigeria 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview.

For more information on this 1 factsheet, please email: [email protected] MSNA | NIGERIA WASH

% of HHs reporting whether they treated the water that they used ACCESS TO WATER AND SOAP for drinking:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 3+23+28+46+0 1+16+71+12+0 2+15+42+41+0 % of HHs reporting that they did not have enough water to cover Yes, always 3% 1% 2% 2 their basic needs in the 30 days prior to data collection: Yes, sometimes 23% 16% 15% No, water is clean 28% 71% 42% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees No, no method to 46% 12% 41% No, Other / No 0% 0% 0% response / Don’t 57% 34% 39% know 57+43I 34+66I 39+61I % of HHs by time required to collect water, inclusive of travel and waiting time:

% of HHs reporting sources of water used in the 30 days prior to Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 3 11+13+36+29+7+3+1 13+24+32+21+8+2+0 10+13+31+30+11+5+0 data collection for drinking, bathing and cooking: At shelter, no travel 11% 13% 10% < 15 minutes 13% 24% 13% Water source type Water source 15-30 minutes 36% 32% 31% 31-59 minutes 29% 21% 30% Borehole / tubewell 21% 61% 37% 1-2 hours 7% 8% 11% Public tap / standpipe 4% 6% 0% More than 2 hours 3% 2% 5% Piped into dwelling or plot 0% 1% 0% No response / 1% 0% 0% Handpump 9% 21% 28% Don’t know Improved Water Source Protected well 4% 4% 9% Protected spring 1% 0% 0% % of HHs needing more than 30 minutes to collect water for their Water truck 0% 2% 0% daily use (inclusive of travel and waiting time):4 Sachet water 1% 0% 1% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Surface water 51% 11% 25% Unprotected well 29% 14% 30% Unimproved water source Unprotected spring 12% 4% 10% 39% 31% 46% Unprotected rainwater tank 9% 10% 11% Water vendor/Mai moya 3% 23% 5% 39+61I 31+69I 46+54I

% of HHs who did not have the Sphere standard of 15L of water, Top 3 reported issues by HHs, when fetching water for daily use:3 per person, per day to cover their basic needs:4 Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Long queue time Long queue time Long queue time 37% at water point 48% at water point 43% at water point 13% 15% 14% Long distance to No issue Long distance to 37% water point 36% reported 42% water point No issue Long distance to No issue % of HHs reporting the perceived quality of the water coming from 29% reported 29% water point 31% reported the main source of drinking water:2

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees

79+18+3+0 87+12+1+0 86+12+2+0 Top 3 reported coping strategies used by HHs, when they did not Good 32% 81% 49% have enough water to meet their needs:3 Average 46% 17% 39% Bad 22% 1% 12% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Reduce water Reduce water Fetch water No response / 0% 1% 0% 49% 64% 58% Don’t know consumption consumption farther away Fetch water Fetch water Reduce water 46% farther away 41% farther away 41% consumption Fetch water of Reduce amount Fetch water of 20% poorer quality 23% of water collected 20% poorer quality

(2) This indicator reflects HH perception and not actual assessment of the quantity or quality of water. (3) Respondents could select multiple answers. (4) Based on the 2018 Sphere Handbook. Retrieved from: https://handbook.spherestandards.org/

2 MSNA | NIGERIA WASH

% of HHs reporting not having soap in their current location: WASTE MANAGEMENT

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Top 3 reported ways HHs disposed of garbage in the 30 days prior to data collection: 56% 43% 60% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees

Disposed Dedicated 56+44I 43+57I 60+40I Dedicated anywhere, left site, left in the 42% 28% site, burned 26% in the open open Dedicated Disposed ACCESS TO LATRINES Dedicated site, left in the anywhere, left 21% 26% 25% site, burned open in the open

% of HHs with access to a functioning latrine: Disposed at Dedicated Disposed 13% home, left in 25% site, left in the 22% anywhere, left Non-displaced IDPs Returnees the open open in the open Yes, access to a 41 83 64 41% 83% 64% functioning latrine 58 16 36 No, open 58% 16% 36% defecation in bush If collected, % of HHs reporting the frequency of disposed garbage collection in the 30 days prior to data collection: No, open 1 1 0 defecation in 1% 1% 0% designated area Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 27+39+34+0+0 22+70+1+7+0 71+22+1+1+5 0 0 0 No response / Daily 27% 22% 71% Don’t know 0% 0% 0% Once a week 39% 70% 22% Once a fortnight 34% 1% 1% Main type of latrine accessed by HHs: Once a month 0% 7% 1% Other / No 0% 0% 5% response / Don’t Non-displaced IDPs Returnees know Traditional latrine (pit) Traditional latrine (pit) Traditional latrine (pit)

% of HHs reporting that the latrine they accessed was separated by sex:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 11100% +89I 71100% +29I N/A Top 3 reported categories of HHs members who cannot use or access a latrine:5,6

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 93% Infants (< 5 y.o.) 99% Infants (< 5 y.o.) 91% Infants (< 5 y.o.) 2% Female children 1% Male children 5% Adult men People suffering Male children Adult women 2% 1% from chronic illness 5% About REACH Main reported reason for HH member not accessing or using REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that latrine: enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions. REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. Non-displaced IDPs Returnees For more information, you can write to our country office: reach.nigeria@ Latrine hole too big, Latrine hole too big, Latrine hole too big, reach-initiative.org. not safe for children not safe for children not safe for children Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us on Twitter: @REACH_info and Facebook: www.facebook.com/IMPACT.init (5) This indicator reflects only a subset of the population assessed - therefore results should be considered indicative only. (6) Respondents could select multiple answers.

3 Nigeria Multi-Sector Shelter & NFI September 2018 Needs Assessment (MSNA) ADAMAWA STATE

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT COVERAGE

SECTORAL INDEX / SEVERITY METHODOLOGY % of households in need of Severity of needs in shelter and NFI support shelter and NFI sector Two composite indices were created to estimate levels of needs among assessed households in accessible areas. The severity score indicates how severe the need of Non-Displaced Non-Displaced a household was in a given sector, with 0 representing no needs and 10 representing the maximum reported needs. The sectoral index of needs shows households scoring four or greater on the severity scale, which are then categorised as being in 47% 4.4 need of sectoral support. Below is the list of all indicators feeding into the Shelter and NFI sectoral composite 47+53I 44+56I index, with their corresponding weights, used to generate the sectoral severity scale and sectoral index of need. IDPs IDPs

Sector Indicator Weighting 70% 4.7 HH lives in an inadequate shelter 2

HH shelter is damaged (partially or completely) 2 Shelter / NFI 70+30I 47+53I HH is at risk of eviction 2

HH owns less than half of items from basic NFI kit 2 Returnees Returnees

HH shares shelter with 2 or more families 2 6767% +33I 464.6 +54I

(1) OCHA (February 2018) Nigeria 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview.

For more information on this 1 factsheet, please email: [email protected] MSNA | NIGERIA SHELTER & NFI

SHELTER TYPE Average reported number of households residing in the same shelter:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Top 3 reported shelter types occupied by HHs: 3.3 3.6 3.5

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Traditional house Traditional house Traditional house 82% (adobe/mud) 51% (adobe/mud) 78% (adobe/mud) SHELTER DAMAGE Masonry building Masonry building Masonry building 13% (blocks/bricks) 45% (blocks/bricks) 21% (blocks/bricks) Makeshift Makeshift Makeshift % of HHs reporting that their shelter was damaged: 5% shelter 3% shelter 1% shelter

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees

Top 3 reported shelter-occupancy arrangements by HHs: 26% 40% 67% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Owned/ Owned/ 96% 55% Rented 90% Purchased Purchased 26+74I 40+60I 67+33I Owned/ 2% Rented 23% 7% Rented Purchased Out of those HHs reporting that their shelter was damaged, % of Staying in public Squatted with Squatted with HHs reporting the type of damage:2,3 1% building 10% permission 3% permission Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 68+18+35+0+2 62+28+13+0+2 63+23+29+0+7 Damaged roof 68% 62% 63% Out of those HHs that were renting their shelter, % reporting that No roofing sheet 18% 28% 23% they had a written contract:2 Completely 35% 13% 29% collapsed walls Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Other damage 2% 2% 7%

29% 33% 29% Out of those HHs reporting that their shelter was damaged, % of 29+71I 33+67I 29+71I HHs reporting the cause of damage:2,3 Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 87+2+4+20+1 90+5+5+6+2 82+18+9+13+1 Out of those HHs reporting that they had a written contract, most Wind/Storm 87% 90% 82% 2 commonly reported length of the contract, in months: Bullet holes/Conflict 2% 5% 18% Fire 4% 5% 9% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Flood 20% 6% 13% 11 months 9 months 9 months Other cause 1% 2% 1%

% of HHs reporting that they were at risk of being evicted or forced Out of those HHs reporting that their shelter was damaged, % of to leave their shelter, in the month following data collection: HHs reporting the severity of damage:2

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 7+0+86+0+7 8+0+90+0+2 19+0+77+0+4 Completely 7% 8% 19% destroyed

1% 14% 4% Partially 86% 90% 77% damaged 1+99I 14+86I 4+96I No/Very minimal 7% 2% 4% damage

(2) This information refers to a subset of the population assessed and therefore should be considered indicative only. (3) Respondents could select multiple answers.

2 MSNA | NIGERIA SHELTER & NFI

NON-FOOD ITEMS

% of HHs reporting that they owned or had access to the following non-food items (NFI):

None 1% 0% 1% Aquatabs 2% 1% 3% School textbooks 3% 6% 6% School bags 7% 10% 3% School notebooks 12% 17% 17% Reusable sanitary pad 3% 2% 2% Foldable mattress 10% 11% 14% 10L Basin 24% 7% 26% Rope 22% 10% 13% 10L Bucket 32% 27% 48% Solar lamp 4% 2% 3% Laundry detergent / bars 22% 14% 20% Bath soap 28% 31% 21% Stainless trays 35% 26% 30% Stainless cups 42% 23% 38% Serving spoons 52% 40% 53% Kettle 39% 23% 32% Kitchen knife 64% 55% 67% Mosquito net 77% 74% 74% Jerry cans 52% 42% 46% Blankets 49% 43% 37% Sleeping mat 83% 81% 75% Cooking pots 82% 78% 83%

3 Nigeria Multi-Sector Health & Nutrition September 2018 Needs Assessment (MSNA) ADAMAWA STATE

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT COVERAGE

SECTORAL INDEX / SEVERITY METHODOLOGY % of households Severity of needs % of households in need of health in health sector in need of nutrition 2 Two composite indices were created to estimate levels of needs among assessed support support households in accessible areas. The severity score indicates how severe the need of a household was in a given sector, with 0 representing no needs and 10 representing Non-Displaced Non-Displaced Non-Displaced the maximum reported needs. The sectoral index of needs shows households scoring four or greater on the severity scale, which are then categorised as being in need of sectoral support. 87% 5.6 3% Below is the list of all indicators feeding into the Health and Nutrition sectoral composite indices, with their corresponding weights, used to generate the sectoral severity scale 87+13I 56+44I 3+97I and sectoral index of need. IDPs IDPs IDPs

Sector Indicator Weighting

HH reports at least 1 barrier to accessing health services 2 84% 5.2 3%

HH has child/ren without any immunization 2 Health HH member had illness in the previous 2 weeks 2 84+16I 52+48I 3+97I HH reports being too far from nearest health facility 2 Returnees Returnees Returnees HH experienced childbirth without skilled birth attendant 2

Nutrition HH has a moderately or severely malnourished child 10 8282% +18I 585.8 +42I 22% +98I

(1) OCHA (February 2018) Nigeria 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview. (2) Sector severity scale for Nutrition sector = N/A.

For more information on this 1 factsheet, please email: [email protected] MSNA | NIGERIA HEALTH & NUTRITION

HOUSEHOLDS’ HEALTH ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

% of HHs reporting that they had at least one HH member who was % of HHs reporting distance to closest health facility: chronically ill, at the time of data collection:3 Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 22+34+43+1 54+34+12+0 36+34+29+1 Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Less than 2 km 22% 54% 36% Within 2-5 km 34% 34% 34% More than 5 km 43% 12% 29% 1% 1% 6% No response / 1% 0% 1% 1+99I 1+99I 6+94I Don’t know % of HHs reporting that they had at least one HH member who was Type of health facility most commonly reported as closest by physically disabled, at the time of data collection: HHs:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Primary health centre Primary health centre Primary health centre

1% 5% 1% Top 3 barriers, if any, that HHs experienced in accessing health 1+99I 5+95I 1+99I services in their location:5 Non-displaced IDPs Returnees % of HHs self-reporting that they had at least one HH member who Medicine too Medicine too Medicine too was mentally ill, at the time of data collection: 64% expensive 64% expensive 59% expensive Health services Health services Health services Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 51% too expensive 54% too expensive 50% too expensive Health facility too No barrier Health facility too 38% 21% 28% 0% 0% 0% far away reported far away 0+100I 0+100I 0+100I MATERNAL HEALTH % of HHs reporting that they had at least one member who had been ill in the two weeks prior to data collection: % of HHs reporting that one female member had given birth in the Non-displaced IDPs Returnees year prior to data collection:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 47% 63% 64% 47+53I 63+37I 64+36I 12% 12% 20% Out of those, most commonly reported illness affecting at least one HH member in the two weeks prior to data collection:4 12+88I 12+88I 20+80I Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Out of those, % of HHs reporting location of childbirth:4 Fever Fever Fever Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 2+37+61+0 3+48+49+0 3+39+58+0 % of HHs reporting that they had at least one child that had never NGO facility 2% 3% 3% been vaccinated: Public facility 37% 48% 39% At home 61% 49% 58% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Other/ No 0% 0% 0% response / Don’t know 45% 36% 43%

(3) Chronic45 illness in this study included+55I illnesses 36such as diabetes, tuberculosis,+64I cancer, 43chronic coughing, heart diseases+57I and any other illness persisting more than 3 months. (4) This information refers to a subset of the population assessed and therefore should be considered indicative only. (5) Respondents could select multiple answers.

2 MSNA | NIGERIA HEALTH & NUTRITION

Out of those, % of HHs reporting that the childbirth was attended by the following person(s):6

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Skilled birth 33+0+9+0+12+0+45+0+0+0+1 40+0+13+0+22+0+24+0+0+0+1 40+0+7+0+12+0+37+0+4+0+0 attendant 33% 40% 40% Other healthcare worker 9% 13% 7% Traditional birth attendant 12% 22% 12% Women in the community 45% 24% 37% No support received 0% 0% 4% Other / No response / Don’t 1% 1% 0% know

% of children aged 0-6 months that were exclusively breastfed in the day prior to data collection:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 6666% +34I 4545% +55I 6363% +37I NUTRITION

% of HHs that had at least one child between 0 and 59 months suffering from moderate or severe acute malnutrition, as identified by MUAC and the presence or absence of nutritional oedema:7

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 33% +97I 33% +97I 22% +98I

About REACH REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions. REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our country office: reach.nigeria@ reach-initiative.org. (6) This information refers to a subset of the population assessed and therefore should be considered indicative only. (7) This assessment used the proxy Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) measurement, calculated with Middle Upper Arm Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us on Twitter: @REACH_info and Circumference (MUAC, inferior to 125mm) and presence or absence of nutritional oedema. Definition retrieved from:http://www. Facebook: www.facebook.com/IMPACT.init fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/drought/docs/Definitions%20of%20common%20nutrition%20terms_FSNWG_2017.pdf

3 Nigeria Multi-Sector Food Security September 2018 Needs Assessment (MSNA) ADAMAWA STATE

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT COVERAGE

SECTORAL INDEX / SEVERITY METHODOLOGY % of households in need of Severity of needs in Two composite indices were created to estimate levels of needs among assessed households food support food security sector in accessible areas. The severity scale indicates how severe the need of a household was in a given sector, with 0 representing no needs and 10 representing the maximum reported Non-Displaced Non-Displaced needs. The sectoral index of needs shows households scoring four or greater on the sectoral severity scale, which are then categorised as being in need of sectoral support.

Sector Indicator Weighting 66% 6.1

HH has a borderline / poor FCS 2 / 3 HH scores > 10 on the reduced Coping Strategy Index2 2 66+34I 61+39I Safe Access to Fuel and Energy (SAFE) sub-composite 2 IDPs IDPs HH reports using unsafe/unsustainable fuel for cooking3 0.33

HH reports using unsafe/unsustainable fuel for lighting 0.33 HH reports using unsafe/unsustainable method for cooking 0.33 81% 6.5 HH reports unsafe/ unsustainable means of obtaining primary fuel source 0.33

Food Security and HH reports resorting to negative fuel coping strategies 2 Agriculture 81+19I 65+35I Access to market sub-composite 2 Returnees Returnees HH reports no access to markets 1

HH reports market-related barriers to accessing food items 1 Agriculture / Access to land sub-composite 2 81% 6.5 HH reports not being able to plant / harvest last dry season 0.5

HH reports not planning to cultivate this rainy season 0.5 HH reports not accessing amount of land needed or no land at all 0.25 / 0.5 (2) For more information81 on rCSI measurement, +19Isee findings p.2 and corresponding65 footnote. +35I (3) For a more complete list used to determine whether a source/method/means was deemed unsafe or unsustainable HH reports not accessing amount of water needed or no water at all 0.25 / 0.5 please see the REACH 2018 MSNA Final Report (publication forthcoming on http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/ countries/nigeria) (1) OCHA (February 2018) Nigeria 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview.

For more information on this 1 factsheet, please email: [email protected] MSNA | NIGERIA FOOD SECURITY

FOOD SECURITY SAFE ACCESS TO FUEL & ENERGY

Food Consumption Score (FCS):4 % of HHs reporting most commonly used fuel type for cooking:

Average Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Poor Borderline Acceptable 97+1+1+1+0 97+2+0+1+0 97+1+1+1+0 FCS Firewood 97% 97% 97% Overall 40.7 25% 32% 43% Charcoal 1% 2% 1% Kerosene 1% 0% 1% Non-Displaced HHs 40.8 25% 32% 43% Gas 1% 1% 1% IDP HHs 31.8 43% 38% 19% Other / No 0% 0% 0% Returnee HHs response / Don’t 42.8 26% 30% 44% know

Average Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI):5 % of HHs reporting most commonly used fuel type for lighting:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 85+9+3+2+1 93+4+1+1+1 89+5+4+2+0 11.3 15.9 16.9 Torchlight (battery) 85% 93% 89% Firewood 9% 4% 5% Within the 7 days prior to data collection, HHs reported using the following coping Kerosene lamp 3% 1% 4% strategies, for the following number of days, on average: Solar lantern 2% 1% 2% Other / No 1% 1% 0% response / Don’t know

Rely on less preferred and cheaper food 2.7 3.3 3.7 Borrow food from friends or relatives 1.0 1.2 1.1 % of HHs reporting most commonly used method for cooking: Limit portion size at meal time 1.6 2.3 2.4 Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Reduce adult consumption to feed small children 92+5+2+1+0 96+3+1+0+0 93+3+2+1+1 1.1 1.9 1.9 Three-stone fire 92% 96% 93% Reduce number of meals eaten in a day 1.6 2.3 3.0 Mud stove 5% 3% 3% Metal stove 2% 1% 2% Gas stove 1% 0% 1% ACCESS TO MARKET & FOOD Other / No 0% 0% 1% response / Don’t know % of HHs reporting that they had physical access to a market in the two weeks prior to data collection: Top 3 reported means for HHs to obtain their preferred fuel source: Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Collect from within Purchase from Collect from within 57% 62% 37% 62% 74% 60% the community local seller the community Collect from outside Collect from within Collect from outside 31% 21% 33% 62+38I 74+26I 60+40I the community the community the community Purchase from Collect from outside Purchase from local 12% 17% 29% Top 3 reported barriers to accessing enough food, at the time of local seller the community seller data collection:6

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Top 3 reported categories of HH members, who most frequently Market is too far Prices are No resources to collected firewood:6,7 68% away 78% unusually high 76% buy food No resources to No resources to Market is too far Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 66% 67% 65% buy food buy food away 68% Adult men 56% Adult women 66% Adult men Prices are Market is too far Prices are 64% 34% 52% unusually high away unusually high 44% Adult women 46% Adult men 62% Adult women (4) The FCS is a composite indicator score based on dietary frequency, food frequency and relative nutrition importance of different food groups and their consumption by assessed population groups. Ranging from 0 to 112, the FCS will be ‘poor’ for a score of 28 and less, ‘borderline’ for a score between 28.1 and 42, and ‘acceptable’ above a score of 42. Adolescent boys Adolescent boys Adolescent boys (5) The reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI) is often used as a proxy indicator fior household food insecurity. rCSI combines: (i) the 20% (12-18 y.o.) 29% (12-18 y.o.) 22% (12-18 y.o.) frequency of each strategy; and (ii) their (severity). Higher rCSI indicates a worse food security situation and vice versa, with a score from 0 to 56. For more information consult the Field Methods Manual (January 2008), retrieved from: https://documents.wfp.org/ stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp211058.pdf (6) Respondents could select multiple answers. (7) This indicator reflects only a subset of the population assessed - therefore results should be considered indicative only.

2 MSNA | NIGERIA FOOD SECURITY

Top 3 reported coping strategies used by HHs when there was not % of HHs reporting that they were able to plant during the dry enough fuel to cover HH needs:8 season prior to data collection:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Use less preferred Reduce number Use less preferred Did not plant or 57+0+5+0+15+0+23 47+0+6+0+15+0+32 74+0+5+0+9+0+12 57% 65% fuel source 51% of meals 56% fuel source harvest 47% 74% Reduce number Use less preferred Reduce number of Planted but not 5% 6% 5% 38% of meals 46% fuel source 42% meals harvested Cook together No coping strategy Planted but Undercook food partially harvested 15% 15% 9% 12% with other families 18% 10% reported Planted and harvested 23% 32% 12% AGRICULTURE % of HHs reporting that they were planning to cultivate during the 2018 rainy season: % of HHs reporting a need to access land for growing crops or grazing livestock, in the year prior to data collection: Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Plant and harvest 87+0+12+0+1+0+0 28+0+58+0+7+0+7 79+0+19+0+1+0+1 87% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees on own land 28% 79% Plant and harvest on other’s land 12% 58% 19% 67% 51% 66% Work as rented labour for someone 1% 7% 1% No plan to plant or 67+33I 51+49I 66+34I harvest 0% 7% 1% Out of those in need of access, % of HHs reporting the amount of land accessed, in the year prior to data collection:9

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 74+25+1 30+51+19 55+42+3 Amount needed 74% 30% 55% Not the amount 25% needed 51% 42% No access at all 1% 19% 3%

% of HHs reporting a need to access water for growing crops or grazing livestock, in the year prior to data collection:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 5454% +46I 3131% +69I 3737% +63I Out of those in need of access, % of HHs reporting the amount of water accessed, in the year prior to data collection:9

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 51+48+1 42+53+5 41+57+2 Amount needed 51% 42% 41% Not the amount 48% needed 53% 57% About REACH No access at all 1% 5% 2% REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions. REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our country office: reach.nigeria@ reach-initiative.org. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us on Twitter: @REACH_info and Facebook: www.facebook.com/IMPACT.init (8) Respondents could select multiple answers. (9) This indicator reflects only a subset of the population assessed - therefore results should be considered indicative only.

3 Nigeria Multi-Sector LIVELIHOODS September 2018 Needs Assessment (MSNA) ADAMAWA STATE

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT COVERAGE

Amidst this context, and within the coordination framework of the United Nations LAMURDE Adamawa NUMAN GIREI Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and its Inter-Sector DEMSA YOLA SOUTH Working Group (ISWG), REACH facilitated a multi-sector needs assessment YOLA NORTH (MSNA) in all accessible areas of the most affected northeastern states of Nigeria. FUFORE Indicators and questions used in the assessment were developed with all relevant MAYO-BELWA sectors, validated and endorsed by the ISWG. This assessment, funded by the C A M O O N European Union Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO), was conducted Taraba JADA from 25 June to 6 August 2018 through a total of 10,606 household (HH) surveys and 1,481 key informants interviews in 63 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the GANYE three north-eastern states.

SECTORAL INDEX / SEVERITY METHODOLOGY % of households in need of Severity of needs in livelihoods support livelihoods sector Two composite indices were created to estimate levels of needs among assessed households in accessible areas. The severity score indicates how severe the need of Non-Displaced Non-Displaced a household was in a given sector, with 0 representing no needs and 10 representing the maximum reported needs. The sectoral index of needs shows households scoring four or greater on the severity scale, which are then categorised as being in 48% 4.4 need of sectoral support. Below is the list of all indicators feeding into the Livelihoods sectoral composite index, 48+52I 44+56I with their corresponding weights, used to generate the sectoral severity scale and sectoral index of need. IDPs IDPs

Sector Indicator Weighting 64% 4.5 HH income has decreased in the previous 3 months 2

HH reports being in debt 2 WASH 64+36I 45+55I HH reports no access to physical cash 3

HH reports using “crisis” or “emergency” coping strategies 3 Returnees Returnees 6666% +34I 454.5 +55I

(1) OCHA (February 2018) Nigeria 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview.

For more information on this 1 factsheet, please email: [email protected] MSNA | NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS

HOUSEHOLD INCOME COPING STRATEGIES

Top 3 reported sources of income from HHs, at the time of data Top 3 reported coping strategies used by HHs to cope with the lack collection:2 of income/resources, in the 30 days prior to data collection:2

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Purchase food Borrow money Spend savings 92% Agriculture 49% Agriculture 92% Agriculture 47% on credit 63% 42% Purchase food Purchase food Borrow money 38% Livestock 28% Small business 39% Livestock 46% 56% on credit 36% on credit

11% Trade 20% Trade 12% Trade 39% Spend savings 28% Spend savings 33% Borrow money

% of HHs reporting a change in their income level, in the 3 months Top 3 reported coping strategies that had already been exhausted prior to data collection: by HHs, in the 30 days prior to data collection:2

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 5+23+70+2 9+18+73+0 4+17+79+0 Purchase food on Increased 5% 9% 4% Borrow money Spend savings 41% 44% credit 41% No change 23% 18% 17% Purchase food on Decreased 70% 73% 79% Spend savings Spend savings 38% 31% 24% credit No response / 2% 0% 0% Don’t know Purchase food on Sell more animals Borrow money 33% credit 29% 23% than usual

% of HHs reporting that they were in debt, at the time of data collection:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 4949% +51I 6262% +38I 6363% +37I ACCESS TO CASH

% of HHs reporting main means of accessing physical cash:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 83+7+1+0+8+0+0+1 81+9+3+0+4+1+2+0 78+16+4+0+1+0+0+1 Cash in hand 83% 81% 78% ATM withdrawal 7% 9% 16% Counter withdrawal 1% 3% 4% Formal transfer 0% 0% 0% Informal transfer 8% 4% 1% Mobile phone transfer 0% 1% 0% About REACH No access to cash 0% 2% 0% REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that No response / 1% 0% 1% Don’t know enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions. REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our country office: reach.nigeria@ reach-initiative.org. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us on Twitter: @REACH_info and Facebook: www.facebook.com/IMPACT.init

(2) Respondents could select multiple answers.

2 Nigeria Multi-Sector EDUCATION September 2018 Needs Assessment (MSNA) ADAMAWA STATE

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT COVERAGE

Amidst this context, and within the coordination framework of the United Nations LAMURDE Adamawa NUMAN GIREI Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and its Inter-Sector DEMSA YOLA SOUTH Working Group (ISWG), REACH facilitated a multi-sector needs assessment YOLA NORTH (MSNA) in all accessible areas of the most affected northeastern states of Nigeria. FUFORE Indicators and questions used in the assessment were developed with all relevant MAYO-BELWA sectors, validated and endorsed by the ISWG. This assessment, funded by the C A E O O N European Union Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO), was conducted Taraba JADA from 25 June to 6 August 2018 through a total of 10,606 household (HH) surveys and 1,481 key informants interviews in 63 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the GANYE three north-eastern states.

SECTORAL INDEX / SEVERITY METHODOLOGY % of households in need of Severity of needs in education support education sector Two composite indices were created to estimate levels of needs among assessed households in accessible areas. The severity score indicates how severe the need of Non-Displaced Non-Displaced a household was in a given sector, with 0 representing no needs and 10 representing the maximum reported needs. The sectoral index of needs shows households scoring four or greater on the severity scale, which are then categorised as being in 88% 7.3 need of sectoral support. Below is the list of all indicators feeding into the Education sectoral composite index, 88+12I 73+27I with their corresponding weights, used to generate the sectoral severity scale and sectoral index of need. IDPs IDPs

Sector Indicator Weighting 79% 6.0 Household has children that are not currently attending any formal or 3 informal school Education Household has children that have never attended any formal school 3 79+21I 60+40I Household reports any barrier in accessing schools 2 Returnees Returnees Household reports not owning school supplies 2 9090% +10I 656.5 +35I

(1) OCHA (February 2018) Nigeria 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview.

For more information on this 1 factsheet, please email: [email protected] MSNA | NIGERIA EDUCATION

ACCESS TO EDUCATION % of HHs reporting the presence of a female-friendly space (FFS) in their community:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees % of HHs that included at least one child not attending either formal 88+2+5+0+4+0+0+1 80+4+10+0+4+0+0+2 89+1+3+0+7+0+0+1 No place 88% 80% 89% or informal education services, at the time of data collection:2 NGO-run FFS 2% 4% 1% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Community women 5% 10% 3% support group

Women support 4% 4% 7% 73% 64% 74% group at another HH Sewing groups 0% 0% 0% Other / No 1% 2% 0% 73+27I 64+36I 74+26I response / Don’t know

% of HHs that included at least one child who never attended formal education services, at the time of data collection: 2 EDUCATION NFIs Non-displaced IDPs Returnees

% of HHs reporting that they did not own any of the school 51% 29% 30% supplies included in the NFI section of this study (school bags, 51+49I 29+71I 30+70I notebooks, textbooks):4 Non-displaced IDPs Returnees

Top 3 reported barriers HHs experienced in sending their school-aged children to either formal or informal school:3 86% 81% 81% Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 86+14I 81+19I 81+19I Lack of resources Lack of resources Lack of resources 67% to pay fees 71% to pay fees 80% to pay fees School is too far No barrier No barrier 31% away 27% reported 15% reported No barrier School is too far School is too far 20% reported 8% away 13% away

FRIENDLY SPACES

% of HHs reporting the presence of a child-friendly space (CFS) in their community:

Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 88+2+2+8+0 69+5+8+11+1 95+1+2+2+0 No place 88% 69% 95% NGO-run CFS 2% 5% 1% Park 2% 8% 2% Nursery 8% 11% 2% Other / No 0% 1% 0% About REACH response / Don’t know REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions. REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our country office: reach.nigeria@ reach-initiative.org. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us on Twitter: @REACH_info and Facebook: www.facebook.com/IMPACT.init (2) This proportion was achieved by asking the education status of each signle school-aged child in HHs assessed, if any. (3) Respondents could select multiple answers. (4) For more information on NFI ownership, consult the Shelter/NFI factsheet of the REACH 2018 Nigeria MSNA.

2 Nigeria Multi-Sector PROTECTION September 2018 Needs Assessment (MSNA) ADAMAWA STATE

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT COVERAGE

Amidst this context, and within the coordination framework of the United Nations LAMURDE Adamawa NUMAN GIREI Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and its Inter-Sector DEMSA YOLA SOUTH Working Group (ISWG), REACH facilitated a multi-sector needs assessment YOLA NORTH (MSNA) in all accessible areas of the most affected northeastern states of Nigeria. FUFORE Indicators and questions used in the assessment were developed with all relevant MAYO-BELWA sectors, validated and endorsed by the ISWG. This assessment, funded by the C A M O O N European Union Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO), was conducted Taraba JADA from 25 June to 6 August 2018 through a total of 10,606 household (HH) surveys and 1,481 key informants interviews in 63 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the GANYE three north-eastern states.

SECTORAL INDEX / SEVERITY METHODOLOGY % of households in need of Severity of needs in protection support protection sector Two composite indices were created to estimate levels of needs among assessed households in accessible areas. The severity score indicates how severe the need of Non-Displaced Non-Displaced a household was in a given sector, with 0 representing no needs and 10 representing the maximum reported needs. The sectoral index of needs shows households scoring four or greater on the severity scale, which are then categorised as being in 6% 4.3 need of sectoral support. Below is the list of all indicators feeding into the Protection sectoral composite index, 6+94I 43+57I with their corresponding weights, used to generate the sectoral severity scale and sectoral index of need. IDPs IDPs

Sector Indicator Weighting 11% 4.7 HH is located in a ward where explosive incidents were reported 2

HH has experienced a security incident in the previous 3 months 2 Protection 11+89I 47+53I HH adult members do not have any legal documentation 2

HH experiences movement restrictions 2 Returnees Returnees

HH has members that are missing / detained 2 2121% +79I 484.8 +52I

(1) OCHA (February 2018) Nigeria 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview.

For more information on this 1 factsheet, please email: [email protected] MSNA | NIGERIA PROTECTION

% of HHs reporting that at least one member was missing or SAFETY & SECURITY detained, at the time of data collection:

% of HHs reporting that they experienced a security incident, in the Non-displaced IDPs Returnees three months prior to data collection: Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 11% +99I 66% +94I 22% +98I 5% 8% 13% Top 3 reported reasons for missing or detained HH member, at the 5+95I 8+92I 13+87I time of data collection:2,3 Out of those HHs reporting that they experienced a security Non-displaced IDPs Returnees 2 incident, top 3 reported types of security incidents: Boy (<18yo) Women taken by Other 52% 47% taken by AOG 38% AOG Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Killing / Physical Boy (<18yo) Men taken by Men taken by Armed attack Armed attack 23% 42% 24% 68% 77% violence 68% taken by AOG AOG AOG Killing / Physical Destruction of Killing / Physical Boy (<18yo) Boy (<18yo) 17% Don’t know 5% 4 17% 30% violence 24% property 38% violence taken by CJTF taken by AOG Destruction of Destruction of 19% 21% Armed attack 20% property property DOCUMENTATION Out of those HHs reporting that they experienced a security incident, % of HHs reporting the location of security incident: % of HHs reporting that no adult possessed any kind of legal Non-displaced IDPs Returnees

68+0+31+0+0+0+1 19+0+10+0+71+0+0 84+0+3+0+13+0+0 identification document, at the time of data collection: In current 68% 19% 84% location Non-displaced IDPs Returnees While travelling 31% 10% 3% between locations In area of 0% 71% 13% 15% 8% 16% origin

Other / No 1% 0% 0% response / 15+85I 8+92I 16+84I Don’t know Top 3 reported challenges faced by HH members due to lack of % of HHs reporting that they experienced movement restrictions in legal identification documents:2,3 their area, in the two months prior to data collection:3 Non-displaced IDPs Returnees Non-displaced IDPs Returnees No challenge No challenge No challenge 89+11+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 74+25+0+0+0+0+0+0+1 61+39+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 97% reported 93% reported 90% reported No restriction 89% 74% 61% Yes, evening/night 11% Unable to move Unable to move Unable to move 25% 39% 2% 5% 7% Yes, when many 0% 0% 0% freely within town freely within town freely within town people travelling Unable to move Unable to move Unable to move 1% 2% 3% Yes, complete 0% 0% 0% freely for work freely for work freely for work restriction

Yes, 5-10km 0% 0% 0% outside area

Other / No 0% 1% 0% response / Don’t know About REACH Out of those HHs experiencing movement restrictions, % of HHs REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that 3 enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions. REACH reporting the type of restriction: activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our country office: reach.nigeria@ Non-displaced IDPs Returnees

16+78+6 60+40+0 88+12+0 reach-initiative.org. Military-set curfew 16% 60% 88% Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us on Twitter: @REACH_info and Self-imposed 78% 40% 12% Facebook: www.facebook.com/IMPACT.init Other / No 6% 0% 0% response (3) This information refers to a subset of the population assessed and therefore should be considered indicative only. (2) Respondents could select multiple answers. (4) CJTF: Civilian Joint Task Force, community-based vigilante group.