at a glance

THE USE OF PROFILING IN THE OF , &

2016

www.jips.org Why a profiling ?

While a significant amount of information was available on IDPs and refugees residing in camps in the Kurdistan This Region of Iraq (KRI), less was known about those resid- profiling ing outside of camps, particularly in urban areas. entailed a col- Furthermore, most of the existing strategies to mitigate the effects of displacement focused on addressing the laborative approach, needs of either the IDP or refugee populations, while the capacity sharing, and devel- needs of the host communities living alongside these oping long-term responses to displaced groups received much less attention. the displacement concerns in Erbil However, the local communities and authorities . We did not know a lot about were deeply affected by the waves of displacement resulting from the conflicts in and the rest of Iraq. IDPs and refugees residing out of camps, we By 2016 the urban population in had did not know the impact of the crisis on increased by 25 %, in by 31 % and in by 15 % due to the displace- the host community. This profiling ment crises. This combined with the pervasive financial enlightened us about these crisis greatly exacerbated the strains already placed on issues. local communities. In this context, the Governorate authorities in Erbil, Diyar Lateef Omar Duhok and Sulaymaniyah together with UN partners National Humanitarian Advisor Erbil Refugee Council, decided to conduct studies comparing population Erbil Governorate groups (IDPs, refugees, and host communities) in differ- ent urban areas to inform longer term planning for the Kurdistan Regional Government authorities as well as the humanitarian and development community. DART Do your own analysis of the data from Erbil, Duhok, and Sulaymaniyah on dart.jips.org ! Or download the full datasets from the Humanitarian Data Exchange (data.humdata.org).

1 2 What difference did the profiling make ?

more targeted The profiling results responses provided an evidence- base necessary to improve The collaborative The targeting of cash-based a locally character of the pro- profiling interventions as well as owned filing exercise enabled urban planning projected by process local ownership of the helped focus UN and NGO partners. process. This ensured the cash assistance that the profiling approach programmes on the most was adequately tailored to the specific context of vulnerable IDP and refugee com- improved each Governorate and that munities, e.g. due to lack of employ- The profiling understand- the results were useful to all ing and ment or very critical housing situations. We results helped to shared data partners. better understand also learned that we should include the the impact of displacement host community in our program- on different population groups in various urban ming, as they had also been areas in KRI. In addition, The through very difficult local authorities as well two-way Statistics Office and local times. as the humanitarian and capacity Statistics Offices had a development community building central role in carrying out all agreed upon and wel- Jozef Merkx the profiling process (e.g. UNHCR Iraq comed the profiling results. pertaining to mapping, data collec- This enabled each actor to tion and preliminary analysis). This improve their interventions combined with the collaborative and led to a shared under- nature of the profiling exercise led standing of the urban to significant technical capacity dimension of displace- sharing between the Governorate ment as well as its impact authorities, including the Statistics on the host communities. Offices, and the humanitarian and development agencies involved.

3 4 How was the process shaped ?

A collaborative approach was In addition to this, each exer- taken in designing and imple- cise established a Technical menting each profiling exer- Working Group made up cise, with a Profiling Steering of representatives from the This Committee comprising all respective Governorate bodies, study shows relevant partners jointly over- Statistics Offices, and UNHCR seeing the process and con- to lead the technical work, with the importance tributing at different stages. support from JIPS throughout of joining efforts Partners included : the process. between Government, Government and The Statistics Offices admin- including Statistics Offices, and Governorate bodies : Joint istered the household surveys humanitarian organisations to avoid Crisis Coordination Centre while the Governorate author- (JCCC), Kurdistan Region ities and UNHCR organised multiple data collection with Statistics Office (KRSO), the qualitative data collection. different methodologies Governorate Statistics All members were involved in and objectives. Offices (Erbil Statistics data analysis, and the findings Directorate, Duhok Statistics were shared and validated with Office and Sulaymaniyah each Governorate as well as Serwan Mohamed, Statistics Office), the Erbil humanitarian and develop- Kurdistan Region Statistics Refugee Council (ERC), ment stakeholders in a one-day Office the Board of Relief and workshop. This multi-stake- Humanitarian Affairs holder collaboration resulted (BRHA) in Duhok and the in significant knowledge and Sulaymaniyah Governorate ; capacity sharing including the introduction of new data col- Humanitarian and devel- lection and analysis methods. opment actors : UNHCR, UN-HABITAT, OCHA, UNFPA and IOM.

5 6 How was data collected ?

The urban profiling exercises in Erbil, An area-based methodology DUHOK GOVERNORATE Duhok and Sulaymaniyah combined was developed for the exer- quantitative and qualitative meth- cises, which allowed for a Distribution of the households interviewed in ods to explore i. the diversity within comparative analysis not only the coverage area by geographical stratum StratificationStratification Method Method for for the the each target group by different types between population groups DuhokDuhok GovernorateGovernorate Profilling Profiling of urban areas, and ii. the differences but also between certain types Stratification method, each point representing one sampled household per strata : as well as similarities between groups of urban areas/geographic by location. Methods used included : strata with the highest concen- 1st1stStrata strata Strata 1 : -high Duhok-HighHigh density Density DensityDistrict areas centerAreas Areas 2nd2ndStrata Strata Strata 2 : medium- Duhok- Medium Districtdensity Density Periphery areas Areas tration of displaced populations. Medium Density Areas Darkar A sample-based household These comprised the followingStratification Method for the !(!( Stratification Method for the !( 3rd3rdStrata Strata Strata 3 : low- -TownsLow density Density areas Areas !( !(!( Low Density Areas !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( Duhok Governorate Profilling !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( survey of approximately 1,200 areas : Duhok Governorate Profiling !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(center!( !(!( StratificationStratification MethodSub MethodSubdistricts for for the the Sheladaza !(!(!( !(!(!(!( households in each Governorate !(!(!( Razgari !( !(!( Deralok DuhokDuhok GovernorateEachGovernorate point point represents represents Profilling Profiling one one !(!( Amedi center !( targeting IDPs, refugees and In Erbil : !(!(!( !( sampled household per strata !( 1st strata - center !(!(!(!(!(!(!( 1st Strata -HighHigh DensityDensity Areas Areas household interviewed. Sarsank !(!( host communities. The profiling Centre, Erbil District 2nd2nd Strata Strata - Duhok- Medium District Density Periphery Areas !(!( Medium Density Areas1st1st strata Strata - Duhok-HighHighDarkar Density DensityDistrict centerAreas Areas produced a basic demographic Periphery and selected !( Batifa !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( 3rd3rd Strata Strata - -TownsLow Density Areas !(!( !( Low Density Areas !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( profile of the groups disaggre- . !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( 2nd2nd Strata Strata !(-!(!( !(!(Duhok- Medium!(!( District Density Periphery Areas Semel center!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( Medium Density Areas !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( Darkar !(!( !(!( !( Zakho!(!( !(!( !(center !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( gated by sex, age, location and BatifaDuhok center!(!( !(!( !( Sheladaza Sub district !(!( !( !( !( !(!( 3rd3rd Strata Strata - -TownsLow Density Areas !(!( !( !( In Duhok : high-density !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( Low Density Areas !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( Razgari !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( Deralok!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( diversity focusing on livelihoods, !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( Each point represents one !(!(!( Zakho!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(center!( !(!( Fayda Each point represents one !(!( Amedi center !(!(!( !( , medium-density Sheladaza !( !(!(!( center!(!( sampled household per strata Sub district !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( community cohesion, education household interviewed. !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( Sarsank !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( Razgari !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( Deralok districts and low-density !(!( Qasrok!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( Each point represents one !(!(!( !( Each point represents one !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( and future intentions ; !(!( Amedi center !( !(!(!( Esfna !(!( sampled household per strata !( districts. !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( household interviewed. !( !( Sarsank !(!( !( !(!(!(

!( !(!( Focus group discussions with Zawita!(!(!( Rovia !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( Semel center!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( In Sulaymaniyah : !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( Kalakchi !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( Zilkan !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( the host community and a desk !(!( !(!( !( Duhok center !( !( Zawita!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( Semel center!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( review of already collected qual- !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( center !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( Fayda !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( Centre, Sulaymaniyah !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( Duhok center !(!( !( Akre center itative data with the displaced !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( District Periphery, as well Baadre!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( Qasrok!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( Fayda !(!( populations to complement the !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( as Kalar and District Esfna Akre center!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( survey on the topic of social !(!( Baadre!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( Qasrok!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( Centres. !(!(!( !(!( !( 0 10 20 40 Kilometers Rovia !(!(!(!( cohesion and inter-group rela- !(!( Esfna ¯ Kalakchi !( Zilkan !(!( !( !(!(!( Kalak !(!(!( !(!( tions and perceptions ; and !(!( DataData source: source: administrative administrative boundaries providedprovided byby thethe Duhok DuhokStatistical tatistical DirectorateDirectorate!( (DSO)(DOS) Rovia !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( Projection:Projection: WGS WGS 1984 1984 UTMUTM Zone 38N Bardarash!(!(!( center Kalakchi!( Key informant interviews and a Zilkan !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( desk review focusing on availa- Bardarash!(!(!( center bility and capacity of services in Data source : Duhok targeted urban areas. ¯ 0 10 20 40 Kilometers Statistics Directorate (DSO) Kalak !(!(!(!( The boundaries and names shown do not imply official DataData source: source: administrative administrative boundaries providedprovided byby0 thethe Duhok Duhok10 Statistical tatistical20 DirectorateDirectorate (DSO)40(DOS)Kilometers Projection:Projection: WGS WGS 1984 1984 UTMUTM Zone 38N ¯ endorsement or acceptance Kalak !(!( by JIPS. !(!( DataData source: source: administrative administrative boundaries providedprovided byby thethe Duhok DuhokStatistical tatistical DirectorateDirectorate (DSO)(DOS) Projection:Projection: WGS WGS 1984 1984 UTMUTM Zone 38N 7 8 ERBIL GOVERNORATE SULAYMANIYAH GOVERNORATE

Distribution of the households interviewed Distribution of the households interviewed in the coverage area by geographical stratum in the coverage area by geographical stratum

Stratification Method for the Sulaymaniyah Governorate Profiling Stratification method, each point representing Stratification method, each point representing Legend one sampled household per strata : Stratification Method for theone Sulaymaniyah sampled household Governorate per strataProfiling : Legend Strata 1: Sulaymaniyah District Centre Strata 1 : Erbil District Centre StrataStrata 1: Sulaymaniyah1 : SulaymaniyahStrata 2: PeripheryPeri- CentreDistrict DistrictDistricts CentreCentres Pishder Strata 3: Kalar and Kifri District Centres Strata 2 : Erbil District Periphery Rania StrataStrata 2: PeripheryPeri-Urban2 : Sulaymaniyah DistrictDistricts Centres District Periphery Pishder StrataStrata 3: Kalar3 : KalarSub and District Kifriand District Kifri CentresDistrict Centres Strata 3 : Towns Rania SubSub-districts DistrictEach point represents one sampled household per strata Sub-districts Each point represents one sampled householdData per source strata : Sulaymaniyah Statistics Office (SSO) Data source : Erbil Statistics Directorate (ESD) The boundaries and names shown do not imply The boundaries and names shown do not official endorsement or acceptance by JIPS. imply official endorsement or acceptance Dukan by JIPS. Dukan Mawet Mawet Sharbazheir Sharbazheir Penjwean Penjwean

Sulaymaniyah Sulaymaniyah Said sadiq Chamchamal Qaradagh Sharazur Qaradagh Sharazur DarbendikhanHalabja Darbendikhan

Halabja Halabja Kefri Kelar Kefri Kelar

Syrian Syrian Iraq Khanaqin Iran Jordan Iraq

Jordan Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia ¯ 0 10 20 40 Kilometers ¯ 0 10 20 40 Kilometers Data Source: Administrative Boundaries provided by the Sulaymaniyah Statistics Office (SSO) 9 10 Data Source: Administrative Boundaries provided by the Sulaymaniyah Statistics Office (SSO) How did JIPS support ?

JIPS provided technical support throughout each of the three Profiling lessons learned : profiling exercises, from initiation in Erbil in September 2015 to the dissemination of the profiling results for Duhok and Sulaymaniyah How to develop and tailor area-based methodologies in August 2016. This included four joint field missions with Statistics to profiling exercises ; Norway, as well as remote support. Productive capacity sharing process, whereby Governorate authorities, including the respective Statistics Offices, constituted key partners of the profiling and shared their technical capacities with the humanitarian and development community. At a snapshot From capacity sharing during pilot profiling to self-run profiling exercises in subsequent Governorates

VALIDATING, REPORTING AND DISSEMINATING THE FINDINGS DESIGNING THE ESTABLISHING A – Facilitated the process of final METHODOLOGY COLLABORATIVE PROCESS reporting ; – Supported the dissemination of the – Consolidated input from – Tailored and tested an results among the wider humanitar- all partners ; area-based methodology ian and development community. – Facilitated the formal- to address the agreed- isation of a Profiling upon objectives ; Steering Committee and – Worked closely with the PROCESSING AND a Technical Working Technical Working Group ANALYSING THE DATA Group. to finalise indicators and tools ; – Worked together with INITIATING THE – Supported the develop- Statistics Norway and the PROFILING EXERCISE ment of a methodology local Statistics Offices to CONTINUED SUPPORT clean the data and to con- – Identified informa- for qualitative data collec- – The profiling exercise in Erbil piloted the tion and analysis. duct preliminary analysis of tion needs ; the survey data ; methodological approach as well as the – Delivered a – Organised together with collaborative process ; 3-day Profiling IMPLEMENTING the Technical Working – This provided the partners with a solid Coordination DATA COLLECTION Group a collaborative anal- foundation for the subsequent exercises Training to inter- ysis workshop. in Duhok and Sulaymaniyah ; ested stakeholders. – Supported data collection and – JIPS continued to support remotely by training of enumerators, includ- providing technical advice on tool devel- ing with the development of an opment and data analysis. enumerator manual ; – Trained the Technical Working Group in Erbil on how to con- duct focus group discussions.

11 12 What were the Employment

The data in Erbil Governorate employment rates and a higher key findings? showed that the host com- number of people searching for munity had maintained similar jobs. This situation is, however, employment rates to those prior compensated in general by IDPs’ Housing to the crisis. Employment for the access to income transfers by Syrian refugees was high, with the Federal Government of Iraq 95% of the total urban popula- The resulting drastic increase in rates for the adult male popula- for their previous employment tion across all Governorates live demand for housing has had an tion at about 80%. IDP house- in their place of origin. in either houses or apartments. impact on the housing mar- holds had relatively lower In Duhok Governorate 90% of ket, and due to the difficulties the host community house- of paying rent, survey results holds own their housing, while also point to evictions and Erbil Governorate : work status of individuals between 15 to 64 years 60% of IDP households and 90% overcrowding. by gender, population group and geographic strata of refugee households pay rent.

Duhok Governorate : housing tenure by population group and geographic strata

13 14 Returns Community cohesion Sulaymaniyah Governorate : The profiling data indicated willingness to return to area The profiling used qualitative methods to understand relationships that the displaced popula- of origin between different communities. The results indicate that with the tions from all Governorates increase of the urban population across all Governorates in the were unlikely to return to Kurdistan Region of Iraq as a result of the displacement crisis, com- their places of origin in the petition over resources as well as distrust and tensions between near future. For example, in the host community and the displaced groups have increased. Sulaymaniyah Governorate 21 % of IDP households and 15 % of refugee households » Many things changed since the arrival of IDPs. stated that they were unwilling There is no freedom anymore, our parents do not to return. let us go out at night. The displacement situation has taken control of our lives because we used to In addition, 31 % of both IDPs go out, take walks, and now it is not easy to do that and refugees interested in because our parents said that it is not safe. returning indicated various conditions for this (e.g. liber- Young girl from host community, Duhok ation and reconstruction of areas of origin, reclamation of property) as well as limitations Nevertheless, many host community members also acknowledged by external factors (e.g. recon- the very difficult situation of the refugees and IDPs and had a more struction needs, financial costs, nuanced description of the displacement impact on the local legal land and property dis- community: putes). In sum, this implied that about half of the displaced households were likely to »»The arrival of Arabs at least Each family provided some items remain in their current loca- has a positive effect on to the IDPs ; food, TVs, blankets… tion for the subsequent 5 to 10 the market activity, there at the start, Syrian people came, years. are more customers. The and we assisted them. And likewise return will be bad because when people came from Nineveh, it will have a bad effect, less irrespective of their ethnicity or customers will lead to more religion. But the IDP situation has unemployment… been ‘heavy’ on our community.

Shop owner from host community, Adult man from host community, Duhok Erbil

15 16 In line with the advocacy for a JIPS’ publications ‘At a glance : the shift from emergency use of profiling’, or formerly ‘Profiles at a Glance’ look at the impact of the to mid or long term planning profiling exercises supported by JIPS. for humanitarian interventions, While providing an overview of the pro- the profiling exercise was implemented filing methodology and findings, these publications bring attention to how the by Government institutions in collaboration collaborative process was shaped and with local Statistics Offices and humanitarian how JIPS concretely contributed.

partners. The resulting evidence-base Through the At a glance series we helps build a bridge between the hope to spark an interest in both the UN and the Government. specific impact of the exercise in a given context, and profiling of displace- ment situations in general. Shadman Mahmoud, Profiling Coordinator, UNHCR For more information about the profil- ing exercises, visit our opera- tions page.

Profile Profile at a glance Profile at a glance at a glance Profile Ecuador at a glance This summary provides a glimpse into ĂŶƵƌďĂŶƉƌŽĮůŝŶŐĂŶĚĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ process. The Norwegian Refugee Council, WƌŽĮůĞ Quito ŝŶĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƟŽŶǁŝƚŚŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͕Đŝǀŝů ƐŽĐŝĞƚLJŽƌŐĂŶŝƐĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚŚƵŵĂŶŝƚĂƌŝĂŶHonduras ĂƚĂŐůĂŶĐĞ Somalia and development partners shaped ŽďũĞĐƟǀĞƐ͕ŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐLJĂŶĚƚŽŽůƐ͕ĂŶĚ MOGADISHU ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶĂŶĚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ with JIPS’ remote support.

dŚŝƐŐůĂŶĐĞŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽĮůĞŽĨĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞĚ ƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĂŶĚŚŽƐƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐŝŶ'ŽŵĂ͕ ĞŵŽĐƌĂƟĐZĞƉƵďůŝĐŽĨŽŶŐŽ͕ƐĞĞŬƐƚŽ ƐƉĂƌŬŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚďŽƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĮŶĚŝŶŐƐŽĨƚŚĞ ƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƵƌďĂŶƉƌŽĮůŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐŝŶ Myanmar general. Goma KACHIN & Democratic Republic NORTHERN SHAN of Congo 2014 2015 2016

2016 [email protected] www.jips.org

Λ:/W^ͺƉƌŽĮůŝŶŐ © 2015 JIPS :ŽŝŶƚ/WWƌŽĮůŝŶŐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ 2014

www.jips.org/en/field-support/country-operations

17 18 The collaborative profiling exercises conducted between the end of 2015 and 2016 in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (Erbil, Duhok and Sulaymaniyah) produced multiple impacts : improved targeting of cash programming ; two- way capacity building ; and a better understanding of how displacement affects not only the internally dis- placed and refugees but also host communities in urban areas. The exercises were coordinated by the Profiling Steering Committee, which included Governorate authorities and UN partners. JIPS provided techni- cal support throughout the process. Additional technical support was provided by Statistics Norway through the NORCAP roster.

Government partners

Governments from Erbil, Duhok and Sulaymaniyah Erbil Statistics Directorate (ESD) Sulaymaniyah Statistics Office (SSO) Duhok Statistics Office (DSO) Joint Crisis Coordination Center (JCC)

DUHOK STATISTICS OFFICE (DSO)

Humanitarian & development partners

Displacement as challenge Displacement as challenge Displacement as challenge and opportunity and opportunity and opportunity Urban profile: Urban profile of refugees, internally displaced persons Urban profile: Refugees, internally displaced persons and host community and host community in Erbil Governorate, Refugees, internally displaced persons and host community Kurdistan Region of Iraq Sulaymaniyah Governorate and Garmian Administration, Duhok Governorate, Kurdistan Region of Iraq Kurdistan Region of Iraq April 2016 August 2016 August 2016

Check out the profiling reports from the Kurdistan Region of Iraq for detailed analysis and findings : www.jips.org.