ASSESSMENT ON INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDP) STATUS IN KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA AND FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED TRIBAL AREAS Nutrition Cluster Submitted to UNOCHA KP Nutrition Cluster Aien Khan 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The current existing displacement of caseload is estimated about one million IDPs (159,609 families; 957,654 individuals – 54 per cent men/46 per cent women),1who fled between 2008 to 2013 due to insecurity related to armed non-state entities, security operations and sectarian violence in various Agencies of FATA. Almost four cent of this population is living in the three IDP camps, including 4,682 IDP families in Jalozai (KP), 1,157 families in Togh Sarai (KP)and 732 in New Durrani (FATA) IDP camps. The remaining 96 per cent are residing in host communities, mostly in the adjoining districts in KP and safer areas in FATA. So far 517,133 Children displaced and over 1 million in IDPs in KP and FATA. As of may 20 2014, 824 registered families returned to Tirah Valley, Khyber Agency in the on-going Phase II of Tirah IDPs return, which started on 7 May 2014.2 1.2 The rational for theIDP Assessment This assessment was planned in response to OCHA request to carry outIDP assessment by the respective clusters on the Internally Displaced persons (IDP) within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Federally Administered tribal areas (FATA).The main objective of the assessment is to identify and estimate the humanitarian needs of the IDPs community and prepare response based on the facts in the targeted areas. Thus, theassessment wasdesignedbased on UNHCR IDP official figure that was shared to the clusters during the technical working group meeting. This assessment was believed to fill the lack of updated information on IDP status and provide basis for IDP humanitarian response planning in areas of Nutrition and other sectors through: Promote a shared vision of needs and priorities; Establish the priority needs from an integrated perspective and use resources more efficiently; Obtain a more comprehensive picture of needs for better guide donor funding; Allow clusters to analyze and decide on the most appropriate strategies to support IDPs; Serve as a foundation for planning for IDP response; and Reduce duplication of effort and promote inter-cluster learning. Therefore, the nutrition cluster decided to coordinate with implementing partners (IPs) in order to conduct the assessment in their own operational area using simple random sampling. Almost all who are renting the house are living within the host community. In terms of place origin, the IDPs came from different parts of the province. The highest origin was reported from Alihera for Kurram agency followed by Tirah, slaarzai for other districts. This assessment was conducted in DI Khan, Hangu, Nowshera, Khot,Kurram, Nowshera, Peshawar,Tank of KP districts, Bajour, Mohmand, Kurram agencies of FATA and three camps Jalozai in Nowshera, Togh Sarai in Hangu, New Durrani in Kurram camps in KP and FATA. 1UNHCRIDP statistics as of 30 April 2014 2 Situation Report Complex Emergency in KP and FATA Monthly Sitrep # 29 2 1.3 Objectives of the Study The cluster developed tool and harmonize it to come up simple tool for IDP assessment. The assessment specifically will look into; The prevalence of malnutrition among children aged 6-59 months in the IDP households. Determine of measles coverage and illness among children in the IDP population Assess the Infant and young child feeding practice among the IDP population 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Sample size calculation Simple random sampling was used as indicated on Table1. The sample size for nutrition cluster was derived using the formula: t2(p×q) 푁 = D ⌈ ⌉ The parameters are tabulated as follows: 푑2 Table 1: Parameters used in calculation of sample size calculation IDP assessment Parameter Definition value N Sample size: 1.962(0.5 × 0.5) 푁 = ⌈ ⌉ t2(p × q) 0.052 푁 = 2 ⌈ ⌉ 푑2 =384.16 rounded up to 384 t Error risk. t=1.96 at 95% confidence interval p Expected prevalence Used 50% corresponding to p=0.5 as proportion q 1-p Thus q=1-0.5=0.5 d Degree of accuracy (5% for each survey) and given as 0.05 proportion D Design effect 1 because we are using random sampling Simple random sampling is always used for small populations that contain more than 1000 sampling units (or households). The assessment team was requested to prepare the list of IDP households up on arrival in each selected village for purpose of sampling. Table 2. IDP sampling by district with in KP/FATA S/ District Total Total under Total Total OCHA IDPs OCHA Sample Actual N population five @ 12.1% IDPs Returnees Sample Returnees Sample 3 1 Peshawar 2,020,463 244476 71469 382 384 2 DI Khan 705,403 85354 25331 378 384 3 Kohat 554,750 67125 21670 377 384 4 Tank 360,539 43625 11684 372 384 5 Nowshera 671,328 81231 9304 369 384 6 Hangu 373,520 45196 1205 291 384 7 Kurram 649,287 78564 9770 10263 370 370 384 8 Khyber 973,330 117773 2082 6187 324 362 384 9 SWA 574,270 69487 ??? 1900 320 384 10 Bajaur 1124141 136021 ??? 559 228 384 11 Mohmand 627,120 75882 ??? 186 126 384 8,634,151 1044732 3 Sample was taken at confidence interval (CI) of 95%, desired precision of 5% if the prevalence of malnutrition is 50% 3 Since in most contexts the number of basic sampling units (BSU) is large, simple random sampling procedure was conducted by numbering each basic sampling unit i.e IDP households and then choosing the desired number IDPs households randomly using the random number table as presented on Figure 2Error! Reference source not found.. Assessment was then be taken based on these IDP households only. For instance we have 71469 IDP households in Peshawar and our total sample is 382 (OCHA sample). Therefore, in order to select 386 IDP households randomly in Peshawar the team usedrandom table generated from ENA software as follow. Figure 1: ENA Random Number Generator 2.2 Sampling procedure Option 1:Using simple random sampling methodology. In order to select the specific IDPs Households from village after listing that is 386 IDP households from the total IDP list in each district, the following optionwas given to the team o Number each of the 71469 IDPs of Peshawar from 1 to 71469. o Enter 1 in the box named Range from and 71469 in the box named To (Figure 1Error! Reference source not found.). o Enter the number of IDPs you need for your sample (386) in the box named Numbers. o Click on the Generate Table button. o A word file will open displaying the 386numbers selected randomly (Figure 2). 4 Figure 2: List of random IDP numbers in a Word document generated by ENA software 2.3.Data Analysis, Management and Process 2.3.1Data quality management and clearance One day a partner meeting was organized by nutrition cluster and the pretest of the questioner was carried out with partners. The review and daily editing of the questionnaires was carried out on daily basis by the district supervisors in order to identify errors, omissions and inconsistencies. This quality checking was not done daily after data collection and feedbacks wasnot given before the next data collection measure as a result the anthropometric data quality was affected. That means the consistency of data wasn’t assessed by plausibility check on digit preference in height and weight measurements, overall sex ratio, and standard deviation for weight for height. Therefore, the analysis of this report was based on the MUAC finding. 2.3.2Data Analysis SPSS version 16 was used for data cleaning, outliers checking and analysis of contextual or non-anthropometric data analysis. Moreover, anthropometry Data entry and analysis was done using ENA for SMART software. 2.3.3 Ethical Considerations Clearance for the assessment was collected from the respective mandated offices and verbal consents were obtained from each assessment participants. The participants were briefed about the objectives and importance of the assessment before the commencement of interviews and all interviews was conducted in areas where the privacy of the study participants was maintained. 5 3. RESULT 3.1 Resident status of the IDP household According the findings 4,576 IDP households were visited both within the host community of eight districts and three camps. The mean household size was 7.27 +3.75 standard deviation. A total of 3549 children were visited in the assessment and 52.2% of them were male. The majority of the IDPs in the host community of Hangu, Kohat, Nowshera, Peshawar and Tank are living within rented houses whereas the IDPs in the camps reported they have been living within the camp. The situation in Bajour, Mohmand and Kurram is different where the majority IDPs live in their own house. Figure 3: percentage of IDPs by types of resident Housing conditiong of IDPs 40.0 33.3 35.1 35.0 31.6 30.0 25.0 25.0 18.9 15.4 14.9 20.0 12.8 14.114.6 14.6 13.6 11.8 12.1 13.0 15.0 9.4 11.2 9.1 6.5 7.66.0 6.9 7.6 9.2 8.8 10.6 10.0 4.3 4.4 4.1 7.4 5.0 6.2 0.0 Rented house Living with relatives Owner of the house In IDP camp Linear (Living with relatives) Out of the total 4574 households, 41.1% are living in rented house while 24.3% and 25.9% of them were living in IDP camps and own house respectively.