idp profiling results - humanitarianresponse · iv. community involvement in the profiling exercise...

IDP Profiling Results

Fig

hti

ng

Hu

ng

er W

orl

dw

ide

April 2015

Geneina Town Camps, West Darfur

Page | 2

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 4

I. Background ..................................................................................................................... 5

II. Overall Food Security Situation in West Darfur State ......................................... 5

III. WFP assistance in West and Central Darfur .......................................................... 6

IV. Community Involvement in the Profiling Exercise ............................................... 7

V. Profiling Data Collection ............................................................................................. 7

VI. Profiling Data Analysis & Results .............................................................................. 8

A. Data Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................ 8

B. Overall Results ................................................................................................................... 8

C. Specific Results by Camp ................................................................................................. 10

VII. Coordination and Presentation of Results ............................................................ 20

VIII. Dealing with Complaints .................................................................................... 20

IX. Challenges and Lessons Learnt ................................................................................ 20

X. Implementation ........................................................................................................... 21

RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD ................................................................ 22

Page | 3

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

Acronyms

AO Area Office

CBOs Community Based Organizations

CO Country Office

DDPD Doha Document for Peace in Darfur

e-BSFP Emergency Blanket Supplementary Feeding

Programme

FFA Food for Assets

FFE Food for Education

FSMS Food Security Monitoring System

GFD General Food Distribution

HAC Humanitarian Aid Commission

IDP–P IDP Profiling

IAP Integrated Assistance Package

INGOs International Non-Governmental

Organizations

MNP Multi-nutrients Powder

MUAC Mid Upper Arm Circumference

NISS National Intelligence and Security Services

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

TSFP Targeted Supplementary Feeding

Programme

UN United Nations

VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping

WFP World Food Programme

Page | 4

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In line with WFP’s rationalization strategy, WFP Sudan began an IDP profiling (IDP-P)

targeting exercise aimed at providing assistance to long-term IDPs based on

vulnerability rather than IDP status alone. The IDP-P exercise will result in the

classification of households into four different vulnerability categories: ‘none’,

‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’.

Between 2013/2014, WFP was able to collect household level data for nine camps

in Geneina town in West Darfur with approximately 33,000 long-term IDP

households (89,000 IDPs) receiving WFP assistance. Results from the analysis

indicated that approximately 11,000 of the profiled households fall within the ‘high’

vulnerability category, 13,000 within the ‘medium’ vulnerability category and

8,600 within the ‘low’ and ‘none’ vulnerability categories.

Based on the results, WFP will continue to provide monthly general food

distributions (GFD) to the IDPs falling within the ‘high’ vulnerability category

(34%), provide seasonal GFD (6 months) and/or food for assets/training (FFA/T)

to households falling within the ‘medium’ vulnerability category (40%) and will stop

GFD assistance for the 26% households falling within the ‘low’ and ‘none’

vulnerable categories. Food for education (FFE) and nutrition support programmes

will continue to be made available for all households in these camps regardless of

vulnerability category.

Page | 5

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

I. Background

Since 2009, WFP has started to implement a rationalization strategy, transitioning when

and where possible from emergency food assistance to more targeted early recovery activities

in Darfur as part of a long-term exit strategy.

In line with the strategy, WFP has updated and refined its beneficiary lists in the long-term

IDP camps through a verification process which accounted for the births and deaths of IDPs

and eliminated non-valid ration card holders and individuals that had left the camps. In July

2013, the verification process was finalized for the prioritized1 camps and WFP began taking

the exercise to the next level to tailor its assistance through the IDP-P exercise in order to allow

for provision of assistance that is based on needs rather than IDP status alone.

Specifically, the objectives of IDP-P are to classify IDP households based on their level of

vulnerability and target food assistance according to their vulnerability rather than IDP status;

introduce the Integrated Assistance Package (IAP) as an alternative to GFD and reduce food

assistance dependency. Lastly this should provide the basis for durable solutions for long-term

IDPs in line with the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur2 (DDPD) and the Darfur

Development Strategy3.

In West Darfur state, data collection for the IDP-P exercise began in February 2014. As of April

2015, data had been collected, entered and analyzed for all Geneina town camps: Abu Zar,

Dorti, Ardamata, Krinding 1, Krinding 2, Riyad, Sultan House, Hujaj and Jama. WFP will

begin implementing results of the profiling in May 2015.

II. Overall Food Security Situation in West Darfur State

WFP’s Food Security Monitoring System (FSMS) is carried out three times a year: February

(post-harvest), May (pre-lean season) and November (post-lean) across West Darfur. The

most recent FSMS across West Darfur state was conducted in November 2014 where a total of

474 households across 20 locations were interviewed. Main findings are outlined below:

48% of households were classified as food secure. In reality, this represented a

deterioration from the situation in 2013, mainly attributed to an increase in prices due

to increased demand from Chad, and the high transportation cost from Central Sudan

in addition to the general inflation across Sudan in large due to the lifting of the fuel

subsidies in 2013.

While IDPs did not develop a similar pattern of income generation as resident

communities, the FSMS showed that more IDP households were engaged in small

business activities in comparison to the previous three years including cart transport,

donkey renting and tea stalls.

Generally, around 80% of IDP households allocate over 65% of their monthly

expenditure for food, indicating greater vulnerability to price and income shocks. This

percentage had increased from previous years despite the good harvest in 2013/2014

due to the general increase in prices across the state and Sudan in general.

The purchasing power of IDPs had also deteriorated in 2014 due to the higher prices

with approximately 72% of IDP households unable to afford the cost of even one local

food basket.

1 Camps prioritized for verification are those where IDPs were long term WFP beneficiaries. Camps under seasonal support were not targeted through the verification exercise. 2 http://darfurconference.com/sites/default/files/files/DDPD%20English.pdf 3 http://darfurconference.com/sites/default/files/files/Darfur%20Development%20Strategy%20%286.3.13%29.pdf

http://darfurconference.com/sites/default/files/files/DDPD%20English.pdf

http://darfurconference.com/sites/default/files/files/Darfur%20Development%20Strategy%20%286.3.13%29.pdf


http://darfurconference.com/sites/default/files/files/DDPD%20English.pdf


Page | 6

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

Similarly, household food consumption, in terms of dietary diversity and food

frequency, deteriorated in 2014 in comparison to the previous years with only 48% of

households having acceptable consumption, down from 68% in 2013. Generally, the

percentage of households who reported facing food difficulties accessing enough food

remained similar compared to previous FSMS rounds.

The below graph shows changes in the food security situation for IDPs in West Darfur4 over

the past four years. Generally, since 2011 the food security situation has improved with the

proportion of food insecure households decreasing from 36% to 15% and food secure

households increasing from 31% to 48 percent.

III. WFP assistance in West and Central Darfur

Across West and Central Darfur states, WFP has been providing GFD assistance to over

593,000 IDPs across 26 camps. These IDPs had been receiving GFD since 2003 upon the onset

of the Darfur crisis. Initially, full GFD rations, comprising 450 grams of cereal per person per

day, 50 grams of pulses, 30 grams of vegetable oil, 30 grams of sugar and 50 grams of CSB,

were provided.

In 2010, based on results of the FSMS, GFD rations to IDPs were reduced to 50 percent. The

reduction of GFD rations did not result in a deterioration in the food consumption of IDPs as

they had developed stronger coping mechanisms and were not in need of the same amount of

food they required upon the onset of the conflict. In 2013, the number of commodities in the

half ration was reduced to 270 grams of sorghum and 30 grams of pulses as the IDPs were

selling vegetable oil and sugar was not providing any additional nutritional value to their

consumption. In 2009, WFP began piloting the use vouchers instead of in-kind food with the

objective of providing more choice to the IDPs and also stimulating markets. In 2014, WFP

reached more than 88,000 long-term IDPs in Geneina town with value vouchers.

In addition to GFD, WFP also provides support to some 224,000 children through school

feeding and 121,000 through nutrition activities to treat and prevent moderate acute

malnutrition in young children and pregnant and lactating women.

4 Results pre 2012 are applicable to both West and Central Darfur states as they were collected prior to the establishment of Central Darfur as a separate state.

Page | 7

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

Recently, WFP has also put a stronger focus on increasing its recovery based activities and

now reaches some 76,000 IDPs through FFA activities. WFP also introduced the joint WFP,

Ministry of Agriculture and Central Bank of Sudan programme of Connecting Farmers to

Markets (F2M) programme aiming at linking farmers with markets for micro-finance,

insurance, extension services and market for sale.

IV. Community Involvement in the Profiling Exercise

WFP began the sensitization for the profiling in October 2013. A key component in moving

forward with the profiling was the community acceptance and engagement in the process. All

data was collected by the community members themselves following extensive training from

WFP staff. Additionally, community members were fully engaged in the process of selecting

factors within their own context that would have a large impact on vulnerability. Following

implementation, communities will also be involved in the selection of appropriate FFA

activities based on their own needs. In this way, WFP ensured that communities were a part

of the entire exercise.

V. Profiling Data Collection

WFP began data collection across Geneina in February 2014, using three different versions of

the IDP-P questionnaire as enclosed in Annex 1. This is due to the fact that the questionnaire

was revised on several occasions during the development of the IDP profiling methodology.

However, all questionnaires covered the main factors including: demographics, employment,

land access and assets ownership. The design of the questionnaire was done carefully to ensure

that the data would provide an overview of the long term vulnerability of households including

types of employment and asset ownership rather than seasonal vulnerability indicators such

as household income, food consumption score or coping mechanisms during a specific season.

Data was collected from door to door, meaning that each household was visited within the camp

and one questionnaire was completed per household. Data was collected by enumerators from

the community themselves and was entered by data entry clerks at Country Office (CO) level.

Overall, data was collected for a total of 36,837 households in comparison to 30,711 individuals

registered in WFP’s verification database. The additional households could be due to several

reasons including households that were not captured through the verification for various

reasons but still living in camps, households profiled more than once, or host community

households profiled in addition to camp residents and/or households that were added on to

the beneficiaries following the verification exercise but not updated in WFP’s central

verification database. However, it should be noted that only people that have been accepted

through WFP’s verification database will be considered for implementation.

All profiled households are cross-checked against the verification database using beneficiary

ration card numbers. Cases unmatched with the verification could be attributed to errors in

writing the ration card number or inclusion of households that do not exist in the verification

database. For those with errors in the ration card numbers, WFP will cross check the names

with community leaders. Those that were not included in the verification database will not be

considered in the profiling.

Page | 8

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

VI. Profiling Data Analysis & Results

A. Data Analysis Methodology

To analyze the profiling results, WFP adopted a discriminant analysis5 model in order to

classify IDP households into four categories of vulnerability: ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’ and ‘none’.

Household data collected was firstly sorted out using community-identified factors in the

questionnaire which best qualify each vulnerability group.

Focus group discussions and consultations with community members and sheikhs were held

at the Area Office (AO) level in order to determine which factors present in the questionnaire

were the most important in determining household vulnerability to make up the first

categorization. Through the community consultations as well as discussions between AO

Programme staff including Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Unit, profiling focal

point, Operations Unit and Head of Area Office, West and Central Darfur Area Office derived

the below as the final first classification table for all Geneina camps:

Once the households were classified based on those initial factors, through a discriminant

analysis, households were then given a finalized categorization based on all other factors

present in the questionnaire. The analysis also showed the extent to which each household

reliably belongs in each category. This is expected to be a main component to dealing with

complaints or requests for reclassification. The analysis also yields a ‘Classification Function

Coefficients’ table which shows the relative weight that each variable has, for each level of

classification, making it possible to identify and isolate the variables which contribute the most

to categorical belonging. This information will complement the available data and can assist

in the design of FFA activities.

B. Overall Results

Data was analyzed for all camps and results indicated that overall, 26% of households fell

within the ‘none’ and ‘low’ vulnerability categories and will no longer receive GFD assistance.

Another 40% fell within the ‘medium’ vulnerability category and will receive either seasonal

GFD, FFA or a combination of both and 33% were within the ‘high’ vulnerability category and

will continue to receive their current GFD entitlement.

5 In simple terms, discriminant function analysis is classification - distributing cases into groups, classes or categories

of most similar type. The Discriminant analysis models is used to determine, based on a set of quantitative variables (in this case the entirety of the data collected), the linear combinations of these variables that best group cases according to a given qualitative variable (level of vulnerability –none, low, medium or high)

6 Employment: this includes several employment options including crop, livestock, agricultural labour, non-agricultural wage labour, non-salary work, salary work and small business or petty trade. Employment does not necessarily mean constant or continuous employment; it is seasonal in the case of cultivation, irregular in the case of non-agricultural wage labour, etc. Access to land: access to land includes land either rented or owned by the household.

Vulnerability category Factors6

None Employment AND Access to land AND ownership of a

cart

Low Any combination of two of the above factors

Medium Any one of the above factors

High None of the above factors

Page | 9

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

When reviewing several key factors across the nine camps:

Average assets ownership stands at 11% with Jama camp having the lowest

percentage of households owning assets at only 1% and Abuzar camp having the

highest percentage at 25% of households.

Employment varies greatly between the camps ranging from only 9% of households in

Jama camp and up to 90% in Dorti camp and with an average of 65% overall.

Land access also varies greatly among camps with the highest being 74% of households

in Dorti and only 1% in Jama with average of 11% of all households.

Head of households’ education level across all camps is generally low. The average for

university level education is only at 1% and does not exceed 3% in any of the camps.

The average for secondary education across the camps is 6% with the highest being

Dorti camp at 14 percent of households. 49% of the population have no education and

only 44% have primary/khalwa level education.

Geneina camps have a very small proportion of individuals living in mud/mud brick houses or

stone/concrete houses. 72% of profiled households reported living in plastic sheeting houses.

However, the high proportion of plastic sheeting reported may be attributed to a

misunderstanding of what constitutes “plastic sheeting housing.” A large proportion of

households live in thatch or mud houses but put plastic sheeting as an addition on top. It is

believed that enumerators classified such houses as plastic sheeting houses in many instances.

Generally, Jama camp is the worst off in comparison to the other camps in Geneina, having

the highest proportion of households with no asset ownership, no employment, no land access,

no education, and the highest number of households living in plastic sheeting. Dorti camp is

generally the best off having the highest percentage of households with a working member, land

access, secondary school education and the lowest rate of populations living in plastic sheeting.

Camp HH profiled High and

Medium

Low and

None Assets Employed

Land

accessNone

Primary/

KhalwaSecondary University

Mud/mu

d brick

Stone/co

nrete

Mats/Tha

tch

Plastic

Sheeting

Dorti 2,512 48 52 13% 90% 74% 48% 37% 14% 1% 4% 1% 47% 48%

Kirinding 1 5,793 69 31 3% 58% 27% 63% 33% 4% 0% 3% 1% 15% 81%Sultan House 1,531 70 30 9% 72% 30% 36% 52% 10% 3% 8% 5% 22% 65%Abuzar 4,643 77 23 25% 66% 23% 37% 52% 10% 1% 8% 4% 20% 69%Riyadh 5,764 77 23 13% 45% 21% 57% 38% 4% 1% 9% 7% 21% 63%

Ardamata 8,173 78 22 13% 71% 40% 47% 46% 6% 1% NA NA NA NAKirinding 2 2,795 78 22 4% 76% 20% 38% 54% 7% 1% 1% 1% 5% 93%Hujaj 1,485 83 17 2% 88% 11% 42% 53% 5% 1% 11% 1% 14% 74%

Jama 568 99 1 1% 9% 1% 70% 27% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 98%

74% 26% 11% 65% 31% 49% 44% 6% 1% 4% 3% 15% 54%

Housing

Weighted average

Education

Area

OfficeCamp Name High Medium Low None

Ardamata 28 50 13 9

Dorti 17 31 42 10

Sultan House 20 50 25 5

Riyadh 51 26 16 7

Jama 91 8 1 0

Hujaj 20 63 17 0

Abuzar 33 44 21 3

Kirinding 1 37 32 29 3

Kirinding 2 24 54 21 2

33 40 21 5

W&CD

Weighted Average

Page | 10

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

In comparing FSMS results outlined in Section 2 with profiling results, percentage of people

within the borderline is similar to those within the medium category. However, the

percentage of those within the food insecure category (15%) is a lot lower than that of the

profiling (33%) and people in the food secure category in the FSMS (48%) is a lot higher than

the profiling data (26%). This can be attributed to the fact that the profiling data analysis

focuses on longer term indicators of vulnerability rather than seasonal factors or factors that

are more strongly linked with the provision of food assistance.

C. Specific Results by Camp

This section will provide general information on each camp as well as final results and

implementation plan by camp. Additionally, graphs showing proportion of populations having

each of the main factors (employment, assets and land access) within each of the vulnerability

categories will be presented for each camp.

1. Dorti Camp

Dorti camp is in a village adjoined to Ardamata

Administrative unit in El Geneina. The camp

was established in 2003 as a result of attacks

that occurred in villages in North and East of El

Geneina Town including Dialo, Amer Alla, Um

Sibiaka, Um Salma, Kondobe, Bir Dagig, Dorti

Zalataya and Khartai. Most IDPs, from various

tribes including Erenga, Massalit, Tama,

Gimir, Burgo and Massira Jabel fled to Dorti

and were initially hosted by members of their

tribes within the host communities prior to settling in the camp which was set up shortly

following their arrival with the contribution of the host community.

Relations among camp residents is good as IDPs were living in close proximity to each other

and had good relations prior to the conflict. Relations were further strengthened when IDPs

settled in the same camp. Additionally, since the majority of IDPs in the camp have relatives

within the Dorti host community the relationship between the two is very good allowing for

collaboration between the groups.

WFP profiled a total of 2,512 households in Dorti camp in comparison to 2,140 households

registered in WFP’s verification database, all of whom are receiving WFP assistance. Within

the camp, 40% of those profiled live in plastic shelter, 48% in mats/thatch, 3% in

stone/concrete and 9% in mud/mud brick.

Around 48% of the heads of household reported having no education, 37% have

primary/Khalwa education, 14% have secondary education and less than 1% have university

level education. The none vulnerable group has the biggest proportion of those with university

education, although it was still low at 2% meanwhile the highly vulnerable group has the

highest proportion of households with no education in comparison to the other categories at

approximately 72%.

Overall, 13% of interviewed households indicated ownership of assets while 90% indicated

that they were employed and 74% indicated having land access, be it rented, owned, gift or

sharecropping. The none vulnerable group has the highest proportion of people employed,

asset ownership as well as land access, while the none vulnerable group has the lowest

proportion of people for all factors.

0%

50%

100%

None Low Medium High

Dorti - Assets

No assets Assets

Page | 11

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

Results have shown that Dorti camp has the highest proportion of residents falling within

the low and none vulnerable category, meaning the food security situation in Dorti camp is

significantly better than the situation across the other camps. Furthermore, Dorti IDPs came

from nearby locations and continue to have access to land. IDPs also participate in various

income generating activities including but not limited to selling of humanitarian relief

commodities provided by humanitarian agencies and NGOs, producing handicrafts, selling

firewood, construction wood and grass for animals, running small shops and restaurants,

labor in brick laying business as well as working in the local market, selling tea, vegetables etc.

Final Dorti Results:

None vulnerable: 254 households, representing 10% of the beneficiaries

Low vulnerable: 1,054 households, representing 42% of the beneficiaries

Medium vulnerable: 775 households, representing 31% of the beneficiaries

High vulnerable: 429 households, representing 17% of the beneficiaries

Implementation

1,308 households to be discontinued from GFD assistance, representing 52% of the beneficiaries

775 households shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA

429 households to continue receiving full GFD

2. Ardamata Camp

Ardamata camp is located in the outskirts of Ardamata village (approx. 7 km North East from

El-Geneina town) with no clear demarcation between the camp and the village. The majority

of the population residing in Ardamata camp came from the North and East of West Darfur

(Kerenik) and composed of different African tribes with the majority being Massalit.

The camp has good access to water since it lays in the Eastern side of the river “Wadi” Kaja.

During the rainy season, due to its flat landscape and the closeness to the Wadi, the camp

witnesses some flooding on the South West side. Ardamata camp continues to have good

relations with old traditional leaders, where 75% of the IDP community leaders belong to

traditional leadership.

The camp has a small market, and women are involved in daily labor and domestic work. Camp

residents are also involved in alcohol production.

0%

50%

100%


Dorti - Employment

Not employed Employed

0%

50%

100%


Dorti - Land Access

No land access Land access

Page | 12

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

WFP currently provides assistance to 6,675

households in Ardamata camp while some 8,173

individuals were profiled. Overall, 47% of heads of

household in Ardamata have no education, 46% have

primary/Khalwa level education, 6% have secondary

education and < 1% have university level degrees. The

‘medium’ category has the highest proportion of

household heads with no education followed by the

‘highly’ vulnerable. While the ‘none’ vulnerable

category has the highest percentage of household

heads with secondary level education (10%) although

still low.

Approximately 13% of the profiled households were found to have assets, employment rate

was high at 71% and 40% have land access. The ‘none’ vulnerable category has the highest

proportion of households with no employment, no assets and/or no land access. While the

‘low’ vulnerable category has the highest proportion of people with land access and employment.

Final Ardamata Results

None vulnerable: 772 households representing 9% of the beneficiaries

Low vulnerable: 1,054 households representing 13% of the beneficiaries

Medium vulnerability: 4,092 households representing 50% of the beneficiaries

Highly vulnerable: 2,255 households representing 28% of the beneficiaries

Implementation

1,826 households to be discontinued from GFD, representing 22% of the beneficiaries

4,092 shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA

2,255 households to continue receiving full GFD

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Ardamata - Land Access

No Land Access Land Access

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Ardamata - Employment

Not Employed Employed

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Ardamata - Assets

No Assets Assets

Page | 13

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

3. Sultan House Camp

Sultan House was one of the camps that was

sampled through the FSMS, results indicated that

only 20% of the camp residents were food

insecure, 15% were borderline and 65% were food

secure. However, this result was derived from a

small sample of only 20 households.

Approximately 1,356 households in Sultan House

receive food assistance in comparison to 1,531

households that were profiled. Overall, 36% of

profiled household heads have no education,

while 52% reported having primary education,

10% have secondary education and 3% have

university education. The ‘high’ vulnerability category has the highest proportion of household

heads with no education.

Overall, 9% of profiled households reported having assets, 72% have an employed member

and 30% have land access. Those in the ‘high’ vulnerability category have the highest

proportion of households that have no employment, assets and/or land access.

Final Sultan House Results


Low vulnerable: 388 households representing 25% of the beneficiaries

Medium vulnerability: 761 households representing 50% of the beneficiaries

Highly vulnerable: 313 households representing 20% of the beneficiaries

Implementation

457 households, representing 30% of the beneficiaries will be discontinued from GFD assistance

761 households will receive seasonal GFD/FFA

313 households will continue to receive full GFD

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Sultan House - Employment


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Sultan House - Land Access

No Landaccess Landaccess

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Sultan House - Assets

No Assets Assets

Page | 14

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

4. Riyadh Camp

Riyad camp is located on the north-western

outskirts of Geneina town close to the Chad

border and composed of various tribes the

majority of whom are Massalit and around 10%

Arabs. Its location peripheral to Geneina town

restricts the ability of IDPs to access other camps

and the town centre. The camp also does not have

easy access to water as it is located far away from

the dry river bed of Wadi Kaja. Generally, intertribal

relations within the camp are good given that the

majority of IDPs are from the same tribe.

WFP assists approximately 4,053 in comparison

to 5,764 households that were profiled in Riyad camp. Levels of higher education amongst

household heads are low with only 1% having university education and only 4% with secondary

education. Around 38% have primary level/Khalwa education and 57% have no education.

Riyad camp also has a high percentage of families living in plastic shelters (63%) with 21% in

mats/thatch houses, 7% in stone/concrete houses and 9% in mud/mud brick houses.

Only 13% of those profiled indicated having assets, and 45% indicated that a member was

employed and 21% have land access. As with other camps, the ‘none’ vulnerable category had

the highest proportion of households with no employed member, land access and/or assets.

Riyad camp is one of the camps with the worst off situations across Geneina and has the second

highest number of households within the ‘high’ vulnerability category after Jama camp.

Final Riyadh Results





Implementation

1,323 households to be discontinued from GFD assistance representing 23% of the beneficiaries

1,481 households shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA

2,960 households to continue receiving full GFD

0%

50%

100%


Riyad - Land Access

No land access Land access

0%

50%

100%


Riyad - Employment


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Riyad - Assets

No Assets Assets

Page | 15

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

5. Jama Camp

Jama Camp is located in the southwest of Geneina

town, in close proximity to Abu Zar camp and

inhabited by mostly Fur tribe in addition to a small

minority of Massalit coming from Krenik, Azoum

and Wadi Saleh. Jama camp IDPs came from far of

locations and had no relatives within the host

community.

IDPs within Jama camp have no permanent

employment but are mainly engaged in daily work

activities in Geneina including housing/

construction and farming in addition to selling

goods in the markets. Although there are no significant tensions between the host community

and IDPs, there is no strong collaboration between the two groups. In past years, host communities

were pushing IDPs to back to their original state. However, this is no longer an issue.

Some 568 households were profiled in Jama camp in comparison to 391 in WFP’s verification

database and receiving assistance. The situation in Jama camp is the worst off in comparison

to other camps. Education levels of household heads are the lowest standing at 70% of heads

of household with no education, 27% with primary/Khalwa education, 2% with secondary

education and less than 1% with university education.

Asset ownership stands at only 1%, employment at 9% and land access at 1%. This, combined

with the fact that IDPs do not have strong collaboration with host communities and are not able

to return to their areas for farming has meant that individuals have very little coping strategies

and are heavily reliant on external support and in continued need for food assistance.

Final Jama Results

None vulnerable: 1 household representing < 0% of the beneficiaries




Implementation

Given the small number of households falling within the ‘none’ and ‘low’ vulnerable categories, these households should be treated as those in the medium vulnerability. As such,

49 households should receive seasonal GFD/FFA, and

519 households will continue to receive full GFD

0%

50%

100%


Jama - Land Access


0%

50%

100%


Jama - Employment

Unemployed Employed

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Jama - Assets

No Assets Assets

Page | 16

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

6. Hujaj Camp

Currently, WFP assists some 1,012 individuals in

Hujaj camp in comparison to 1,485 that were

profiled, of which 64% are headed by women. Of

those profiled in Hujaj, 11% live in mud/mud brick

houses, 1% in stone/concrete houses, 14% in

mats/thatches and 74% in plastic shelters.

Around 42% of those profiled highlighted that the

head of households has no education, 53% have

primary/Khalwa education, 5% have secondary

education and only 1% have university education.

The breakdown of female and male headed

households was similar across all groups.

Asset ownership in Hujaj camp is quite low at only 2%, land access is also low at 11% but

employment of at least one household member is high at 88 percent.

Final Hujaj Results

None vulnerable: 0 households




Implementation

250 households will be graduated from GFD

938 households will be shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA

297 households will continue to receive full GFD.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High

Hujaj - Land Access

No Landaccess Landaccess

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High

Hujaj - Employment


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High

Hujaj - Assets

No Assets Assets

Page | 17

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

7. Abu Zar Camp

Abu Zar camp is located in the southwest of

Geniena town. Residents are composed of various

African tribes including Erenge, Daju and Fur,

however the majority are Masalit. Residents’ main

places of origin include Masterei, Angamay,

Baradia, Gokar, Nuru, Eisbarra, Tulus, Seraf-

Gedad, Tabong, Dagorshana, Kadlul, Agenday

and Abon. Relations between the IDPs is generally

good with no tensions.

Around 37% of profiled household heads do not

have education, 52% have primary/Khalwa

education, 10% have secondary education and

only 1% have university education. Meanwhile, 69% of households reported living in plastic

shelters, 20% in mats/thatch housing, 4% in stone/concrete housing and 8% in mud/mud

brick housing.

Abu Zar camp has the highest rate of assets ownership amongst Geneina camps standing at

25%, well above the overall average for asset ownership across Geneina camps. Employment

of a household member was also high at 66% while land access stood at 23%, lower than the

average of 31% land access across Geneina.

Final Abu Zar Results





Implementation

1,082 households representing 24% will be graduated from GFD

2,033 households will receive seasonal GFD/FFA

1,528 households will continue to receive full GFD.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Abu Zar - Land Access


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Abu Zar - Employment


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Abu Zar - Assets

No Assets Assets

Page | 18

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

8. Krinding 1 Camp

Krinding 1 is located in the outskirts of Geneina

town and is attached to Krinding village with no

clear demarcation between the camp and the

village. The camp is composed of different African

tribes such as Gimiir and Bargo with the majority

being Massalit coming from South and East of

West Darfur including Krenik, Habila and Beida.

Despite some tensions over water resources, inter-

tribal relations are generally good since the majority

of the host community and IDPs are Massalit.

Income opportunities include selling various

products such as vegetables, sugar, tea, oil and soap, daily and domestic work for women and

alcohol production.

Currently WFP assists some 5,428 households in Krinding 1 camp in comparison to 5,793

households that were profiled. As with other camps education levels of household heads are

low with university education standing at almost 0, secondary at only 4%, primary/khalwa at

33% and no education at 63%. Over 80% of the population live in plastic housing, 15% in

mats/thatch housing, 1% in stone/concrete housing and 3% in mud/mud brick housing.

Asset ownership within the camp was extremely low at only 1%, while 58% have at least one

employed member and 27% have land access.

Final Krinding 1 Results


Low vulnerable: 1,651 households representing 29% of the beneficiaries



Implementation

1,795 households will be graduated from GFD assistance

1,835 will be shifted to seasonal GFD/FFA

2,163 household will continue to receive GFD.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Kirinding 1 - Land Access


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Kirinding 1 - Employment


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Kirinding 1 - Assets

No Assets Assets

Page | 19

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

9. Krinding 2 Camp

Krinding-2 IDP camp is situated in the eastern

outskirts of El Geneina town. Residents arrived

from different localities and various villages such

as: Jabon, Abon, Tandi koro, Mestery, Mejmery,

Bijbijei, Bidinei, Kereinik, Gokar, Diweit. The

majority of camp residents are Masalit (97%)

while others are Zaghawa, Tama and Arabs.

Currently, WFP assists some 2,416 households in

Krinding 2 camp in comparison to 2,795 that were

profiled. As with other camps university level

education of household head is low at 1%, while

6% have secondary education, 46% have primary/khalwa education and 47% do not have any

education. Krinding 2 camp has the highest number of households living in plastic sheeting

after Jama camp at 93%. Only 5% reported living in mats/thatch, 1% in mud/brick and 1% in

stone/concrete housing.

Only 4% of profiled household reported having assets. However levels of employment were

above the average for Geneina standing at 76% meanwhile land access stood at 20 percent.

Final Krinding 2 Results





Implementation:

622 households representing 22% of the beneficiaries will be graduated from GFD assistance

1,505 households will receive seasonal GFD/FFA

668 households will continue to receive full GFD.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Kirinding 2 - Employment


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Kirinding 2 - Land Access


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Kirinding 2 - Assets

No Assets Assets

Page | 20

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

VII. Coordination and Presentation of Results

West Darfur Area Office presented the objectives and methodology of the IDP profiling

exercise to local authorities, communities and other humanitarian actors across the state in

April 2015. Upon finalization of data entry and analysis, results were presented to the

Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC), Sultan, Wali of West Darfur, National Security and

Intelligence Services (NISS) followed by Sheikhs/community leaders of the profiled camps.

The support received from local authorities was very strong and results were accepted by all

stakeholders. Generally, issues that were raised by the various stakeholders included

importance of support through seeds and tools and expansion in Farmers to Markets-type

activities in addition to construction of assets such as grain storage facilities, human capital

through agricultural trainings, and also the provision of access to land to IDP populations,

possibly on the outskirts of Geneina town. Sheikhs and community leaders pointed out the

importance of providing trainings to those that will be excluded in addition to the continuation

of assistance during the lean season.

The sensitization and coordination mechanism followed in West Darfur state guaranteed to a

great extent minimal resistance from communities in the acceptance of the results.

VIII. Dealing with Complaints

As it is expected that various complaints will be received following implementation, WFP West

& Central Darfur AO will deal with the complaints in two steps:

Once lists are presented to Sheikhs, Sheikhs will be provided with a 10-14 day window

to come back with a list of complaints. This process can only be done once and lists

that come in after this timeframe will not be accepted.

In order to ensure IDPs have the chance to make individual complaints, helpdesks will

be set up in each of the camps for individual households to complain.

WFP will look into the percentage of categorical belonging of each household into the various

vulnerability groups as derived from the analysis as a first step to dealing with complaints.

IX. Challenges and Lessons Learnt

Ration card numbers for Ardamata and Dorti camp were not entered in the

questionnaire (question not part of the questionnaire). As such, it was difficult to

compare the profiling data with the verification data. For the other camps, only the last

few digits of the ration cards were entered in the questionnaire. This also made the

comparison with the verification data difficult.

West Darfur office had pending complaints from the verification exercise that are

currently being addressed. This has led to slight delays in preparing final profiling

distribution lists to be shared with the communities.

The definition of what constitutes various types of housing may have been skewed as

apparent from the high number of reported plastic sheeting housing. In future, all

enumerator trainings should set a clear definition of the various types of housing.

Slight revisions may also be made in the questionnaire to further clarify the various

types of housing.

Page | 21

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

X. Implementation

Based on the results and in line with the IDP-P Standard Operating Procedures

(SOP), all individuals in the high vulnerable category will continue to receive 12

months GFD at the current ration (270 grams of cereals and 30 grams of oil per person

per day). As such, 11,132 households across all camps will continue to receive full GFD.

However, given that only 6 households within Jama camp fell within the low and none

vulnerable category, it is recommended that those households continue to receive

assistance rather than being excluded from food assistance as that will be operationally

more manageable.

The Area Office will strive to shift individuals in the medium vulnerability category to

FFA/T activities. However, as there is not enough scope or capacity to implement FFA

for all individuals, the AO will strive to shift the maximum number of people possible

to FFA activities and will also consider providing a combination of FFA and GFD for

some households within the medium category where possible. The AO will ensure that

individuals receiving FFA get an overall higher quantity of food than those receiving

GFD. A total of 13,469 households will receive either seasonal GFD or FFA in Geneina

camps.

People in the low and none vulnerable categories will be shifted out of GFD. However,

they will continue to be eligible for FFE and nutrition activities. A total of 8,663

households will be shifted out of GFD.

The small number of people that may not have been profiled will be profiled through

local communities with the assistance of Sheikhs, HAC and camp established

committees. The local communities will categorize those individuals into the

appropriate category and present the final list to WFP. Individuals will be provided

with a chance to complain about results following implementation.

Implementation will begin in May 2015. The first round of distributions will be

conducted without the distribution of new ration cards in order to ensure that

implementation of results is not delayed. New ration cards for the accepted

beneficiaries will be distributed within the month of June.

It should be noted that the above numbers of households are based on the number of

households profiled, this includes individuals that may be taken out of the beneficiaries if not

matched with the verification and may exclude some members that were in the verification

and not profiled. As such these represent initial results, which will be adjusted as the reconciliation

with the verification database continues. Individuals that are found to not have been accepted

by WFP’s verification will be excluded and individuals that were not profiled will be categorized

through community based targeting given that they constitute a small proportion.

Page | 22

We

st

Da

rfu

r I

DP

Pr

ofi

lin

g R

es

ult

s –

Ge

ne

ina

To

wn

RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD

1. In the future, full ration card numbers should be entered for all profiled

households to ensure that data is comparable to the verification database.

2. Results and revised lists should be available at least one month prior to

implementation to allow for sufficient time for the distribution of new ration

cards. This will ensure that there are fewer problems and crowds at food

distribution points.

3. Results should be circulated and shared with other humanitarian actors

including relevant UN agencies, I/NGOS and CBOs.

4. WFP should aim to enhance its partnerships with other humanitarian

organizations focused on recovery-based activities.

5. Collaboration and strong coordination with relevant authorities as well as

the Wali and Sultan of West Darfur proved to be very beneficial in facilitating

discussions with community leaders/Sheikhs, it is recommended the same

coordination mechanism is followed where possible for other areas

undergoing profiling.

6. Follow up food security assessments must be conducted in the profiled

camps on a regular basis.

.

For more information contact:

World Food Programme

P.O. Box 913, 653 A, Block 68 Arkawit

Khartoum, Sudan

Tel: +249 83 248001

Fax: +249 83 24003

Photo

s, F

ront &

Back C

over: W

FP/M

ais

sa K

hatta

b

idp profiling results - humanitarianresponse · iv. community involvement in the profiling exercise...

Documents