Humanitarianresponse Logo

Melut PoC Intention Survey | DRC | March 2016

Subject/Objective: 
After the REACH survey which took place in early December, this exercise was meant to try to push the investigation a step further. As you will see in the factsheets, the greatest focus was on what the IDPs would indicate as the “closest safe county” – closest to the PoC – as opposed to their preferred county of relocation as asked in the REACH survey. The underlying idea was to narrow down the geographical scope of the possible options picked by the respondents by asking IDPs which one would be the closest location where they would feel safe and capable of exercising their freedom of movement in order to subsequently reach their final destination.
Key findings: 
A. Factsheet n.1: Demographics and perception of security in Melut • Since methodologically it was a sweep, a few headcount questions similar to those regularly asked in Bentiu PoC were incorporated in the survey. The DRC enumerators interviewed the heads of all the households living in the PoC, asking them how many people had slept in their shelter the previous night. Based on this, the total population figure for the PoC came at 110 HHs, equivalent to 483 people, which is significantly lower than the over 1,300 registered individuals. IOM completed a verification exercise in the PoC last week. However, we expect the verification figure not to reflect the actual number of people living in the PoC, as it was an “open-gate” exercise and we have the feeling that a large number of people previously residing in the PoC and currently sleeping outside came back just to be verified. • The respondents were 72% Nuer and 24% Shilluk. • When asked: “Do you or any of your family members feel unsafe moving outside the PoC?”, 52% of the respondents said that their family members and they do not feel unsafe moving out of the PoC. Please note that the way this question is formulated might have generated some confusion among the respondents and, thus, the 52% might actually be higher than it is in reality. • When asked: “How often have you or any of your family members gone out of the PoC?”, 39% of the respondents reported that neither their family members nor they have ever gone out of the PoC and 7% reported they have gone out only once. B. Factsheet n.2: Closest County perceived as safe • In this factsheet you will find a summary of what counties respondents indicated as the closest safe ones. Although there is no unequivocal indication – e.g. all Nuer respondents want to go to Longochuk and all Shilluk respondents want to go to Manyo – we can definitely identify quite defined geographical areas, especially if we disaggregate by ethnic group. • The Nuer population indicated counties in South-East UNS as the closest where they would feel safe and from which they would be able to move onward to their final destination, with almost 50% of the respondents mentioning Luakpiny/Nasir, Longochuk or Ulang. • The Shilluk population indicated counties in Wester UNS, with Manyo and Fashoda alone accounting for 46% of the responses. • A significant number of respondents (20) indicated Melut as the closest safe county. In line with the responses regarding IDPs’ perception of safety outside the PoC site in Factsheet 1 - out of the 20 respondents indicating Melut as the closest safe county, 85% had reported that their family members and they do not feel unsafe moving out of the PoC – these results seem to corroborate the idea that a sizeable fraction of the PoC residents might enjoy a certain degree of freedom of movement outside the site. C. Factsheet n.3: IDP information on and relocation to closest safe County • Like it had already emerged from the REACH IS, access to information remains a big challenge, even when we talk about the closest safe county. 72% of the respondents reported not having any information about their closest safe county. Moreover, it seems that the further the selected county is from Melut, the greater the number of IDPs who have no information. Melut, Renk and Manyo are the counties people have most information on, while the vast majority of the respondents seem to have no information on Nuer-majority counties in South-East UNS and Northern Jonglei as well as Shilluk-majority counties in South-West UNS. • As a follow-up question to those who reported not having any information on their respective closest safe counties, we asked them why they consider them safe. Almost 50% of the respondents – especially those indicating Nuer-dominant counties – mentioned the presence of their tribe as the reassuring factor, while 32% said it is because they have got family there. • Word of mouth – friends and family – is by far the most popular information sharing method, accounting for almost 80% of the responses. • Lastly, we asked heads of household what was the main reason preventing them from moving to the closest safe county. The vast majority (72%) mentioned that the road was unsafe, while a sizeable minority (17%) indicated the lack of money as their main obstacle. There seems to be some contradiction between in the fact that a large number of those who indicated Melut as the closest safe county also mentioned that their major challenge was that the road was unsafe. This could depend on the fact that the road between the PoC and their destination in Melut County is perceived as unsafe to travel on – for instance, they might perceive the road between Melut town and Palouch as unsafe. Further investigation through FGDs will probably be needed for this specific instance. • Respondents were also asked to indicate the second main constraints they were facing (not reported in the factsheet). While money features as the most popular second main reason, those respondents who did not report insecurity on the road in first place do not seem to consider it at all as a challenge. • Almost all the respondents mentioning counties in South-East UNS and Northern Jonglei seem to be primarily concerned by security on the road, while greater diversification can be noticed among those indicating Melut and surrounding counties, with the exception of Manyo. • When asked whether they would go to the closest safe County if provided with support to overcome the main challenge, the overwhelming majority of the respondents (93%) reported they would be willing to move.
Sample size: 
110HH | 100%
Assessment Report: 
Publicly Available
Assessment Questionnaire: 
Publicly Available
Assessment Data: 
Publicly Available
Webspace(s): 
Assessment Date(s): 
04 Mar 2016 to 07 Mar 2016
Status: 
Report completed
Unit(s) of Measurement: 
Households
Individuals
Population Type(s): 
IDPs
Leading/Coordinating Organization(s): 
Danish Refugee Council
Location(s): 
Melut