Get documents about "Idp Data Management
W
Description
Idp Data Management document sample
Document Sample
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IDP Return Survey of
Official Camps - Liberia
Preliminary Report
May 2004
. . . . . . . . . .
OCHA/UNHCR - Liberia
IDP Return Survey
In order to launch an effective response to the Internally
Displaced Person (IDP) return situation in Liberia the
humanitarian community needs to have a clear picture of
socio-economic data, skills, and vulnerabilities and the
desired return location of IDPs. The IDP Return Survey was
initiated to provide essential data to support the process of
return and reintegration of IDPs.
Background
More than fourteen years of successive civil wars in Liberia and the peak in civil conflict in
June to August 2003 have resulted in a considerable number of IDPs in Liberia, most fleeing
conflict and civil disturbance in their place of origin. Since November 2003, the humanitarian
community has been operating under the assumption that there are 500,000 IDPs in Liberia
located in official IDP camps, informal settlements, or with host families/communities.
While a significant amount of data on the IDP population existed from a variety of sources
including WFP, UNHCR and NGO camp managers, the information was not consolidated and
an accurate, up-to-date picture of the location, sex, and age distribution of camp IDPs did not
exist. There was also no comprehensive information on the place of origin of these IDP
populations and their intended place of return or relocation. Vulnerability / protection profiles
were also not available on a systematic basis, nor a database of skills / professions of the
displaced.
With the evolving stabilization of the situation in Liberia, the gradual expansion of
humanitarian agency field operations and the fact that spontaneous returns were beginning,
there was a critical need to gather the relevant information to be able to assist vulnerable
populations and their destined communities in the return and reintegration process.
In recognition of the need to develop a better profile of IDPs in camp settings including an
improved understanding of the vulnerable individual/families, relevant demographic data and
their places of origin, and to maximize protection and assistance interventions, the inter-
agency IDP Committee decided in February 2004 that a survey of the official IDP camps
should be under taken to facilitate return and reintegration planning as well as on-going camp
management.
Thus, from 12-29 April, a shelter to shelter survey of heads of households in the 20 Official
IDP camps in Montserrado, Margibi, and Bong Counties in Liberia was undertaken. The
camps surveyed are shown in Map 1
18 May 2004 Page 1
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Objectives of the Survey
The information gathered in the survey would allow assistance to be targeted to areas where
the largest number of returns and relocations are likely to occur and where there are the
largest pockets of vulnerability. The objectives of the IDP Return Survey, as outlined by the
IDP Committee are:
Assist in planning for return and reintegration, relocation and integration for both the
IDPs and host communities
Identify the most vulnerable populations needing special assistance
Gain an accurate profile of the IDP camp populations
Provide Information to enhance the current management of the camps
Maximize protection of IDPs, and
Minimize duplication of effort in the collection of IDP data by various humanitarian
agencies
The IDP Committee ensured that all relevant UN agencies, local and international NGOs and
local Government institutions were in support of the survey and its methodology. It was
understood that all actors would be able to use the information provided from the survey for
future planning needs and current camp management.
It is important to stress that the results from the IDP Return Survey only include the IDP
population living in the 20 Official IDP Camps. Other documents detail the population living
in spontaneous settlements and dispersed among the general population.
This Document
This document intends to provide an overview of the preliminary results of the survey with
regard to camp population, demographics, preferred return destination, vulnerabilities and
skills. It also provides a review of the survey methodology undertaken. In addition to the
information presented below, Appendix A contains supplementary charts and maps and
Appendix B contains tables of the survey results, many of which are referenced throughout
the text.
Preliminary Results
Camp Population
Camp population was collected from a shelter to shelter survey of heads of households in each
of the 20 Official Camps. It is difficult to obtain exact population numbers due to the flow of
people between the surrounding communities and the camps. In addition it is possible that
some residents of the camps were not present on the day of the survey and therefore were not
counted. Efforts were made to obtain accurate counts and forms were filled out for shelters
that were occupied but no one was home at the time of the survey. These forms were left with
camp management who were instructed to return to the shelter in the evening or early
morning to obtain the survey information. Many but not all of these forms were returned.
Thus it is probable that the population may increase slightly in a few camps.
18 May 2004 Page 2
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Key Findings – Camp Population
• Approximately 261,886 people live in the 20 Official IDP camps in Liberia.
• Wilson IDP camp in Montserrado County is the largest at over 28,000.
• Sinje 3 is the smallest IDP camp at 2,482.
• Montserrado County has an IDP population of 163,523.
• Bong County has an IDP population of 81,731.
• Margibi County has an IDP population of 16,632.
• The majority of residents of IDP camps on the western side of Monrovia plan to
return to Bomi (63 percent) and Gbarpolu (16 percent) Counties.
• The majority of residents of IDP camps on the eastern side of Monrovia, along the
road to Gbarnga, plan to return to Bong (38 percent) and Lofa (25 percent) Counties.
• The majority of residents of IDP camps in Bong County plan to return to Lofa (79
percent ) and Bong (16 percent) Counties.
Total IDPs by Camp
Camp Total
Wilson 28,387
Ricks Institute 22,829
Salala 20,370
Jahtondo 19,013
Maimu1 18,579
Blamasse 18,559
Seighbeh 15,281
Maimu2 14,065
Soul Clinic 13,742
Perry Town 12,606
Maimu3 12,176
E.J. Yancy 11,809
Mount Barclay 10,469
Conneh 9,984
Plumkor 9,354
Unification Town 6,648
Fendell* 6,478
Tumutu 4,732
New Land 4,323
Singhe 3 2,482
Total 261,886
*Note: In Fendell IDP Camp residents live in the class rooms of the former College of Science and Agriculture thus
accurate counts were difficult to obtain. In addition, there was a suspicion that on the day of the survey additional
people came from the surrounding communities and that some residents were counted twice.
18 May 2004 Page 3
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Demographics
Information on the age, sex, and number of persons in each shelter was collected during the
survey. There was not a significant variation in demographic data across camps or return
destination thus the information is presented in tabular and graphic form rather than in map
form. Figures 1 through 4 portray the basic demographics of the surveyed population.
Key Findings - Demographics
• The ratio of men to women is constant across the camp and county of return.
• Between the ages of 20 and 30 the ratio between men and women in the camps is 63
percent women to 37 percent men.
• As shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A, 54 percent of the residents of the IDP camps
are women and 46 percent are men. The five and ten year spikes in ages on that
graphic are a result of people not knowing their exact age.
• Figure 2 in Appendix A compares the population from the IDP survey with the 1984
census of Liberia. In the 1984 census 43 percent of the population was under the age
of 15. In this IDP survey almost 54 percent of the surveyed population is under the
age of 15. However, care must be taken when comparing the data from the 1984
census to the information gathered in this survey. The IDP return survey gathered
information on a specific subset of the population and this data should not
necessarily be considered reprehensive of the entire population of Liberia.
Population Pyramid (5 year intervals by sex)
75+
70-74
Male
65-69
60-64 Female
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
Age group
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
<5
10 5 0 5 10
Percent
18 May 2004 Page 4
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Key Findings – Demographics (cont.)
• The average household size is 5.2. The survey was administered as one form per
shelter – and due to shelter size nuclear and extended families may be occupying
more than one shelter.
• Fendell has the lowest average household size at 3.4 people per household and
Wilson and Ricks Institute the highest at 6.6 people per household.
Maximum, Minimum and Mean Family Size by Camp
18
Mean Family Size
16
14
12
family size (persons)
10
8
6
4
2
0
y
a
wn
o
u2
u3
nd
1
y
wn
te
3
ic
eh
la
u
el
on
r
ee
la
ko
at
nc
nd
ut
lin
u
it u
la
nd
he
m
m
La
rc
hb
To
as
ils
To
ak
m
m
um
Ya
to
Sa
C
ai
ai
st
Ba
ng
Fe
ai
W
ig
am
Tu
,K
Ja
ew
n
M
M
In
ul
rry
Pl
M
J.
Se
Si
io
nt
So
eh
Bl
N
ks
Pe
at
E.
ou
on
f ic
ic
M
R
ni
C
IDP camp
U
Key Findings – Demographics (cont.)
• 44 percent of the population is of working age (15-64) thus 66 percent of the
population is under the age of 15.
• The dependency ratio (working age (15-64) by non working age (less than 15) varies
little between camps or when grouped by county of return (Figure 4 in Appendix A).
Working age and non-working age population
(Working age population 15-64 years of age)
100%
Dependent Population
Working age population
Percent
50%
0%
y
a
wn
o
u2
u3
1
nd
y
wn
te
3
eh
ic
u
la
el
on
ee
r
la
ko
nc
at
nd
ut
li n
u
it u
la
nd
he
m
m
La
rc
hb
To
ils
as
ak
To
m
m
um
Ya
to
Sa
C
ai
ai
st
Ba
ng
Fe
ai
W
am
ig
Tu
,K
Ja
ew
n
M
M
In
ul
rry
Pl
M
J.
Se
Si
io
nt
So
eh
Bl
N
ks
Pe
at
E.
ou
on
f ic
ic
M
R
IDP Camp
ni
C
U
18 May 2004 Page 5
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Key Findings – Demographics (cont.)
• 75 percent of people live in households that range in size from 4 to 7 people (Figure
8 in Appendix A).
• Less than 2 percent of the households have more than 9 people.
• Only .42 percent of the surveyed population live alone in a shelter.
• Only 9 households have more than 13 people.
70,000
No. Households
No. Persons
60,000
50,000
No of households
40,000
No. of persons
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17
Household size (persons)
18 May 2004 Page 6
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Return Destination
The 20 camps surveyed are in three counties close to Monrovia and the vast majority of the
IDPs in those camps plan to return to their counties of origin (Map 2 in Appendix A). It is
important to note that responses to the question of “where do you want to go when you leave
the camp” were not on an individual basis, the head of the household answered the question
on behalf of the people living in that shelter.
Key Findings – Return Destination
• Only 1.5 percent (3,809 people) expressed a preference to return to a district
different then their district of origin.
• The majority of the heads of households expressed a desire to return to Lofa (36
percent) and Bomi (32 percent) counties.
• The highest percentage of IDPs (26.5 percent) plan to return to Klay District in
Bomi County.
• In Lofa County the majority plan to return to Voinjama (11 percent), Zorzor (10
percent), and Salayea (9 percent) Districts.
Total IDPs by County of Return
Percent
County Total of total
Lofa 95,502 36.47%
Bomi 82,579 31.53%
Gbapolu 30,128 11.50%
Bong 23,010 8.79%
Grand Cape Mount 15,313 5.85%
Grand Bassa 4,516 1.72%
Montserrado 3,121 1.19%
Nimba 2,607 1.00%
Margibi 1,711 0.65%
Sinoe 1,467 0.56%
Maryland 750 0.29%
Rivercess 585 0.22%
River Gee 280 0.11%
Grand Gedeh 162 0.06%
Grand Kru 155 0.06%
Total 261,886 100%
18 May 2004 Page 7
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Vulnerabilities
Specific information was gathered in order to identify vulnerable IDPs that may require
special assistance in the return and reintegration process. Vulnerabilities assessed included;
being a single parent, single female, teenage mother, physically disabled, chronically ill,
mentally ill, an unaccompanied minor, unaccompanied elder or other specific vulnerability
indicated by the IDP themselves. Figures 5 and 6 show a breakdown of the vulnerabilities by
sex and by head of household.
Female Headed Households Male Headed Households
Vulnerability Total Percent Vulnerability Total Percent
No Vulnerability 8,530 32 % No Vulnerability 21,024 81 %
Single Parent 16,234 61 % Single Parent 4,100 16 %
Other Vulnerability 1,715 7% Other Vulnerability 890 3%
Total 26,478 100 % Total 26,014 100 %
Key Findings- Vulnerabilities (All IDPs)
• Of the entire IDP population the vast majority of men, 95 percent, had no
vulnerabilities.
• Of the five percent of males with a vulnerability, 3.5 percent were single parents.
• For women 86 percent listed no vulnerability.
Unaccompanied Elder
IDP Vulnerability - Males 343
Single Parent Physically Disabled 0.3%
4,366 674
3.5% 0.5%
Unaccompanied Minor
144
0.1%
None
117,100
95.2%
Chronically Ill
Other 304
1,597 0.2%
1.3%
Mentally Ill
95
Other (not Known)
0.1%
37
y 0.0%
Single Parent
IDP Vulnerability - Females 17,080
Unaccompanied Elder
11.7%
1,001
0.7%
Teenage Mother
227
0.2% Unaccompanied Minor
165
0.1%
None
125,569 Single Female
86.3% Chronically Ill
330
349
0.2%
0.2%
Other
2,868 Mentally Ill
2.0% 117
0.1%
Physically Disabled Other (not Known)
624 55
0.4% 0.0%
18 May 2004 Page 8
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Key Findings- Vulnerabilities (Heads of Household)
• Of the 261,886 people living in the surveyed IDP camps there are 52,493 heads of
households.
• Of the 52,493 household heads 26,014 are male and 26,479 are female, an almost
50/50 split.
• Of the female headed households 61percent are single parents as opposed to only 16
percent of the male headed households.
• Of the 14 percent of female headed households with vulnerabilities almost 12
percent were single parents.
IDP Vulnerability - Male Heads of Households
Unaccompanied Elder
Single Parent 288
4,100 1.1%
15.8%
Physically Disabled Unaccompanied Minor
348 64
1.3% 0.2%
None
21,024
80.8%
Chronically Ill
156
0.6%
Other
890
3.4%
Mentally Ill
Other (not Know n)
16
18
0.1%
0.1%
IDP Vulnerability - Female Heads of Households
Unaccompanied Elder
889
Single Parent 3.4%
16,234 Unaccompanied Minor
61.3% 65
0.2%
Teenage Mother
48 Chronically Ill
0.2% 131
0.5%
None Other
8,530 Mentally Ill
1,715
32.2% Single Female 36
6.5%
240 0.1%
Physically Disabled
0.9% 285
1.1% Other (not Known)
21
0.1%
18 May 2004 Page 9
Skills
When respondents were asked what type of skills they had, what they planned to do when
they left the camps, some had difficulty answering the question. Those with specific skills,
i.e. carpenter, mechanic, answered quite easily but many of those surveyed did not seem to
consider farming or homemaking as skills and thus no skill was listed. Figure 7 shows the
skills of the IDPs surveyed that were 15 years or older.
Key Findings- Skills
• Over 42 percent of the males listed no skills whereas 38 percent of the females listed
no skill.
• The majority in both sexes were farmers (male 35 percent, female 33 percent).
• Twice as many women were traders (20 percent) than men (9 percent).
• Less than 5 percent of women listed one of their skills as a homemaker.
• Fourteen percent of the males had skills other than farmer or trader. Of those with
“other” skills 2.5 percent were carpenters and just over 1 percent were mechanics.
• Five percent of the females had skills other than farmer or trader. Of those with
“other” skills 1.2 percent were soapmakers.
Carpenter; 1,283; 2.47%
Males
Carrier; 305; 0.59%
15 years and older Civil Servant; 296; 0.57%
Craftsperson; 168; 0.32%
Engineer; 230; 0.44%
Fisherman; 41; 0.08%
Unskilled; 22,024; 42.38% Legal; 20; 0.04%
Food Processor; 37; 0.07%
Homemaker; 44; 0.08%
Mason; 968; 1.86%
Mechanic; 610; 1.17%
Other skill; 7,081;
Medical; 302; 0.58%
Trader; 4,672; 14%
Other; 768; 1.48%
8.99%
Registered Nurse; 131; 0.25%
Religious; 134; 0.26%
Secretary; 70; 0.13%
Farmer; 18,195;
Soap Maker; 165; 0.32%
35.01%
Teacher; 1,142; 2.20%
Textile Worker; 354; 0.68%
Traditional Midwife; 13; 0.03%
Carpenter; 36; 0.05%
Carrier; 223; 0.32%
Females Civil Servant; 39; 0.06%
15 years and older Craftsperson; 53; 0.08%
Engineer; 7; 0.01%
Fisherman; 4; 0.01%
Legal; 2; 0.00%
Food Processor; 167; 0.24%
Mason; 33; 0.05%
Unskilled; 26,470; 38.01% Mechanic; 20; 0.03%
Medical; 111; 0.16%
Other; 289; 0.41%
Registered Nurse; 65; 0.09%
Trader; 13,894; 20% Other; 3,367; 5% Religious; 28; 0.04%
Secretary; 12; 0.02%
Soap Maker; 856; 1.23%
Teacher; 290; 0.42%
Textile Worker; 743; 1.07%
Farmer; 22,790; 33% Traditional Midwife; 389; 0.56%
Homemaker; 3,122; 4.48%
18 May 2004 Page 10
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Methodology
The project was managed by a Steering Committee that includes LRRRC, UNHCR, OCHA,
WFP, and several NGOs. The Steering Committee appointed a dedicated project manager to
oversee and manage the day to day logistics and implementation of the survey. A technical
committee was formed to discuss the details of the survey.
It is important to note that the IDPs in host communities and those not living in formal camps
were not covered in the survey as it was considered too complex a task to separate and
identify IDPs from their host communities effectively.
The camps surveyed in this exercise are shown in Map 1in Appendix A and are listed below:
County Camp Name County Camp Name
Bong E.J. Yancy Montserrado Jatondo
Bong Maimu1 Montserrado Mount Barclay
Bong Maimu2 Montserrado New Land
Bong Maimu3 Montserrado Perry Town
Bong Salala Montserrado Plumkor
Bong Tumutu Montserrado Ricks Institute
Margibi Coneh, Kakata Montserrado Seighbeh
Margibi Unification Town Montserrado Singhe 3
Montserrado Blamasee Montserrado Soul Clinic
Montserrado Fendel Montserrado Wilson
The technical committee determined that a team approach would be the most effective method
to conduct the survey. Each team would consist of ten enumerators and one team leader. The
team leader would be responsible for the on the ground coordination of their team and would
also be the first quality control check of the survey form.
Due to logistical issues two sets of survey teams were used. The first group of 13 teams were
based in Monrovia and were used to survey the camps in Montserrado and Margibi Counties.
The second group of 19 teams were based in Totota, Maimu, and Gbarnga and were used to
survey the camps in Bong County.
The survey had four main phases: sensitization, training, data collection, and data entry.
Sensitization
The organizations working in the camps were informed of the survey in late March. The
survey was discussed in detail at several forums including the weekly Camp Management
meeting and the bi-weekly NGO coordination meeting. In addition, each camp was visited
prior to the survey to explain to local staff the purpose of the survey and to distribute an
informational flyer (Appendix C). The camp visit was also used as an opportunity to gather
information about the camp that may impact the administration of the survey ; road condition,
changes in camp population, WFP food distribution dates, NFI distribution dates, etc.
Training
For the Montserrado teams the team leaders were trained in a half-day training session and the
following day they were taken to the smallest IDP Camp (Sinje 3) to conduct the survey. This
allowed the team leaders the opportunity to gain experience in administering the form and to
understand their role in the process. Each form was checked by the Project Manager and
questions were answered in the field. The following day the team leaders trained their teams.
The project manager visited each training site to answer questions.
18 May 2004 Page 11
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
For the Bong County teams a different approach was required due to time and facility
constraints. All teams were trained at the same time but team leaders attended a separate
training session where their role was clearly defined. In the afternoon of the training day the
teams were sent to survey two of the smaller camps in Bong County (E.J. Yancy and
Tumutu). This allowed the teams to immediately apply what they had learned in the training.
Data collection
Data collection began on April 14 and was completed on April 29. Due to potential
fluctuations in IDP movement it was vital that the survey be conducted in as short a time as
possible. In addition, to minimize the potential for double counting each camp was surveyed
in one day.
The camp management was notified the day before the survey. The short time frame was
deemed necessary to minimize the possibility of non-residents coming to the camp. The
survey teams worked closely with camp management and the block leaders on the day of the
survey. The only incident during the entire survey occurred in a camp where camp
management was late in arriving on the morning of the survey and they had not properly
informed the block leaders of the survey teams scheduled arrival. The issue was resolved and
the survey began an hour later than scheduled.
Each enumerator was expected to complete 50 forms per day. Few teams had problems
meeting this quota and many teams were able to exceed the quota with no impact on quality.
To complete the Montserrado and Margibi County Camps 13 teams worked for eight days.
To complete the Bong County Camps 19 teams worked for three days.
In the field the enumerators used the following “ground rules”:
• If a shelter was occupied but no adult family member was home the enumerator
filled in the camp name, block and hut number and wrote in the remarks box “no one
home”. The form was left with camp management to be filled out later.
• If someone was not observed by the enumerator the number beside the name was
circled. This allowed for a reported vs. observed statistics. (note: it is suspected that
not all enumerators followed this procedure on every form. Lesson learned would be
to add a reported vs. observed column on the form.)
• If a household of greater than 10 members was encountered the enumerator was to
insist upon seeing them all or at least to see how they were all able to sleep within
the structure.
Data entry
Data entry was conducted during a 12 day period in Monrovia. An internet café was rented
for two weeks to provide a venue for data entry. The HIC developed a detailed data entry tool
to minimize the risk of date entry error and oversaw the data entry.
Data entry was conducted using 50 clerks working two shifts of six hours. Two supervisors
were employed each responsible for one shift of workers. Random checks were performed
on the forms to ensure a high standard of data entry. All survey records / documents were
sorted and stored by camp. Within the camp the forms were sorted by unique survey number
to allow for rapid cross-referencing of records in the database with corresponding physical
records.
18 May 2004 Page 12
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
Survey Form
The survey form (located in Appendix D) was agreed upon by the interagency IDP Steering
Committee in early March 2004. UNHCR worked closely with the IDP team to ensure that
all relevant categories of vulnerabilities and skills were included. Each form has a pre-
assigned number to allow for tracking and to reduce the risk of additional forms being added
at a later date.
The names of all members of the household were recorded on the form, however due to data
entry costs only the name of the head of household was entered into the database. Due to
protection issues all of the names were removed before the data was distributed to the
humanitarian community. Only UNHCR will maintain a copy of the original database and
they will store the original forms.
If the enumerator recorded any remarks this was noted in the database but the actual remark
was not entered into the database.
(add to annex) Definition of Vulnerabilities
Code Title Description
SP Single Parent Maybe either a man or a woman where the spouse has no relationship with the
family due to death or divorce.
SF Single Female A female, over the age of 18 who does not live with her family and has no
husband or children.
TM Teenage Mother A girl under the age of 18 who has a child or children
PD Physically Disabled A man or woman who has an obvious physical disability (e.g. lose of limb,
blind,)
CI Chronically Ill A man or woman who is incapacitated due to illness.
MI Mentally Ill A man or woman who has mental problems.
UM Unaccompanied Minor May be either a boy or girl under the age of 18 years who is not living with a
family member.
UE Unaccompanied Elder May be either male or female, over the age of 59 years.
OTR Other Any other vulnerability not listed (explain in the remarks section)
Field Personnel and Organizations
The IDP Steering Committee felt that is was important to include a wide range of
organizations in the administration of the survey to help build capacity. Thus local NGOs,
government departments, and other local organizations were encouraged to participate in the
survey. During the three weeks of the survey 22 organizations allowed staff to work on the
IDP Return Survey.
Due to logistic issues two groups were trained to conduct the survey. Thirteen teams
surveyed the 14 camps near Monrovia (Montserrado and Margibi Counties) for eight days.
The six camps in Bong County were surveyed in three days using 19 teams. Appendix E
contains a listing of all enumerators and some contact information.
18 May 2004 Page 13
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
In Montserrado and Margibi Counties the following organizations participated:
Ministry of Planning
Premier Urgence
Foundation for International Dignity (FIND)
Aid for the Needy Development Program (ANDP)
Smile Africa
Liberia NGOs Network (LINNK)
Human Rights Group to Save Humanity (HRGSH)
ARC
In Bong County the following organizations participated:
ACRICODA
Oxfam
Concern
Phebe Hospital
Phebe Community Lutheran School
JOLPAL
Peace and Recreation Center Under the Tree (UTT)
Liberian United Women for Empowerment (LUWE)
LWF/WS
Concerned Christian Community (CCC)
Save the Children
LEAF
LRRRC
The staff of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) provided continuous and vital support
during every phase of the operation, from preliminary planning, to assisting in the field, to
helping facilitate payment of enumerators. Without their contribution this project would not
have been successful.
Acknowledgements
The following people participated in the collection of the data and the preparation of the
document.
Janet O’Callaghan – Project Manager
Tusue Mayango – Project Assistant
Archie Delany – HIC - Data Entry Supervisor and Database Designer
Paul Box – HIC – Data Analysis
Shawn Boeser – HIC - Mapping
Varney Kawah – HIC - Mapping
IDP Return Survey Technical Committee
Lamin Manjang – Norwegian Refugee Council
Tord Roe – Norwegian Refugee Council
Daphne Borel – Premier Urgence
Fiona McLysaght- Concern
Paul Box – HIC
Ermir Mucka– UNHC
18 May 2004 Page 14
IDP Return Survey of Official Camps – Liberia
IDP Return Survey Committee
Magnus Murray - OCHA
Norah Niland OCHA
Lynnette Larsen- HIC
Marianna Brown - CCC
Andrew Mbogori- UNHCR
Benoit Collin- ECHO
Bjorn Forssen- UNICEF'
Hans Vikoler - WFP
Josephine Hutton- Oxfam
Leif Softing - NRC
Liz Hughes - OXFAM
LynnThomas - OFDA
Michelle Brown - MERLIN
Nicky Smith - IRC
James Youquoi - LRRRC
18 May 2004 Page 15
Related docs
Other docs by iqf18603
