Mapping the Ecosystem of Education Data for Internally Displaced Persons in the Middle East and Beyond: Issues, Challenges and Recommendations

• In Event: INEE Data and Evidence Collaborative: Education Data for Internally Displaced Persons

Proposal

The need for better education data for internally displaced persons (IDPs) is urgent in the Middle East: together, the countries of Iraq, Syria, and Yemen account for approximately 25% of all IDPs globally. National governments and the international community have increased their efforts in the past decade to collect educational data to improve educational provision to IDPs. However, these data sources are fragmented, use a range of different methods, and are not always easy to find. This study combines a desk review with semi-structured interviews to map existing practices regarding education data collection for IDPs and identify good practices and challenges relevant for the Middle East and globally. Due to our regional and global focus, we reflect on the relevance of findings for the Middle East and globally throughout the paper.

The mapping revealed several interesting sources of data. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Center has a mandate to aggregate IDP education data, but does not carry out primary data collection. Because IDPs remain in their country of residence, we discuss the role of government EMIS and IDP registries as primary education data sources for IDPs. When these systems are not functioning or unable to respond to the crisis that is causing displacement, the most common education data collection initiatives for IDPs include IOM-DTM’s Multi-Sector Location Assessments, REACH’s Multi-Sector Needs Assessments, Education Clusters’ Joint Education Needs Assessments and ActivityInfo, and the Joint IDP Profiling Service. We also name other data sources that are less widely available across geographies, including UNICEF’s new forced displacement module for the Multi-Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), which was recently deployed in Iraq.

Following the mapping, we examine factors that help or hinder the collection and use of educational data for IDPs. We find four types of factors: (1) conceptual, (2) technical, (3) institutional, and (4) political. There are efforts underway to address some of the conceptual and technical challenges presented by IDP data collection. However, many institutional factors are not being addressed systematically and jointly; different actors are moving in different directions even as they try to systematize. Political factors also pose major barriers, partly because, unlike refugees, IDPs remain in their country of residence and under the mandate of governments rather than the international community. The challenges are many, but the paper also illuminates multiple good practices and innovations that shed light on how to move forward.

The study concludes with a set of recommendations for policymakers and practitioners invested in improving the IDP education data landscape, including specific recommendations for governments, non-governmental and multilateral organizations, and funders. The intention is for this paper to assist those working in the sector to navigate existing data sources and consider these factors and recommendations before undertaking new data collection efforts.

Authors

• Anne Smiley, FHI 360

• Elizabeth S. Buckner, University of Toronto