Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya Volume C: Urban Refugees Results from the 2020–21 Urban Socioeconomic Survey 2021 Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya Volume C: Urban Refugees Results from the 2020–21 Urban Socioeconomic Survey Note: In some of the figures, bars with the same labels show slightly different values, this is because of rounding of data labels. Cover photos by UNHCR Kenya. Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. Urbanization of displacement and data needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Urban refugees in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Demographic profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 Housing, energy, water, and sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Food security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. Employment during the COVID-19 lockdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Access to finance and remittances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. Social cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Trajectories of displacement and intentions to move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2. Refugee identification documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3. Overview of conflict events in major countries of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4. Preceding socioeconomic surveys for refugees and host communities in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5. Scholarship programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.1 Design and survey instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.2 Sample size estimation and sampling weights calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 7. Additional figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 7.1 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 7.2 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 7.3 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 7.4 Livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 7.5 Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 7.6 Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7.7 Food insecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 7.8 Trajectories of displacement and intentions to move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 iii LIST OF BOXES Survey design and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Year of arrival by country of origin of household head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2: Main countries of origin by county of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3: Population pyramids for urban refugees and hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 4: Households headed by women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 5: Dependency ratios by county of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 6: People with disabilities, refugees, and urban nationals (age five years and older) . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 7: Access to improved housing and overcrowding by gender of household head . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8: Energy for cooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 9: Improved water and sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 10: Educational attainment by gender and county of residence (age 15+, currently not attending school) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 11: Primary net (NER) and gross (GER) enrollment rates of refugees during COVID-19 lockdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 12: Secondary net (NER) and gross (GER) enrollment rates of refugees during COVID-19 lockdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 13: Food insecurity level and consumption-based strategies (rCSI) among refugees . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 14: Labor force classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 15: Labor force status of refugees during COVID-19 lockdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 16: Type of work in last seven days among employed refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 17: Reasons for not seeking work, by gender, among refugees outside the labor force . . . . . . 18 Figure 18: Main skills perceived by refugees to be needed to secure employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 19: Refugees’ main obstacles to securing employment, by interest in self-employment or wage work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 20: Refugees’ main support needed to secure employment, by interest in self-employment or wage work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 21: Refugees’ bank account and mobile banking ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 22: Refugees’ access to loans in last 12 months and main sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 23: Refugee households with nuclear family members or relatives resettled in high-income countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 24: Refugee households that received remittances in the last 12 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 25: Refugees’ perceptions of trust, safety, and participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 26: Refugees’ perceptions of social cohesion by recent interaction (seven days preceding the interview) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 27: Refugees’ main reasons for having fled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 28: Refugees’ plans to leave and most needed information to guide mobility plans . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 29: Refugees’ main reasons for not wanting to return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 iv    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya Figure 30: Year of arrival by county of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 31: County of residence of urban refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 32: Population 18 years and below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 33: Household size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 34: Refugee woman-headed households by country of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 35: Type of disability among refugees (age 5+) and urban nationals (age 5+)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 36: Type of document held, by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 37: Number of habitable rooms and density, by county of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 38: Access to improved housing, by county of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 39: Main housing materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 40: Energy for lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 41: Energy for cooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 42: Water and sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 43: Distribution of population who have ever attended school (age 15+) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 44: Literacy, by gender and county of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 45: Literacy in languages, by gender and county of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 46: School attendance before COVID-19 among those currently not attending . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 47: Main reasons for not re-enrolling in school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 48: Working-age population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 49: Labor force status, by gender of head and location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 50: Primary activity before and after displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 51: Excellent or good proficiency in job-related skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 52: Access to loans in last 12 months and main sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure D24 53: Enrollment in NHIF, and membership of a CBO or self-help group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 54: Saving practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 55: Support needed to formalize saving practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 56: Number of owned assets, by gender of head and year of arrival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 57: Owned assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 58: Lack of food or money to buy sufficient food in the last 7 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 59: Use of consumption-based coping strategies in the last 7 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 60: Food insecurity level, consumption-based strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 61: Number of times there was no food to eat due to a lack of resources to buy it in the last 30 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 62: Livelihoods-based coping strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 63: Conflict events and arrival year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 64: Plans to leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 65: Plans for the foreseeable future among those not wanting to return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 66: Plans if faced with an economic crisis and no support from UNHCR or partners . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 67: Main reasons for wanting to leave based on destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 68: Most common sources of information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table of Contents    v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of findings and policy recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv Table 2: Summary findings for refugees and hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi Table 3: Findings and policy recommendations summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 4: 2015–16 KIHBS, 2019 KCHS, Kalobeyei SES 2018, Kakuma SES 2019, and Urban SES 2020–21 questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 5: Number of families in locations, and selection probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 6: Households (head) by phone ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 7: Sample allocation for KCHS 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 8: Determinants of food insecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 vi    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Utz Pape (World Bank) and Theresa Beltramo (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR). The team comprised Jedidiah Fix (UNHCR), Flor- ence Nimoh (UNHCR), Laura Abril Ríos-Rivera (World Bank), and Ibrahima Sarr (UNHCR). The team is grateful to the refugees without whose participation, insights, and contributions this work would not have been possible. The team would like to thank the enumerators and supervisors who collected the data for their out- standing efforts: Abdullahi Mohamed Ahmed, Aklilu Berhe, Abdirisack Ibrahim Jama, Ahmed Muse, Ali Abdi, Claude Habineza, Daud Mohamud, David Byishimo, Gerard Nitunga, Hassan Abukar Ibrahim, Ibsa Kicha, Jeanpaul Kasika, Mahad Ahmed, Melance Nkurunziza, Evans Mutinda Munyao, and Christopher Musyoki. The team would also like to thank the peer reviewers Christina Wieser (World Bank) and Nga Thi Viet Nguyen (World Bank); UNHCR Country Office management for their vision and commitment to this work; as well as Pierella Paci and Allen Dennis from the World Bank. The team would also like to express its gratitude to the Government of Kenya, its Refugee Affairs Secretariat, and the Turkana County Government. This work is part of the Prospects partnership program funded through the Multi Donor Trust Fund for Forced Displacement (FDTF) administered by the World Bank. This report is part of the socioeconomic survey series on the living conditions of refugees and host communities in Kenya. The Kalobeyei Socioeconomic Survey and the Kakuma Socioeconomic Sur- vey precede the present Urban Socioeconomic Survey.1 A comparative policy brief considering the three populations (refugees in Kalobeyei settlement, Kakuma camp, and urban areas) will be jointly prepared and released by the World Bank and UNHCR. This report focuses on the living conditions of hosts and refugees in urban areas and does not provide comparative analyses. 1 UNHCR and World Bank, “Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya. Volume A: Kalobeyei Settlement”; UNHCR and World Bank, “Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya. Volume B: Kakuma Camp.” vii Abbreviations CATI Computer-assisted telephone interview COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019 DRA Department of Refugee Affairs FDP Forcibly displaced person KCHS Kenya Continuous Household Survey KIHBS Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey LCSI Livelihoods-Based Coping Strategies Index proGres Profile Global Registration System RAS Refugee Affairs Secretariat rCSI reduced Coping Strategy Index SES Socioeconomic Survey UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees VRX proGres Registration Verification Exercise viii Executive summary Forcibly displaced people (FDP) are increasingly inhabiting urban areas, where, together with urban hosts, they face an array of risks and heightened vulnerabilities that need to be addressed through evidence-based policies and programs. More than half of the world’s population including FDPs live in urban areas. Urban refugees often face the same problems confronting urban poor, such as inad- equate housing and marginalization, combined with unique challenges related to their refugee situa- tion.2 Such challenges, not restricted to only urban refugees, include the threat of arrest and detention, refoulement, harassment, extortion, vulnerability to sexual and gender-based violence, human smug- gling, and trafficking. While socioeconomic data on urban non-displaced populations tend to be more easily accessible than those on rural communities, data on urban refugees are extremely scarce com- pared with those on their camp-based counterparts. Addressing the risks and vulnerabilities faced by urban refugees and their hosts requires narrowing existing data gaps to inform advocacy, policy options, programs, and durable solutions. As refugees in Kenya are not systematically included in national household surveys (NHSs), their inclusion in NHSs, complemented by specific refugee and host community surveys, is needed to provide evidence for policy planning and programming. Refugees in Kenya are not included in NHSs, resulting in a lack of comparable socioeconomic data on FDPs and their hosts.3 This limits efforts to design policies and programs that inclusively address the needs of vulnerable populations, especially when facing socioeconomic shocks such as those resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Developing and strengthening national and international policy frameworks that promote the inclusion of refugees in NHSs is crucial to produce evidence needed to inform a targeted response. Comparable refugee and host community surveys can help complement NHS data. Subsequently, making data and survey findings publicly available (after anonymization) is critical to ensure that key stakeholders have access to evidence to inform their action. The Urban Socioeconomic Survey (SES) helps close data gaps by providing comparable socioeco- nomic profiles for refugees and host community members. Initiated jointly by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Bank, the Urban SES helps inform evidence-based programming and policy development by addressing socioeconomic data gaps—especially instructive in the economic downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though preceding surveys provide useful information on the living conditions of urban refugees and hosts, there is no analysis that uses national socioeconomic measurements to understand both communities’ living conditions.4 Implemented during the COVID-19 lockdown, the Urban SES provides comparable socioeconomic pro- files for urban refugees and hosts by using an instrument that is comparable to the Kenya Continuous Household Survey (KCHS) 2019.5 The Urban SES, ensuing analysis, and the recommendations provide 2 The use of the term “refugees” includes asylum-seekers. 3 FDPs are refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced persons. UNHCR, “Key Indicators.” 4 The Guardian, “UN Outlines Plan to Close Camps Housing 430,000 Refugees in Kenya.” 5 The Urban SES’s modules on education and employment are designed to be comparable with the KCHS. However, due to the COVID-19 outbreak and its impact on education and labor force participation, and since the KCHS data were collected before the COVID-19 outbreak, such modules are not compared across refugee and host communities. ix a comprehensive snapshot of refugees’ and hosts’ demographics, housing characteristics, and access to services while covering refugee-specific details of livelihoods, education, food security, social cohe- sion, trajectories of displacement, and intentions to move. The comparability between urban refugees and their host communities can be limited by the mode and timing of the data collection. While the Urban SES data were collected through computer- assisted telephone interviews, the KCHS used computer-assisted personal interviews. Differences between these two modes of data collection could affect the comparability between refugees and hosts. Moreover, the urban SES data were collected after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, while the KCHS data were collected before. Therefore, it is not feasible to include comparative insights for education or employment. Short-term policy and programming priorities should focus on enhancing food security, improving access to water, sanitation, and housing, and protecting highly vulnerable groups Reducing food insecurity through livelihoods and targeted food security programs is critical to protect and maintain human capital. Around 60 percent of urban refugee households are highly food insecure and use consumption-based strategies to cope with the lack of food. Food insecurity is more common among households with fewer employed members. Livelihoods-based interventions can help refugees secure adequate and sustainable income while contributing to reducing food insecurity. Tar- geting food security programs to refugee households hosting children can help reduce food insecurity, prevent malnutrition, and thus help protect human capital.6 Mobile cash transfers can be a cost-effec- tive instrument in urban settings to mitigate food insecurity in the short-term.7 Improving and providing adequate water and sanitation services is key to improve health outcomes. Access to improved drinking water is higher among refugee households (91 percent) than among host community households (71 percent). However, about 72 percent of refugee households reported insuf- ficient water supply in the last month. Even though most refugees and hosts have access to improved sanitation (84 percent of refugees and 99 percent of hosts), only 32 percent of refugee households do not share toilets with other households. Ensuring 20 liters of water per person per day and enhanc- ing the quality of sanitation services can result in improved health outcomes for refugees and hosts.8 Increased investment through partnerships between humanitarian and development actors, govern- ments, and the private sector to support integrated water, sanitation, and hygiene service delivery can help boost access to improved water and sanitation. This can also support efforts to achieve Sustain- able Development Goal 6.2, which targets universal access to improved sanitation. Expanding access to adequate housing and non-biomass fuels can contribute to raising urban ref- ugees’ and hosts’ living standards. Refugee households, mostly those headed by women, are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions than host households. Reducing overcrowding is key to prevent stress, domestic violence, and the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.9 Increasing fund- ing for national housing programs to help address hosts’ needs while including refugee communities 6 Gundersen and Ziliak, “Food Insecurity And Health Outcomes.” 7 HPN, “Mobile Phone-Based Cash Transfers: Lessons from the Kenya Emergency Response”; Ulrichs, Hagen-Zanker, and Holmes, “Cash Transfers for Refugees. An Opportunity to Bridge the Gap between Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection.” 8 WHO. 2020. “What Is the Minimum Quantity of Water Needed?” 9 WHO, “Preventing Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence. Taking Action and Generating Evidence.” x    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya can help reduce overcrowding.10 A quarter of refugee households and 10 percent of host households, mainly those headed by women, use biomass (charcoal) for cooking. As pricing of non-biomass fuels is a binding constraint, subsidizing improved biomass and non-biomass fuels while making them more easily accessible can help prevent negative health impacts for women and children under age 5.11,12 Nakuru-based and women refugees face extremely vulnerable conditions. The Nakuru-based ref- ugee population is the youngest (55 percent of them are 18 years old or below), they are mostly South Sudanese, and their households are mostly headed by women and have the highest dependency ratios. Food insecurity levels are the highest among Nakuru-based refugees (82 percent), and they have the lowest employment rates (12 percent: 6 percent of women and 21 percent of men). Support- ing women’s empowerment in Nakuru and also in other areas, through programs that consider domes- tic and caretaking responsibilities and intra-household and intercommunity dynamics, could result in improved children’s health and education, reduced poverty, and smaller household sizes, while contrib- uting to the economy and tax revenues through increased labor participation.13 Expanding subsidized access to childcare will be key to ensure women’s participation in the paid labor market. Engaging men through awareness-raising programs can be crucial to support women’s economic participation and girls’ education, and to prevent sexual and gender-based violence and discrimination. Further research could provide a deeper understanding of socioeconomic barriers and how to overcome them through gender-responsive solutions. Supporting the most vulnerable communities by making addi- tional investments to reduce socioeconomic impacts resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic will be critical to accelerate poverty reduction efforts, and to rebuild self-reliance and resilience to shocks. Medium-term priorities should focus on expanding livelihoods opportunities, easing access to edu- cation, fostering social cohesion, and ensuring access to information on movement options Given that labor force participation is limited, strengthening refugees’ job and entrepreneurial skills, broadening job markets and access to financial services, and easing documentation procedures for wage employment could support livelihoods opportunities. Only 42 percent of working-age refugees are employed, mainly as wage workers (73 percent) and self-employed workers (59 percent).14,15 Small business management and professional skills are perceived to be the most needed skills to secure employment. The main self-perceived support needed among those outside the labor force and inter- ested in self-employment is access to credit, while among those interested in wage work, it is access to documentation and training. Identifying refugees’ existing skills while addressing their needs and inter- est through business and job-skills training can help increase employment rates. Expanding access to financial services through collaborations with the private sector and by simplifying requirements 10 UN Habitat, “The Right to Adequate Housing.” 11 Malonza and Fedha, “An Assessment Of Gender And Energy In Kenya: The Underlying Issues.” 12 Smith, Mehta, and Feuz. 2004. “Indoor Air Pollution from Household Use of Solid Fuels”; Kurmi et al. 2012. “Lung Cancer Risk and Solid Fuel Smoke Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”; Dasgupta et al. 2004. “Who Suffers from Indoor Air Pollution? Evidence from Bangladesh.” Children under age 5 normally remain in the proximity of the cooking area when food is prepared and thus breathe airborne pollutants affecting their respiratory system. 13 ILO. 2017. “Gender in Employment and Labour Market Policies and Programmes: What Works for Women?” 14  Percentages do not sum up to 100, since refugees may have engaged in more than one activity. 15 Self-employment includes those employed in both the formal and informal sectors. Executive summary    xi for SIM card registration is necessary to enhance access to finance.16,17 Financial literacy programs can help refugees make informed financial decisions.18 Easing documentation procedures to facilitate wage employment can contribute to expanding opportunities. Collaborations between the private sector, governments, and humanitarian and development partners will be essential to enable the cre- ation of job markets. Further research on the employment activities of urban refugees is needed to understand important barriers and help overcome them. Primary and secondary school net enrollment rates (NERs) are low, thus increasing NERs and sup- porting transition to secondary school can help develop transferable skills and expand access to ter- tiary education and socioeconomic opportunities.19 Around 69 percent of urban refugee children are enrolled in primary school (68 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls) while 28 percent are enrolled in secondary school (31 percent of boys and 24 percent of girls). The Government of Kenya recog- nizes education as a human right while acknowledging its crucial role in developing human capital. As such, the government is committed to ensure inclusive and equitable access to education with mea- sures to reach the most disadvantaged.20 Improving enrollment in primary and secondary school can help develop transferable skills which can be used in current and future hosting countries. Identifying schools in areas with high densities of refugees while providing support for rehabilitation, equipment, and building their capacity in terms of management and teachers’ skills can be key in increasing atten- dance. Scholarship programs and financial incentives conditioned on attending secondary school can facilitate transition. Intervening issues such as documentation, indirect costs, language of instruction, and recognition of qualifications need to be better understood to ensure refugee learners have equita- ble access. As the lack of birth certificates is a constraint for some, inclusion of refugees in the National Education Management Information System using alternative documentation to birth certificates will be key. Campaigns to provide information about the availability of formal schools for refugees and requirements to join can help increase attendance, as can continuing and expanding the programs that encourage girls’ education.21 Girls’ education can be promoted by introducing behavioral programs that identify cultural barriers and sensitize communities, teachers, parents, and students about the importance of boys’ and girls’ education.22,23 Second chance education programs which allow for flexi- ble timetables and provide childcare and early childhood education can also help increase attendance. 16 Inonly 10 percent of household do refugees own a bank account, while in 78 percent of households, refugees own a mobile banking account. In 20 percent of households where refugees own a mobile banking account, the account is shared (compared with 2 percent of shared bank accounts). Only 4 in 10 households have access to loans, with family and relatives being the most common source, while formal financing and community savings are barely used. 17 National Council for Law Reporting. 2015. “The Kenya Information and Communications Act.” Buying a SIM card in Kenya requires registration and proof of identity (accepted documents: identity or service card, passport, or alien card), which many refugees do not have. 18 ILO, “Financial Education for Refugees, IDPs and Host Communities: New Addition to the ILO’s Financial Education Programme.” Financial education workshops such as the ones delivered by ILO under their Financial Education Programme can help increase access to finance. 19 Comparisons between refugees and hosts for employment and education are limited due to the COVID-19 outbreak; thus, comparisons for such sections are not presented. Comparable data for hosts about food insecurity, access to financial services, and social cohesion are not available. 20 Government of Kenya, “Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2019 on A Policy Framework for Reforming Education and Training for Sustainable Development in Kenya.” 21 UK DFID, “Girls’ Education Challenge. Project Profiles.” Programs such as the Kenya Equity in Education Project (KEEP), Wasichana Wote Wasome (WWW; “Let All Girls Read”), Empowering Pioneering Inclusive Education Strategies for Disabled Girls in Kenya (Innovation), Improved School Attendance and Learning for Vulnerable Kenyan Girls through an Integrated Intervention (Innovation), and the iMlango Project (Strategic Partnership) can help increase school attendance among girls. 22 Jesuit Refugee Service. 2019. “Her Future. Challenges & Recommendations to Increase Education for Refugee Girls”; Freeman et al. 2020. “Improving Attendance and Reducing Chronic Absenteeism.” 23 Behavior campaigns do not refer to indiscipline but to overcoming constraints resulting from sociocultural norms. xii    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya Fostering interactions between refugees and hosts and raising the voice of refugees through com- munity leadership structures can be key to improve perceptions of social cohesion.24 Refugees who recently interacted with a host community member tend to have more positive perceptions of social cohesion than those who did not. Social cohesion can be enhanced by designing programs that foster interaction and promote collaborations by enabling spaces where refugees and hosts can work together towards shared goals. Refugees’ perceptions of social cohesion are generally positive, although negative regarding perceived consideration of their opinions in decision-making. As local institutions play an important role in fostering social cohesion, strengthening communication mecha- nisms between refugees, organizations, and the government could be instrumental to raise concerns of refugees and improve perceptions of participation. With most refugees planning to leave Kenya, continuing existing efforts to inform them about reset- tlement, repatriation, and integration options will remain important. About 93 percent of refugee households wish to leave Kenya, of which fewer than 1 percent want to return to their countries of ori- gin. The large majority (86 percent) have all the information they need to guide this decision. UNHCR and partners facilitate access to information on resettlement, repatriation, and integration options through refugee leaders, social media, and an online help desk. Such efforts should be continued to help form realistic expectations of requirements, security conditions, repatriation options, and employ- ment opportunities.25 24 Information to help refugees know their rights, obligations, and services in Kenya are provided by UNHCR at https://help.unhcr.org/kenya/ 25 Programs such as Migrant Care can be explored and adapted to the refugee context. UN Women. 2019. “Gaining Protection for Indonesia’s Migrant Workers and Their Families.” Executive summary    xiii X TABLE 1: Summary of findings and policy recommendations Finding Policy recommendation Short-term priorities Food insecurity is high, with 60 percent Livelihoods-based interventions can help refugees of households being highly food insecure. secure adequate and sustainable income while Households headed by unemployed refugees contributing to reducing food insecurity. Targeting are more likely than those headed by food security programs to households with children employed refugees to cope with the lack can help protect human capital. Mobile cash of food by using severe livelihoods-based transfers can be a cost-effective instrument in urban strategies which deplete assets and risk settings to mitigate food insecurity. human capital. Access to improved drinking water is greater Improving and providing adequate water and among urban refugee households (91 sanitation services is key to improve health percent) than among hosts (71 percent), with outcomes. Ensuring 20 liters of water per person 72 percent of refugee households reporting per day and enhancing the quality of sanitation insufficient drinking water in the last month. services can result in improved health outcomes Both refugees and hosts have a high level of for refugees and hosts. Increased investment access to improved sanitation (84 percent through partnerships between humanitarian and of refugees and 99 percent of hosts), development actors, governments, and the private with shared toilets being common among sector to support integrated water, sanitation, and refugees (68 percent). hygiene service delivery can help boost access to these services. Over one-third (37 percent) of refugee Expanding access to adequate housing and non- households are overcrowded, compared biomass fuels can help raise urban refugees’ and with 19 percent of host community hosts’ living standards. Increasing funding for households. Further, 26 percent of refugee national housing programs to ensure hosts’ housing households, compared with 10 percent of needs are adequately addressed while including host community households, mainly those refugee communities can be key to help reduce headed by women, use biomass (charcoal or overcrowding. Subsidizing improved biomass and firewood) for cooking. non-biomass fuels while easing access to them can help prevent negative health impacts on women and children. Nakuru-based refugees face particularly Supporting Nakuru refugees’ and hosts’ participation vulnerable conditions. They are the youngest in the paid labor market and enhancing their overall (55 percent of them are 18 years old food security can help maintain human capital. or below), they are mostly South Sudanese, Such efforts can also help lessen the impacts of and their households are mostly headed by the COVID-19 pandemic through strengthened women and have the highest dependency self-reliance and resilience to shocks. Further ratios. Food insecurity levels are also the research can provide a deeper understanding of highest among Nakuru-based refugees socioeconomic barriers and how to overcome them (82 percent). Nakuru refugees also have through gender-responsive solutions. the lowest employment rates (12 percent: 6 percent of women and 21 percent of men). xiv    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya  TABLE 1: Continued Finding Policy recommendation Medium-term priorities Only 42 percent of working-age refugees Strengthening refugees’ job and entrepreneurial are employed, mainly as wage workers skills, broadening access to financial services, (73 percent) and self-employed workers and easing documentation procedures for wage (59 percent). The skills perceived to be employment can support sustainable livelihoods. needed to secure employment are mainly Multi-stakeholder collaborations can be essential small business management skills. The to enable the creation of markets and job main support needed among those outside opportunities. the labor force and interested in self- employment is access to loans and business training, while among those interested in wage work it is access to documentation and training. Refugees’ primary and secondary school Increasing primary school attendance and net enrollment rates are low (primary: 69 supporting transition to secondary school can percent; 68 percent of boys and 70 percent help develop transferable skills and expand of girls; secondary: 28 percent; 31 percent socioeconomic opportunities. Inclusion of refugees of boys and 24 percent of girls). Refugees’ in the national education system would be critical main barriers to accessing education are to expanding access to equitable and sustainable the cost of transport, books, uniforms, and educational opportunities. Identifying schools other indirect costs, and the lack of birth in areas with high densities of refugees while certificates. providing support for rehabilitation, equipment, and building their capacity in terms of management and teachers’ skills can be key to increase attendance. A deeper understanding of the bottlenecks that hinder enrollment is needed. Strengthening systems of recognition of prior learning can ease access to education. Financial incentives, information campaigns, and girls’ and women’s education programs can also help increase attendance. Refugees who recently interacted with a Fostering interactions between refugees and hosts host community member tend to have more could be key to improve perceptions of social positive perceptions of social cohesion than cohesion. Raising the voice and concerns of refugees those who did not. Refugees’ perceptions through community leadership structures can also of social cohesion are generally positive, help improve social cohesion. although negative regarding consideration of their opinions in decision-making. About 93 percent of refugee households Continuing existing efforts to inform refugees about wish to leave Kenya, with fewer than 1 resettlement, repatriation, and integration options percent wishing to return to their country will remain important. of origin, while the rest wish to stay. In 14 percent of households, refugees reported needing information to guide their movement choices. Executive summary    xv X TABLE 2: Summary findings for refugees and hosts Urban Kenya Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugee and host trends 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.4 Dependency ratio 82% 78% 82% 73% 93% 88% 83% 89% Improved housing 91% 92% 92% 87% 93% 61% 76% 17% Access to improved drinking water 26% 10% 25% 1% 57% 34% 54% 22% Biomass fuels for cooking Refugee-only trends 44% Congo, Dem. Rep. 48% Congo, Dem. Rep. 73% South Sudan 84% Somalia 22% Somalia 18% Somalia 12% Somalia 7% Congo, Dem. Rep. 13% Ethiopia 14% Ethiopia 8%  Congo, Dem. Rep. 1% Ethiopia Countries of origin 11% South Sudan 9% South Sudan 6% Ethiopia 0.7% Burundi 5% Burundi 6% Burundi 0.2% South Sudan 69% 70% 79% 53% Primary net enrollment rate 28% 29% 30% 12% Secondary net enrollment rate 42% 43% 12% 35% Employment rate 60% 61% 68% 54% High food insecurity xvi    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya Background 1. Urbanization of displacement and data needs 1. As the world undergoes a process of rapid urbanization, forcibly displaced people (FDP) are increasingly inhabiting urban areas, seeking safety and self-reliance opportunities.26 More than half of the world’s population including FDPs live in urban areas—progressively in highly dense cities.27,28 While many refugees move to urban areas in the hope of finding safety and economic independence, others do so out of necessity—to access specialized health services, or to avoid being targets of vio- lence in refugee camps. Many refugees are unable to return to their country of origin, mainly due to conflict, violence, or insecurity, and must build new lives in their adopted city.29 2. Refugees in urban settings are often faced with an array of risks and heightened vulnerabilities, some of which are shared with those of host communities. While the United Nations High Commis- sioner for Refugees (UNHCR) considers urban areas to be legitimate places for refugees to enjoy their rights, it recognizes the difficulties resulting from significant numbers of refugees settling in urban areas. Such movements can put pressure on existing services that are unable to meet the needs of the urban poor. Urban refugees often face the problems confronting urban poor, such as inadequate housing and marginalization, combined with unique challenges related to their refugee situation.30 Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the difficult circumstances in which refugees live.31 UNHCR highlights that protection must be provided to refugees irrespective of their location, calling for host governments and the international community to continue their refugee protection efforts. Equally important is the protection of host communities, who often face struggles similar to those of refugees. 3. Addressing the risks and vulnerabilities faced by urban refugees and their hosts requires narrow- ing existing data gaps to inform policy options and programs. While data on urban non-displaced populations tend to be more easily accessible than those on rural communities, data on urban refu- gees are extremely scarce and less often available than data on their camp-based counterparts. Data on urban refugees are mainly accessible through registration records. Registration and data collec- tion of urban refugees are complex endeavors, as refugees are often dispersed throughout highly densely populated areas and irregular settlements, unlike those who reside in highly visible camps.32 26 UNHCR, “UNHCR Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas.” Urban area is considered to be a built-up area that accommodates large numbers of people living in close proximity to each other, and where the majority of people sustain themselves by means of formal and informal employment and the provision of goods and services. 27 Ritchie and Roser, “Urbanization.” 28 UNHCR, “Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2016.” 29 IRC, “International Rescue Committee. Urban Refugees.” 30 Pavanello, Elhawary, and Pantuliano, “Hidden and Exposed: Urban Refugees in Nairobi, Kenya”; UNHCR, “UNHCR Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas.” Such challenges include the threat of arrest and detention, refoulement, harassment, extortion, vulnerability to sexual and gender-based violence, human smuggling, and trafficking. 31 UNHCR, “Urban Refugees Struggling to Survive as Economic Impact of COVID-19 Worsens in East, Horn and Great Lakes of Africa.” “Without further support, many urban refugees will become extremely vulnerable to exploitation, risk falling into significant levels of debt and may be forced into desperate situations to survive, such as transactional sex or child labour.” 32 UNHCR, “UNHCR Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas.” 1 Furthermore, some people who are in refugee-like situations prefer not to be registered by the host government or UNHCR; thus, urban data collection efforts are often restricted to registered refugees. 4. The Urban Socioeconomic Survey (SES) helps close data gaps to inform a targeted response, which is crucially needed to address the needs of urban refugee and host populations in Kenya. Even though preceding surveys provide useful information on the living conditions of urban refugees and hosts, there is no analysis that uses national socioeconomic measurements to understand both communities’ living conditions (see list of preceding surveys in Appendix 1). Understanding the socio- economic needs of urban refugees in Kenya is crucial, especially in light of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential closure of Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps. Such potential closures may result in refugee influxes into urban settings.33 The Urban SES provides comparable socioeco- nomic profiles for urban refugees and hosts by using an instrument that is comparable to the one used for the most recent national household survey, the Kenya Continuous Household Survey (KCHS) 2019. The survey provides one of the first comparable analyses of the economic lives of urban refugees and hosts in Kenya. The Urban SES and the preceding Kakuma SES and Kalobeyei SES can help address socioeconomic data gaps and inform targeted programming and development policy.34 In doing so, they provide learning opportunities for how socioeconomic information may be collected and used in other urban and camp settings to facilitate replication. 2. Urban refugees in Kenya 5. Since the 1960s, Kenya has hosted refugees, shifting its refugee policy from integration toward encampment in the early 1990s. The flow of asylum-seekers into Kenya gathered momentum in the early 1970s, owing to the regime of Uganda’s President Idi Amin. Many Ugandan refugees had relatives in Kenya and were relatively well-off professionals and businesspeople.35 The refugee policy supported Kenya’s interest in welcoming skilled workers and investment. Thus, refugees were able to work, move, and settle across Kenya. In the early 1990s, the refugee influx from Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo brought with it a shift in Kenya’s refugee policy from integration toward encampment close to the borders with Somalia and South Sudan.36 6. Kenya hosts more than 500,000 refugees under the responsibility of the Refugee Affairs Secre- tariat (RAS), with the support of UNHCR under its mandate.37 An estimated 16 percent of refugees in Kenya live in urban areas, while 84 percent reside in camps. Kenya’s national refugee legislation came into force through the 2006 Refugees Act, which established the Department of Refugee Affairs (DRA), replaced by RAS in 2016 and updated in 2022.38 A comprehensive review of the law was 33 The Guardian, “UN Outlines Plan to Close Camps Housing 430,000 Refugees in Kenya.” 34 UNHCR and World Bank, “Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya. Volume A: Kalobeyei Settlement”; UNHCR and World Bank, “Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya. Volume B: Kakuma Camp.” 35 Abuya, “Past Reflections, Future Insights: African Asylum Law and Policy in Historical Perspective”; Kagwanja, “Challenges and Prospects for Building Local Relief Capacity in Kenya: Reflections on Humanitarian Intervention.” 36 Lind, Mutahi, and Oosterom, “Tangled Ties: Al-Shabaab and Political Volatility in Kenya”. Kenya’s policy change can be partly explained by the escalation in the number of refugees, which overwhelmed Kenya’s coping capacities, as well as by ethnic, political, and economic factors. Other factors reinforcing the policy shift included a decline in the Kenyan economy, regional conflicts, social unrest, and a shortage of arable land. 37 UNHCR, “Kenya: Registered Refugees and Asylum-Seekers. February 2021.” 38 The draft Refugees Act 2019 is currently pending enactment. 2    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya undertaken, and the draft Refugees Bill 2019 is pending at the last stages prior to adoption into law. In 2017, RAS assumed responsibility for reception, registration, documentation, refugee status deter- mination, and refugee management, with UNHCR’s active support. RAS grants refugee status through individual interviews and prima facie group determination (only for South Sudanese). Upon status determination, refugees should be provided with a “refugee identity card,” the Alien Refugee Certifi- cate issued by the government and valid for five years (see Appendix 2). 7. Despite Kenya’s encampment policy, more than 81,000 registered—plus an unknown number of unregistered—refugees live in urban areas, where their living conditions have remained largely unknown. Following a series of terrorist attacks in urban areas, in 2014 the Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government called on refugees in cities to relocate to camps,39 constraining their mobility and making it difficult for them to access employment and education.40 Urban refu- gees have become rather invisible, as they have been “absorbed into the urban fabric, are dispersed over the city and are highly mobile.”41 As a result, understanding of their numbers, distribution, living conditions, and how they compare with the host community is limited. Such a limited understanding hinders efforts to help enhance urban refugees’ and hosts’ socioeconomic opportunities through evi- dence-based action. 8. Refugees in Kenya are not systematically included in national surveys; as a result, there is a lack of data on refugee welfare and poverty that are comparable to the national population. Kenya has made progress in data availability at the national and county levels and has made efforts to measure the impacts of forced displacement on refugees, hosts, and nationals. However, socioeconomic data gaps remain. Refugees are not systematically included in national household surveys that serve as the primary tools for measuring and monitoring poverty, labor markets, and other welfare indicators. Such information is critical for area-based development and targeting of assistance, especially when facing shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Data are also essential for engaging with development and humanitarian actors, which require this information for planning and investment. 9. The Urban SES and the preceding Kakuma SES and Kalobeyei SES provide comparable socio- economic profiles for refugees and host community members. Initiated jointly by UNHCR and the World Bank to understand the living conditions of refugees in Kenya, the SES series was designed to support the global vision laid out by the Global Compact on Refugees and the Sustainable Develop- ment Goals.42 The Urban SES covers socioeconomic indicators at both household and individual levels, aligned with the national 2019 KCHS. The Urban SES, ensuing analysis, and recommendations provide a comprehensive snapshot of refugees’ and hosts’ demographics, disabilities, housing characteristics, and access to services, while covering refugee-specific details of livelihoods, education, food security, social cohesion, trajectories of displacement, and intentions to move. 39 Ministryof Interior and Coordination of National Government, Press Statement by the Cabinet Secretary of Interior and Coordination of National Government on Refugees and National Security Issues on March 26, 2014. 40 Muindi and Mberu, “Urban Refugees in Nairobi. Tackling Barriers to Accessing Housing, Services and Infrastructure”; UNHCR and ILO, “Doing Business in Dadaab. Market Systems Analysis for Local Economic Development in Dadaab, Kenya.” 41 Pavanello, Elhawary, and Pantuliano, “Hidden and Exposed: Urban Refugees in Nairobi, Kenya,” 11. 42 The series comprises the Kalobeyei SES (vol. A), Kakuma SES (vol. B), Urban SES (vol. C), and a comparative brief. The present report focuses on hosts and refugees in Nairobi, Mombasa, and Nakuru counties and does not provide comparisons with camp-based refugees. Background     3 BOX 1 Survey design and methodology The Urban SES was conducted in parallel to an update of the refugee registration data- base (proGres). The Government of Kenya, with the technical support of UNHCR, maintains and updates a database of all registered refugees and asylum-seekers in the country. The SES was designed to take place during the 2020 Nairobi registration verification exercise (VRX). Due to COVID-19 social distancing measures, the Nairobi VRX and the SESs in Nai- robi, Nakuru, and Mombasa were conducted via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). Households are randomly selected to ensure a representative sample. The SES sample in Nairobi was selected in parallel to the VRX (in November to December 2020), while in Nakuru and Mombasa it was selected by using the updated proGres dataset which was ver- ified in 2019. The SES is designed to be representative of urban households living in Nairobi, Nakuru, and Mombasa (see Appendix 1). The Urban SES covers 2,438 households: 1,300 in Nairobi, 409 in Nakuru, and 729 in Mombasa. The SES questionnaire is designed to produce data comparable with national household survey instruments, as well as with the Kalobeyei SES 2018 and the Kakuma SES 2019. Modules on demographics, household characteristics, and assets are aligned with the most recent national household survey, the KCHS 2019, and are comparable with results reported at the urban Nairobi, Nakuru, and Mombasa levels.43 The host community of urban refugees is defined as Kenyans who reside in the counties of Nairobi, Mombasa, and Nakuru (see chapter VI). Additional modules on access to remittances, loans and credit, vulnerabilities, social cohesion, coping mechanisms in response to lack of food, displacement trajectories, and durable solutions were administered to capture refugee-specific challenges. 43 The Urban SES’s modules on education and employment are designed to be comparable with the KCHS. However, due to the COVID-19 outbreak and its impact on education and labor force participation, and since the KCHS data were collected before the COVID-19 outbreak, such modules are not compared across refugee and host communities. 4    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya BOX 2 Limitations The mode of data collection limits comparability between refugee and host communi- ties. The Urban SES was conducted through CATI, whereas the KCHS was done through computer-assisted personal interviews. Phone surveys can limit the representativeness of the sample and the external validity of their estimates due to telephone coverage, low par- ticipation, and response rates.44 These limitations are a source of bias, which can be reduced by adjusting the survey weights using information from the population data. While the sam- pling weights for the SES control to some extent for differences in household profiles by phone ownership (households with phone vs. all households), they do not address the dif- ferences that might arise between the two modes of data collection. In addition, the training of enumerators and fieldwork might differ between phone surveys and face-to-face surveys. Hence, comparisons between refugees and hosts are limited. Poverty comparisons are also limited. Since collecting consumption data to estimate poverty can result in long interview times and reduced quality of phone survey data, the Urban SES did not include a consump- tion module. Therefore, poverty rates are not provided, although they are available through the KCHS for host communities. Comparability between the refugee and host communities is also limited by the timing of the data collection. While data for the urban SES were collected after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the KCHS data were collected before. Therefore, it was not feasible to include comparative insights for education or employment. 44 Ambel, McGee, and Tsegay, “Reducing Bias in Phone Survey Samples.” Background     5 Findings 1. Demographic profile45 Most urban refugees fled conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia, and most are living in Nairobi. Refugees are younger than hosts, and their households are more likely to be headed by women and have higher dependency ratios than host community households. 10. Since before 1990, Kenya’s urban areas have hosted refugees mainly from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, and Somalia, with the majority residing in Nairobi. Most urban refugees were displaced after 2007, with a peak in 2016 and a subsequent drop in 2017, despite the continuation of conflict in refugees’ main countries of origin (Figure 1; Appendix 3). Such a drop may be partly linked with the government’s announcement to close Dadaab camps in mid-2016. The announcement prompted some refugees to return, while it might have discouraged FDPs from seeking asylum in Kenya.46 Another potential explanation is the enforcement of the encampment policy, which in 2017 began to require refugees registered in urban areas to reside in camps.47 X FIGURE 1: Year of arrival by country of origin of household head 40 30 % of households DRC 20 SOM ETH SSD 10 BDI 0 Pre 1990 2004 2000 2007 2003 2006 2008 2009 1994 2014 1990 2001 2010 2005 1997 2017 2002 2020 1993 1996 1998 2013 1999 2016 2018 2019 1991 1995 2011 2015 1992 2012 Source: UNHCR (2021). UNHCR Kenya ProGres Registration Database Sub-Sample. Data not publicly available. Note: DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo; SOM = Somalia; ETH = Ethiopia; SSD = South Sudan; BDI = Burundi. 11. About 89 percent of refugees reside in Nairobi, while 4 percent live in Nakuru, and 7 percent in Mombasa. Refugees’ counties of residence vary by country of origin (Figure 2). While Nairobi hosts 45 Graphs and charts for refugee estimates were created based on Urban SES 2020–21 data. Graphs and charts depicting host community information were created based on the KIHBS 2015–16. Significance levels are reported as p-values for comparative figures, with 1% (p<.01) and 5% (p<.05) levels considered significant. Error bars in graphs display standard error estimates. 46 Frelick, “Kenya: Involuntary Refugee Returns to Somalia.” 47 UNHCR-Kenya operation. 6 a population from a wider variety of countries, refugees in Nakuru are mainly from South Sudan, and those in Mombasa are mainly from Somalia. Notably, Nakuru has an existing South Sudanese com- munity of migrants and refugees, while Mombasa has been the main county of residence for Somali refugees since before Kenya’s policy shift toward encampment. X FIGURE 2: Main countries of origin by county of residence 100 5 5 1 6 Mombasa 7 Nakuru 4 5 6 1 1 11 9 80 14 % of population 13 60 73 22 18 85 40 Nairobi 89 20 44 48 6 12 0 8 7 Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Overall Country Residence by country of origin county of residence of origin Congo, Dem. Rep. Somalia Ethiopia South Sudan Burundi Other Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 12. Nearly half of the urban and refugee populations are between 15 and 34 years old, with urban refugees being younger than hosts, especially in Nakuru. Around 49 percent of the refugees and hosts are between 15 and 34 years old (Figure 3). However, variations between communities are noted. Refugees are younger than hosts, with 45 percent of them being 18 years old or below, compared with 32 percent of hosts. Nakuru’s population is the youngest, with 55 percent of refugees and 41 percent of hosts 18 years old or below. In contrast, only 1.8 percent of refugees are elderly (age 65 and above), compared with 0.72 percent of urban nationals. Age distributions across populations are particularly important when considering dependency ratios and needs according to age. X FIGURE 3: Population pyramids for urban refugees and hosts Urban refugees (2020) Urban host (2019) Men Women Men Women 70+ 70+ 65–69 65–69 60–64 60–64 55–59 55–59 50–54 Age (years) Age (years) 50–54 45–49 45–49 40–44 40–44 35–39 35–39 30–34 30–34 25–29 25–29 20–24 20–24 15–19 15–19 10–14 10–14 5–9 5–9 0–4 0–4 9% 7% 5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% 7% 9% 9% 7% 5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% 7% 9% Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. Findings    7 13. Most refugee and host community households are headed by men, except for refugees in Nakuru, with dependency ratios being higher among refugee households, mainly those headed by women. Refugee households in Nakuru, who are mainly South Sudanese, are more likely to be headed by women than those in other counties (Figure 4, p<0.01). In turn, host community households in Nairobi are more likely than those in other counties to be headed by women (p<0.01). Dependency ratios are higher for refugee than for host community households (Figure 5), with host and refugee house- holds headed by women having higher dependency ratios than those headed by men (p<0.01). Nak- uru-based households are the most likely to have the highest dependency ratios, partly reflected by the higher proportion of young population. This highlights that mainly refugee women heading house- holds in Nakuru carry the responsibility of providing for large households.48 X FIGURE 4: Households headed by women 41 All 32 Refugees Hosts Nairobi 39 35 Nakuru 61 24 Mombasa 45 23 0 20 40 60 80 % of households Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. X FIGURE 5: Dependency ratios by county of residence 1.2 Refugees Hosts % of households 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 All Man Woman Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa 48 In Kakuma camp and Kalobeyei settlement, most South Sudanese households are also headed by women and have large dependency ratios. This points to the heightened vulnerability of South Sudanese refugee households headed by women. 8    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya 14. Refugees are more likely to have disabilities than urban nationals, with visual difficulties being the most common. Refugees in Mombasa and Nairobi are more likely to have disabilities than refugees in Nakuru (Figure 6). Refugees who are age 65 and above are more likely to have disabilities than refugees of other ages. The most common disability among refugees and urban nationals is visual impairments (38 percent of refugees and 44 percent of nationals) followed by mobility difficulties (33 percent of refugees and 34 percent of nationals). People with disabilities face difficulties accessing education and livelihood opportunities.49 X FIGURE 6: People with disabilities, refugees, and urban nationals (age five years and older) 20 Refugees Hosts % of population 10 7 8 7 6 7 1.6 2 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.4 0 Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa All Sex County of residence Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; Kenya Population Census 2019. Note: Nationals include urban nationals in the whole country. 2. Services While most refugee and host community households have access to improved housing, water, and sanitation services, some face limitations. Overcrowding and the use of biomass fuels for cooking are more common among refugee households headed by women. Furthermore, refugees’ enroll- ment rates are strikingly low, especially for secondary school. 2.1 Housing, energy, water, and sanitation 15. Even though most urban refugee and host community households have access to improved housing, refugees are more likely to live in overcrowded rooms than hosts.50 Nearly 8 in 10 refugee and host community households have access to improved housing. However, overcrowding is com- mon. Refugee households in Nakuru are more likely to have access to improved housing than those in Nairobi and Mombasa (p<0.01; figure 7).51 Overcrowding is most common among refugee households, 49 Compared with urban Uganda (where 12 percent of the population live with a disability), the prevalence of disabilities in Kenya is low. Nabulime, “Successes and Challenges in the Reporting about the Situation of Persons with Disabilities Inline with the SDGs: The Uganda Case.” 50 Improved housing is defined as having improved floor, wall, and roof construction. Improved floor consists of floor constructed with tablets/wooden planks, palm/bamboo/mat/adobe/polished wood, vinyl/asphalt, ceramic tiles, cement, carpet, stone, and bricks. Improved wall materials consist of cement, stone with lime/cement, bricks, cement blocks, covered adobe, wooden planks/shingles, and burnt bricks with cement. Improved roof types are made with metal, wood, ceramic tiles, cement, or asbestos. IFC, “DHS Analytical Studies. Using Household Survey Data to Explore the Effects of Improved Housing Conditions on Malaria Infection in Children in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 51 Most Nakuru refugees reside in Nakuru Town East and West, where housing conditions may be better than those in Nairobi refugees’ main areas of residence (Eastleigh, Kayole, Kawangware, Kayole, Ruiru, Githurai, and Kangemi), and in “Little Mogadishu” in Mombasa, where most refugees live. Findings    9 especially those headed by women.52 Refugee households in Nairobi and Nakuru are equally likely to face overcrowding (both 38 percent), compared with 29 percent of households inn Mombasa. In turn, the most overcrowded host community households are in Mombasa (24 percent), followed by Nakuru (20 percent) and Nairobi (18 percent). Overcrowding is linked to a higher risk of mental distress and sexual assault.53 X FIGURE 7: Access to improved housing, and overcrowding by gender of household head 100 % of households 80 Refugees Hosts 60 40 82 78 20 37 43 33 19 20 18 0 All Man head Woman head Improved Overcrowding housing Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. 16. Urban refugee and host community households largely use gas for cooking, while access to improved sources of water and sanitation varies between communities.54 Refugee households are more likely to use charcoal for cooking than host community households (Figure 8). Among refugees, households headed by women are more likely to use charcoal than those headed by men (32 percent and 19 percent, respectively). Variations by gender are not significant among hosts. The combustion of biomass fuels such as charcoal emits large amounts of airborne pollutants that can generate acute respiratory diseases and other ailments, especially for women and girls, who are usually the main household cooks. This also affects children under age five, who normally remain in the proximity of the cooking area when food is prepared.55 Refugees have better access to improved sources of water than hosts, although 72 percent of refugee households reported insufficient water supply in the month preceding the interview (Figure 9). In Mombasa, access to improved drinking water is low for both communities but, alarmingly low for hosts.56 In contrast, access to improved sanitation is better for hosts. Access to private toilets is low among refugee households, while comparable information is not available for host community households. Low access to water and improved sanitation can increase the risk of contagion of COVID-19 and other diseases. 52 UN Habitat. 2010. “A Practical Guide for Conducting Housing Profiles,” 84. Overcrowding occurs if three or more people occupy each habitable room. According to a UN Habitat slum-related definition of overcrowding, a house is considered to provide a sufficient living area for the household members if no more than two people share the same room. 53 WHO. 2020. “What Are the Health Risks Related to Overcrowding?” 54 More than 95 percent of refugee and host community households use the electricity grid or a generator for lighting. 55 Smith, Mehta, and Feuz. 2004. “Indoor Air Pollution from Household Use of Solid Fuels”; Kurmi et al. 2012. “Lung Cancer Risk and Solid Fuel Smoke Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”; Dasgupta et al. 2004. “Who Suffers from Indoor Air Pollution? Evidence from Bangladesh.” 56 Around 76 percent of refugee households have access to improved drinking water, compared wth 17 percent of host community households. 10    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 8: Energy for cooking X FIGURE 9: Improved water and sanitation 100 1 1 5 2 91 Improved drinking water 71 80 % of households 46 67 84 60 Improved sanitation 99 40 22 32 Private toilet missing data 20 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 25 Refugees % of households 8 0 1 2 Hosts Refugees Hosts Firewood Charcoal Kerosene/para n Liquefied petroleum Electricity Other gas/natural gas/biogas Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. 2.2 Education 17. Refugees have lower educational attainment than hosts, with variations by gender and county of residence. Among both populations, women are more likely than men to have no education (Figure 10). In Mombasa, refugees are the most likely to have no education and the least likely to have attained secondary education. Hosts in Nairobi have the highest level of education overall. X FIGURE 10: Educational attainment by gender and county of residence (age 15+, currently not attending school) 100 1 1 1 1 1 7 11 10 11 33 10 7 12 11 9 7 6 4 4 1 12 5 12 16 80 17 16 25 17 18 16 % of population 32 33 36 39 60 29 39 34 51 48 44 52 50 40 32 33 19 31 20 45 35 35 25 32 27 25 22 19 23 18 14 0 2 1 4 2 2 4 Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts All Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa No education Primary Secondary Technical or vocational Higher Other Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. Findings    11 18. Even though the government guarantees access to free primary education and free day sec- ondary education, enrollment rates for refugees are low, while the COVID-19 may have hindered access to education.57 Refugees’ main barrier to accessing education is the cost of transport, books, uniforms, and other indirect costs.58 To help overcome this, UNHCR and partners offer scholarships and support for refugee students. However, the number of available scholarships is very limited (see Appendix 5). Furthermore, different educational experiences and linguistic competencies can result in students falling behind or dropping out. Other key limitations include the lack of information and resources to support the process of recognizing prior learning, and the limited access to birth certifi- cates, which are required for registration in the National Education Management Information System and for national examinations.59 The impact of COVID-19, resulting in recurrent lockdowns and school closures, has also affected access and participation in education programs for refugees. For many, the loss of income has prevented households from meeting the wrap-around costs of public education (lunch, uniform, development fees, etc.). 19. Refugees’ primary and secondary enrollment rates are low, especially in Mombasa, while in Nak- uru, refugees are the most likely to be enrolled. School-age refugee boys and girls are equally likely to be enrolled in primary school, with Mombasa refugees being the least likely to be enrolled (Figure 11). Transition to secondary school is low, especially in Mombasa and for refugee girls (Figure 12). The most prevailing reason refugees have reported for being out of secondary school is cost. Despite progressive programs such as the Free Day Secondary Education, only a small percentage of refugees can afford the costs of public secondary schools such as transport, books, food, and uniforms. A small number of scholarships are available for learners with exceptional results at Kenya Certificate of Primary Edu- cation, but opportunities are highly competitive. Slim prospects of work and university often result in the de-prioritization of secondary education.60 In addition to barriers such as indirect and direct costs of education, the low primary enrollment rate in Mombasa may be explained by a preference among Mombasa-based refugees, who are mainly Somalis, to send children to faith-based schools (such as madaris).61 In Nairobi, madaris are also attended by Ethiopian or Somali children. These children may not attend formal schooling due to socio-cultural reasons and the associated costs.62 57 The SES data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic; thus, estimates of access to education may have been impacted by it. 58 Dix, “Urbanisation and the Social Protection of Refugees in Nairobi.” 59 UNHCR-Kenya operation. 60 Ibid. 61 Madaris is plural for madrasa, the Arabic word for school. 62 Pavanello, Elhawary, and Pantuliano, “Hidden and Exposed: Urban Refugees in Nairobi, Kenya.” 12    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 11: Primary net (NER) and gross (GER) enrollment rates of refugees during COVID-19 lockdown 140 NER 120 GER 100 % of population 80 135 60 103 100 107 103 40 79 82 69 68 70 70 53 20 0 All Boys Girls Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa X FIGURE 12: Secondary net (NER) and gross (GER) enrollment rates of refugees during COVID-19 lockdown 140 NER 120 GER 100 % of population 80 60 93 40 54 56 53 54 20 28 31 29 30 25 24 12 0 All Boys Girls Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Comparable statistics for host community members are not available. 3. Food security In 60 percent of households, urban refugees face high levels of food insecurity, with refugees in Nakuru the most likely to be highly food insecure.63 20. Food insecurity is measured by using the World Food Programme’s livelihoods-based and con- sumption-based coping strategies indexes. The Livelihoods-Based Coping Strategies Index (LCSI) assesses the longer-term coping and productive capacity of households in the presence of food short- ages, and strategies commonly undertaken to address them in the last 30 days. These can include selling assets or livestock, reducing spending on health and education, using savings, and begging. The LCSI classifies households as using stress, crisis, or emergency coping strategies to deal with food insecurity. The consumption-based or reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI) measures the level 63 Comparable data on food security are not available for nationals. Only refugee data are presented. Findings    13 of stress faced by a household due to food shortages by assessing the frequency of adoption of five coping mechanisms, and their severity. Strategies include reducing meals, eating less preferred foods, and limiting adult food intake for children to eat. The rCSI module inquires whether, in the last seven days, strategies were used to cope with a lack of food.64 The rCSI categorizes households as being in a situation of high, medium, or low food insecurity. Consumption-based strategies are more severe than livelihoods-based ones. This section focuses mainly on the rCSI, while results for the LCSI are presented in Appendix 7.7. 21. In Kenya, food insecurity is a threat for hosts and refugees, with COVID-19 having exacerbated this already difficult situation. Food security defines a situation in which all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.65 At least 4 million Kenyans are severely food insecure. The current food security problems in Kenya derive from multiple factors. These include droughts, high costs of domestic food production due to high costs of inputs (mainly fertilizer), and low purchasing power of consumers. In urban areas, however, nationals are less likely to face high levels of food insecurity than in rural areas, although the COVID-19 pandemic might have increased food insecurity levels. Generally, national households headed by women are more likely to face food insecurity.66 22. Refugees face high levels of food insecurity, especially in Nakuru. Around 84 percent of house- holds used consumption-based strategies to cope with the lack of food. Most of them ate less preferred foods (80 percent). In 34 percent of households, refugees implemented the most severe strategy: restricting adult consumption for children to eat. Nakuru refugee households are the most likely to face high levels of food insecurity (68 percent), which is striking, as most households in Nakuru have high dependency ratios, reflecting that young refugees are at risk of malnutrition (Figure 13). Wom- an-headed households are more likely to be food insecure than man-headed households. Food inse- curity is negatively associated with the number of people employed in a household. An additional employed member in a household decreases the household’s chance of being highly food insecure by 4 percentage points (Table 34). Food insecurity levels may have increased partly due to the socioeco- nomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. 64 WFP, “Cameroon: Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) January 2019.” 65 FAO,“Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action.” 66 WFP, “Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) Kenya 2016.” As of 2016, less than 10 percent of the population faced food insecurity in Nairobi, Nakuru, and Mombasa. 14    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 13: Food insecurity level and consumption-based strategies (rCSI) among refugees All 60 19 5 16 County of residence Nairobi 61 19 5 15 Nakuru 68 12 3 17 Mombasa 54 16 4 27 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households High food insecurity Medium food insecurity Low food insecurity No use of strategies Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Comparable statistics for host community members are not available. 4. Employment during the COVID-19 lockdown Only 42 percent of refugees are employed, with the lowest employment rates among women and Nakuru-based refugees. Wage employment in the formal and/or informal sectors is the most com- mon activity. Most refugees who are outside the labor force consider that limited employment opportunities and inadequate skills are the main obstacles to secure employment.67 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO) labor force framework is used to understand employ- ment dynamics of urban refugees. The working-age population (15–64 years) is classified into three categories according to their labor force status. A person is (i) in employment if they are engaged in any activity to produce goods or provide services for pay or profit, or only temporarily absent from such an activity.68 Those who are not employed are either (ii) in unemployment, and recently carried out activities to seek employment and are available to take up employment given a job opportunity, or (iii) are outside the labor force if they do not fulfill these criteria (Figure 14). The categorization of labor force status refers to the seven days preceding the interview. The categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Within those outside the labor force, the potential labor force is defined as all persons of working age who: (i) recently carried out activities to seek employment but are not currently avail- able to start work (unavailable jobseekers); or (ii) did not carry out activities to seek employment but want employment and are currently available (available potential jobseekers).69 67 Comparable statistics are not available for host community members. Only refugee data are presented. 68 Inthis report we have considered “employed” those who have carried out activities. 69 ILO, “ILO Glossary of Statistical Terms”; ILO, “Resolution Concerning Statistics of Work, Employment and Labour Underutilization. International Conference of Labour Statisticians.” Findings    15 X FIGURE 14: Labor force classification Employed (worked at last 7 days) Working age population (15–65 years) Unemployed (did not work, is available Available potential and looking for work) jobseekers (want a job, Potential labor not searching, available) force Unavailable potential Outside the labor force jobseekers (want a job, searched, not available) Source: ILO 2013. 24. Even though refugees have the right to work in Kenya, they face practical restrictions. The 2006 Refugee Act stipulates that refugees can work if they have a “Class M” work permit issued by the Minis- try of Interior. Applications for permits need a recommendation from a prospective employer and must be accompanied by a letter from RAS confirming refugee status.70 While refugees are legally allowed to work, it is reportedly much more difficult for them to find employment, given that work permits for asylum-seekers or refugees are very rarely issued.71 Refugees living in Nairobi are able to acquire a business license from the city council to start a business. However, a lack of capital or credit prevents refugees from obtaining this license. Restrictions on freedom of movement also affect opportunities to engage in the labor market. While refugees in urban centers may be able to move more freely than camp-based refugees, freedom of movement for urban refugees was significantly restricted by the Government of Kenya’s 2012 relocation directive and 2014 encampment directive.72 Movement restric- tions and the obstacles faced in obtaining work permits and business licenses fundamentally curtail refugees’ ability to work and generate income, undermining self-reliance. 25. Some 42 percent of working-age refugees are employed, with women and Nakuru-based refu- gees being the least likely to be employed. Refugee women and those who are heads of household are less likely to be employed than men. Importantly, women heads are more likely to be employed than women who do not head households (p<0.01). Refugees in Nakuru are the least likely to be employed, and the most likely to be outside the labor force (Figure 15). Importantly, Nakuru refugee households and households headed by women are the most likely not to have any working-age mem- ber who is employed.73 Low employment rates in Nakuru are alarming, as these households have the highest dependency ratios and are mostly headed by women. The lower employment rates among women may be influenced by gender-based and cultural norms that prevent women from engaging in economic activities while prioritizing unpaid care and domestic work. This reflects that women head- ing households in Nakuru face a particularly difficult situation, as even though they need to provide for their dependents, many of them are outside the labor force or unemployed. 70 Zetter and Ruaudel, “KNOMAD Study Part-II Refugees’ Right to Work—An Assessment.” 71 Refugee Consortium of Kenya, “Asylum Under Threat. Assessing the Protection of Somali Refugees in Dadaab Refugee Camps and along the Migration Corridor.” 72 O’Callaghan and Sturge, “Against the Odds: Refugee Integration in Kenya.” 73 Around 35 percent of man-headed households and 46 percent of woman-headed households contain at least one employed working-age member (37 percent Nairobi, 78 percent Nakuru, and 50 percent Mombasa). 16    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 15: Labor force status of refugees during COVID-19 lockdown 100 12 80 33 9 35 42 50 43 % of population 60 8 8 10 11 40 12 79 59 58 20 48 46 38 0 All Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa County of residence Outside the labor force Unemployed Employed Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Comparable statistics for host community members are not available. 26. Wage employment in the formal and/or informal sectors is the most common activity among urban refugees.74 Most employed refugees work as paid employees in the formal or informal sector, with men being more likely to do so. Women are more likely than men to be self-employed in non-ag- ricultural businesses. This may be partly explained by the flexibility that self-employment allows, as it enables women to combine paid work with domestic and care work (Figure 16). However, self-employ- ment is a more vulnerable form of work than wage employment. This form of work is more likely to be affected and have wide-reaching effects during economic downturns such as the one resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous research has shown that most refugees who have access to work are engaged in the informal economy and tend to participate in the sectors that have been hardest hit by the pandemic.75,76 Casual labor and petty trade are common. Several Somali refugees in Eastle- igh have roadside stands where they sell fabrics, undergarments, fruit, and vegetables, among other items. Many sell mira’a or khat, a herbal stimulant. Some refugees are involved in small businesses such as kiosks, restaurants, driving taxis and matatus, and running hairdressing salons, which are common among Congolese and Ethiopian refugees.77 Women mainly engage in petty trade, domestic labor, and tea- and coffee-making.78 74 The SES covers participation in the formal and informal sectors and does not differentiate between them. 75 Pavanello,Elhawary, and Pantuliano, “Hidden and Exposed: Urban Refugees in Nairobi, Kenya.” 76 Peyton, “Refugees Working in Shops and Cafes Have Been Hit Hardest by Coronavirus.” Refugees are disproportionately represented in the sectors that have been hardest hit by the pandemic, such as food services, manufacturing, and retail. 77 Campbell, “Urban Refugees in Nairobi: Problems of Protection, Mechanisms of Survival, and Possibilities for Integration.” 78 RCK, “Enhancing the Protection of Refugee Women in Nairobi. A Survey on Risks Protection Gaps and Coping Mechanisms of Refugee Women in Urban Areas.” Findings    17 X FIGURE 16: Type of work in last seven days among employed refugees 80 All % of employed population Men 60 Women 40 73 76 67 66 59 55 20 19 17 22 12 11 14 6 6 8 7 8 6 0 Paid employee Self-employed Agriculture Family business Apprenticeship Volunteer (formal/informal) (non-agriculture) (own/family) (unpaid work) Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Percentages do not sum up to 100, since refugees may have engaged in more than one activity. 27. Most refugees who are outside the labor force did not search for work—mainly due to stud- ies, the lack of jobs, or homemaking responsibilities. The skills perceived to be needed to secure employment are mainly small business management skills. About 89 percent of refugees outside the labor force did not seek work in the seven days before the interview. Reasons varied greatly by gen- der. Among men, studies are the most important reason for not having sought work. Homemaking and childcare problems were important reasons mentioned almost exclusively by women (Figure 17). Refugees, especially women, are interested in strengthening their small business management skills, which may be partly explained by the timetable flexibility that entrepreneurship can offer (Figure 18). Importantly, women often lack access to capital or credit to acquire business licenses and have to rely on men to borrow cash and/or material on their behalf.79 Among men, driving and information tech- nology (IT) are important skills that are perceived to be needed to secure a job. Relatedly, 44 percent of refugees report to be proficient in using the internet (55 percent of men and 32 percent of women), while 25 percent know how to use a computer (34 percent of men and 15 percent of women). X FIGURE 17: Reasons for not seeking work, by gender, among refugees outside the labor force 100 All Men 80 Women % of population 60 89 90 89 40 20 45 32 24 19 24 17 22 14 1 1 10 0 6 Did not search Studies No jobs Homemaker, Childcare for work available family problems responsibilities Reasons 79 Pavanello, Elhawary, and Pantuliano, “Hidden and Exposed: Urban Refugees in Nairobi, Kenya.” 18    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 18: Main skills perceived by refugees to be needed to secure employment 50 All Men 40 Women % of population 30 20 38 32 26 10 20 22 18 16 16 9 2 11 7 2 4 0 0 Small business Professional Driving Information Automobile management skills technology mechanics Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 28. Among those outside the labor force, the main obstacles to securing employment are limited job opportunities and inadequate skills, while the main support needed includes loans or credit and documentation. The main obstacles to securing employment among those outside the labor force (Figure 15) vary for refugees who are interested in wage work or in self-employment. Those who are interested in wage work report that the main obstacle to securing a job is a lack of job opportuni- ties (Figure 19). Among those interested in self-employment, access to expansion capital is the main obstacle. A lack of adequate skills is a key obstacle for those interested in wage work and in self-em- ployment. The main support needed also varies depending on refugees’ interest in wage work or in self-employment (Figure 20). Among those interested in wage work, the main support needed is to secure a work permit. For those interested in self-employment, loans, credit, and business training are the main types of support needed. X FIGURE 19: Refugees’ main obstacles to securing employment, by interest in self-employment or wage work 6 Lack of work permit 3 2 Lack of other documentation 4 2 Lack of information about local labor market 7 Lack of start-up capital (seed capital) 11 1 Lack of refugee ID 12 Limited or irregular work opportunities 15 Lack of access to loans or micro-credit 16 19 Lack of or inadequate skills 20 Lack of work opportunities 33 Lack of expansion capital 38 0 20 40 60 % of population outside the labor force Self-employment Wage work Findings    19 X FIGURE 20: Refugees’ main support needed to secure employment, by interest in self-employment or wage work Technical/vocational skills training 11 14 Business training 17 Securing other documentation 1 17 Securing contacts with other employers 20 Support with access to markets 3 20 Securing work permit 4 25 Loan or credit 61 0 20 40 60 % of population outside the labor force Self-employment Wage work Source: Kenya Covid-19 Rapid Response Phone Survey, round 5.80 Note: More details are available on the online dashboard: www.kenyacovidtracker.org. 5. Access to finance and remittances Mobile banking ownership is higher than bank account ownership, while access to formal sources of loans is low. Refugee households whose heads have been displaced for longer are more likely to have received remittances in the last year.81 29. Ownership of bank accounts is lower than mobile banking, while formal sources of loans are barely used. Refugees in Nairobi are more likely than refugees in other counties to own a bank account (Figure 21). In 98 percent of households where refugees own a bank account, the account is individu- ally owned. In turn, mobile banking accounts are more likely to be shared. In 20 percent of households where refugees own a mobile banking account, the account is shared (15 percent shared with a Ken- yan, and 5 percent with a refugee). The most widely used bank service is Equity Bank (42 percent). Despite documentation requirements to buy a SIM card in Kenya, most refugee households own a mobile banking account, with man-headed households being more likely to own one. Only 4 in 10 households reported access to loans, with family and relatives being the most common source, while formal financing and community savings are barely used (Figure 22). 80 As the Urban SES did not cover information on obstacles and support needed to secure employment, Kenya Covid-19 Rapid Response Phone Survey (RRPS) round 5 data were used to complement the employment findings for urban refugees in Nairobi, Nakuru, and Mombasa. RRPS round 5 data were collected in April to May 2021, while the Urban SES data were collected in November to December 2020. 81 Comparable data on bank account ownership and loans are not available for nationals. Only refugee data are presented. 20    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 21: Refugees’ bank account and mobile X FIGURE 22: Refugees’ access to loans in last 12 banking ownership months and main sources 100 83 Accessed loans 41 78 80 71 Informal % of households 40 60 (family/relatives) Source Informal 40 2 (community savings) 20 11 Formal 10 9 1 financial sources 0 All Men Women 0 20 40 60 80 100 Sex of head % of households Bank account Mobile banking Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Comparable statistics for host community members are not available. 30. Refugee households whose heads have been displaced for longer are more likely to have family members resettled in high-income countries and to have received remittances in the last year. Ref- ugee households whose heads arrived before 2008 are more likely to have nuclear family members and relatives or friends resettled in high-income countries than those who arrived in 2015 (Figure 23), and they are also the most likely to have received remittances in the year preceding the interview (Figure 24). Refugees displaced for longer generally have more opportunities to be considered under annual quotas of resettlement programs, which could explain why their relatives who remained receive more remittances. X FIGURE 23: Refugee households with nuclear family members or relatives resettled in high-income countries 80 Nuclear family members Relatives or friends 60 % of households 40 65 65 55 55 49 20 41 25 27 28 20 0 All Before 2008 2008–2011 2012–2014 Since 2015 Year of arrival of head Findings    21 80 X FIGURE 24: Refugee households that received remittances in the last 12 months 60 % of households 40 20 40 32 28 26 20 0 All Before 2008 2008–2011 2012–2014 Since 2015 Year of arrival of head Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Comparable statistics for host community members are not available. 6. Social cohesion Perceptions of trust, safety, and participation are generally positive. Refugees who recently inter- acted with a host community member tend to have more positive social cohesion perceptions than those who did not recently interact with hosts.82 31. The concept of social cohesion in the context of displacement is rarely coherently defined, and its usage is elastic. Social cohesion is rather a “composite concept that encompasses a range of vectors, including the attitudinal and emotional (e.g., acceptance, empathy, and trust), the collective (for example, identity and propensity for joint action), the institutional and systemic (e.g., political participation), and the socioeconomic vector (e.g., relative deprivation and access to opportunities). Moreover, these vectors run both horizontally (between persons and groups) and vertically (between persons, communities, and institutions).”83 In sociological terms, social cohesion refers to “the extent to which there are bonds within a group or society, which foster trust among strangers, willingness to cooperate, and confidence in institutions.”84 In contexts affected by fragility, conflict, and violence, social cohesion focuses on intergroup perceptions and interactions. 32. Refugees’ perceptions of social cohesion are generally positive, although negative regarding consideration of refugees’ opinions in decision-making, and safety at night. Perceptions of partici- pation tend to be worse than those for other dimensions of social cohesion (Figure 25). Nearly 7 in 10 refugees feel that the Kenyan political system does not allow refugees to have a say in what the gov- ernment does. However, they tend to have a more positive perception about their ability to express their opinion through the community leadership structure. Perceptions of safety at night and crime are generally negative. Notably, perceptions of trust in both neighbors and the host community tend to be positive. 33. Perceptions of trust and participation vary between refugees who did and did not recently interact with host community members. Refugees who interacted with a host community member in the seven days preceding the interview more often agreed that the host community is trustworthy 82 Comparable data on social cohesion are not available for nationals. Only refugee data are presented. 83 DeBerry and Roberts, “Social Cohesion and Forced Displacement,” 27. 84 Rodgers, “What Does ‘Social Cohesion’ Mean for Refugees and Hosts? A View from Kenya.” 22    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya than those who did not recently interact (Figure 26). Similarly, refugees who recently interacted with hosts reported feeling comfortable with their children socializing with host community children and tend to have a more positive perception of their ability to express their opinion through the commu- nity leadership structure than refugees who did not recently interact with hosts. Social cohesion is being stretched thin during the COVID-19 pandemic, with riots and political and mob violence having increased substantially, especially in fragile and conflict-affected contexts.85 Further, social cohesion and interactions have critical consequences for integration efforts.86 Hence, exploring interactions between groups and how they shape perceptions of trust, safety, and participation is key to inform social cohesion programs that can help face the adverse social consequences of the pandemic.87 X FIGURE 25: Refugees’ perceptions of trust, safety, and participation Kenyan political system allows refugees to have a say Participation in what government does 19 13 68 Refugees' opinion is considered for decisions 40 25 36 that a ect their well-being Can express opinion through the community 48 23 30 leadership structure Crime is not common in your neighborhood 40 11 49 Safe walking alone in neighborhood at night 25 7 68 Safety Safe walking alone in neighborhood during day 72 5 23 Safe to go to city center 64 6 31 Host community is trustworthy 72 8 20 Trust Neighbors are trustworthy 78 6 16 Comfortable with children socializing with host community 74 8 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Comparable statistics for host community members are not available. X FIGURE 26: Refugees’ perceptions of social cohesion by recent interaction (seven days preceding the interview) 100 12 13 26 23 80 32 7 8 39 8 22 60 9 24 40 81 79 59 58 66 55 20 36 0 Recently No recent Recent No recent Recent No recent Recent interacted interaction interaction interaction interaction interaction interaction Comfortable with Can express opinion children socializing through the community with host community leadership structure Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Comparable statistics for host community members are not available. 85 UNDP, “Development Futures Series.” 86 University of Groningen, “Integration despite Isolation.” 87 Miller, “Social Cohesion Has Helped Communities Cope Better during Covid-19.” Findings    23 7. Trajectories of displacement and intentions to move Most refugees fled conflict and violence, and most of them wish to leave Kenya. 34. Security concerns are the main reasons for refugees to have fled, and the most important rea- sons for not wanting to return to their country of origin. Around 8 in 10 refugee households fled due to a lack of safety in their home village, with households from the Democratic Republic of the Congo being the most likely to have fled for this reason (Figure 27). Increased crime, safety risks, and insecu- rity were the second most common reasons for having fled (40 percent). Somali households are the most likely to have fled for these reasons (50 percent). X FIGURE 27: Refugees’ main reasons for having fled Plans to leave 93 Type of information needed Security 73 to plan move General situation in country of origin 63 Political situation in country of origin 37 Political situation in Kenya regarding refugees 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 35. Most refugee households plan to leave Kenya at some point in time. Fewer than 1 percent wish to return to their country of origin, and 14 percent need information to guide their movement choices. About 93 percent of refugee households wish to leave Kenya. Fewer than 1 percent of them wish to return to their country of origin, while the rest wish to move to another area.88 Armed conflict is the most common reason for not wanting to return for households from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan. Ethiopian households are more likely not to want to return, mainly due to fear of ethnic, political, and religious discrimination. With the continuing conflict in the main countries of origin, it is not surprising to note that most refugees do not want to return due to security reasons (Figure 29; overview of conflict events in Appendix 3). Despite these ambitions of wanting to leave Kenya at some point in time, the average refugee in urban Kenya has resided in Kenya for seven years. About 73 percent of households who wish to move to another area would prefer to go to North Amer- ica, while 11 percent would go to Europe. In 14 percent of households (15 percent in Nairobi, 8 percent in Nakuru, and 9 percent Mombasa), refugees do not have enough information to guide their decisions to move or stay in Kenya. Security information is the most critically needed by those who report not having enough information to guide their mobility plans (Figure 28). 88 When asked about their plans for the foreseeable future, 96 percent of refugees reported wanting to seek a solution in a third country, 4 percent would stay in an urban area in Kenya, and only 0.1 percent would move to a refugee camp. 24    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 28: Refugees’ plans to leave and most needed information to guide mobility plans 86 Lack of safety in home village 75 79 80 38 Increased crime, risks to safety and insecurity 50 35 41 31 Lack of safety in neighboring villages 37 30 38 7 Death of spouse, family reasons 18 27 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households Congo, Dem. Rep. Somalia Ethiopia South Sudan X FIGURE 29: Refugees’ main reasons for not wanting to return 70 55 Armed conflict in the area of origin 62 74 58 Fear of ethnic, political, religious discrimination 51 67 43 27 24 Increased crime, violence, and insecurity 18 21 16 25 Armed conflict in the surrounding areas 29 37 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households Congo, Dem. Rep. Somalia Ethiopia South Sudan Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 8. Conclusions 36. Refugees are younger than hosts, and their households are more likely to be headed by women and have higher dependency ratios than host households. Most of the urban refugee and host com- munity populations are above 18 years old (55 percent of refugees and 68 percent of hosts; figure D3), with refugees being younger than hosts, mainly in Nakuru (Figure 3). Most refugee and host com- munity households are headed by men, except for refugees in Nakuru, with dependency ratios being higher among refugee households, mainly those headed by women. 37. While food insecurity is alarmingly high among refugees, their employment rates are also very low. About 60 percent of urban refugee households are highly food insecure, and more among Findings    25 households with fewer employed members (Figure 13). Only 42 percent of working-age refuges are employed. Urban refugees are more likely to be employed as wage workers (73 percent) and self-em- ployed workers (59 percent). Strengthening refugees’ job and entrepreneurial skills, broadening job markets and access to financial services, and easing documentation procedures for wage employment can support livelihood opportunities while contributing to a decrease in food insecurity. 38. Most refugee and host community households have access to improved housing, water, and sanita- tion services, while overcrowding is more common among refugee households. Most urban refugee and host community households have access to improved housing. Overcrowding is most common among refugee households, especially those headed by women. Overcrowding is linked with a higher risk of mental distress and increased risk of sexual and gender-based violence. Refugees have better access to improved sources of water than hosts, although 72 percent of refugee households reported insufficient water supply in the month preceding the interview (Figure 9). In Mombasa, access to improved drink- ing water is low for both communities, but alarmingly low for hosts.89 In contrast, access to improved sanitation is better for hosts. Increasing investment through partnerships between humanitarian and development actors to support integrated water, sanitation, and hygiene delivery can improve access to improved water and sanitation. Around 26 percent of refugee households and 10 percent of host com- munity households, mainly those headed by women, use biomass (charcoal or firewood) for cooking. Thus, expanding access to non-biomass fuel can improve the living standards of refugees and their hosts. 39. Women refugees have lower educational attainment and employment rates than men. Women refugees tend to have lower secondary enrollment rates than men, especially in Mombasa (Figure 12). Similarly, women refugees’ employment rates are lower than those of men, with those employed par- ticipating in lower-earning sectors compared with those in which men participate (Figure 15). Women refugees are also less likely to have access to financial services than men, which severely impacts their capacity to start and grow businesses (Figure 21). Understanding the differences in refugees’ and hosts’ living conditions according to gender can help inform targeted responses to sustainably improve their socioeconomic opportunities by considering gender norms and restrictions. 40. Nakuru-based refugees, who are mostly South Sudanese and whose households are mainly headed by women, experience particularly vulnerable conditions. Worldwide, 80 percent of the South Suda- nese refugee population are women and children, while 63 percent of them are under age 18.90 Conflict and generalized violence in South Sudan have forced hundreds of women to become the sole bread- winners for their families, with some of them having entered the labor market for the first time in their life.91 In urban Kenya, South Sudanese refugee households headed by women mimic some international trends.92 South Sudanese refugee households are mainly based in Nakuru and are the most likely to be headed by women (Figures 4 and 5). Nakuru’s population is the youngest overall (55 percent are 18 years old or below), and they have the highest dependency ratios. Food insecurity levels are also the highest among refugees in Nakuru (82 percent), reflecting the high level of vulnerability in which refugee women 89 Around 76 percent of refugee households have access to improved drinking water, compared with 17 percent of host community households. 90 USA for UNHCR, “South Sudan Refugee Crisis Explained.” 91 Ibid. Many South Sudanese men—often husbands and fathers—are either staying behind to work or fight, or are missing or presumed dead. 92 Similar trends are noticed in Kakuma camp and Kalobeyei settlement. UNHCR and World Bank, “Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya. Volume A: Kalobeyei Settlement”; UNHCR and World Bank, “Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya. Volume B: Kakuma Camp.” 26    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya and their dependents live (Figure 13). The higher incidence of food insecurity among woman-headed households in Nakuru exacerbates their existing vulnerabilities and may increase the risk of using other negative coping strategies, such as exchanging food for sex and abandoning children, while it can also result in children’s malnutrition and stunting. Refugees in Nakuru also have the lowest employment rates (12 percent: 6 percent for women and 21 percent for men; Figure 49). Evidently, refugee woman-headed households in Nakuru, and women members of households headed by men, need support to be able to provide for and take care of their dependents, as well as to support household expenses and control their earnings, strengthen their bargaining power, and secure their self-reliance. X TABLE 3: Findings and policy recommendations summary Finding Policy recommendation Short-term priorities Food insecurity is high, with 60 percent Livelihoods-based interventions can help refugees of households being highly food insecure. secure adequate and sustainable income, and Households headed by unemployed refugees contribute to reducing food insecurity. Targeting are more likely than those headed by food security programs to households with children employed refugees to cope with the lack can help protect human capital. Mobile cash of food by using severe livelihoods-based transfers can be a cost-effective instrument in urban strategies which deplete assets and risk settings to mitigate food insecurity. human capital. Access to improved drinking water is Improving and providing adequate water and higher among urban refugee households sanitation services is key to improve health (91 percent) than among hosts (71 percent), outcomes. Ensuring 20 liters of water per person with 72 percent of refugee households per day and enhancing the quality of sanitation reporting insufficient drinking water in the services can result in improved health outcomes last month. Access to improved sanitation is for refugees and hosts. Increased investment high for both refugees and hosts (84 percent through partnerships between humanitarian and of refugees and 99 percent of hosts), development actors, governments, and the private with shared toilets being common among sector to support integrated water, sanitation, and refugees (68 percent). hygiene service delivery can help boost access to these services. Around 37 percent of refugee households Expanding access to adequate housing and non- are overcrowded, compared with 19 percent biomass fuels and can help raise urban refugees’ of host community households. Around and hosts’ living standards. Increasing funding for 26 percent of refugee households and national housing programs to ensure hosts’ housing 10 percent of host community households, needs are adequately addressed while including mainly those headed by women, use biomass refugee communities can be key to help reduce (charcoal or firewood) for cooking. overcrowding. Subsidizing improved biomass and non-biomass fuels while easing access to them can help prevent negative health impacts on women and children. Refugees in Nakuru face particularly Supporting Nakuru refugees’ and hosts’ participation vulnerable conditions. They are the youngest in the paid labor market and enhancing their overall (55 percent of them are 18 years old food security can help maintain human capital. or below) and are mostly South Sudanese, Such efforts can also help lessen the impacts of and their households are mostly headed by the COVID-19 pandemic through strengthened women and have the highest dependency self-reliance and resilience to shocks. Further ratios. Food insecurity levels are also research can provide a deeper understanding of the highest among refugees in Nakuru socioeconomic barriers and how to overcome them (82 percent). They also have the lowest through gender-responsive solutions. employment rates (12 percent: 6 percent for women and 21 percent for men). Findings    27 X TABLE 3: continued Finding Policy recommendation Medium-term priorities Only 42 percent of working-age refugees Strengthening refugees’ job and entrepreneurial are employed, mainly as wage workers skills, broadening access to financial services, (73 percent) and self-employed workers and easing documentation procedures for wage (59 percent). The skills perceived to be employment can support sustainable livelihoods. needed to secure employment are mainly Multi-stakeholder collaborations can be essential small business management skills. The to enable the creation of markets and job main support needed among those outside opportunities. the labor force and interested in self- employment is access to loans and business training, while among those interested in wage work it is access to documentation and training. Refugees’ primary and secondary school Increasing primary school attendance and net enrollment rates are low (primary: supporting transition to secondary school can 69 percent; 68 percent for boys and help develop transferable skills and expand 70 percent for girls; secondary: 28 percent; socioeconomic opportunities. Inclusion of refugees 31 percent for boys and 24 percent for in the national education system would be critical girls). Refugees’ main barrier to accessing to expanding access to equitable and sustainable education is the cost of transport, books, educational opportunities. Identifying schools uniforms, and other indirect costs, and the in areas with high densities of refugees while lack of birth certificates. providing support for rehabilitation, equipment, and building their capacity in terms of management and teachers’ skills can be key to increase attendance. A deeper understanding of the bottlenecks that hinder enrollment is needed. Strengthening systems of recognition of prior learning can ease access to education. Financial incentives, information campaigns, and girls’ and women’s education programs can also help increase attendance. Refugees who recently interacted with a Fostering interactions between refugees and hosts host community member tend to have more could be key to improve perceptions of social positive perceptions of social cohesion than cohesion. Raising the voice and concerns of refugees those who did not. Refugees’ social cohesion through community leadership structures can also perceptions are generally positive, although help improve social cohesion. negative regarding consideration of their opinions in decision-making. About 93 percent of refugee households Continuing existing efforts to inform refugees about wish to leave Kenya, with fewer than resettlement, repatriation, and integration options 1 percent wishing to return, while the rest will remain important. wish to stay. In 14 percent of households, refugees reported needing information to guide their movement choices. 28    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya References Abuya, Edwin Odhiambo. 2007. “Past Reflections, Future Insights: African Asylum Law and Policy in Historical Perspective.” International Journal of Refugee Law 19: 51–95. ACLED. n.d. “Armed Conflict Location and Event Database.” https://acleddata.com/#/dashboard. Africa Union. 2015. Final Report of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan and the UN Panel of Experts Report to the UN Security Council. Addis Ababa: African Union. Ambel, Alemayehu, Kevin McGee, and Asmelash Tsegay. 2021. “Reducing Bias in Phone Survey Sam- ples: Effectiveness of Reweighting Techniques Using Face-to-Face Surveys as Frames in Four Afri- can Countries.” Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank, Development Economics Development Research Group, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9676. BBC News. 2018. “South Sudan Profile - Timeline.” News (blog). https://www.bbc.com/news/ world-africa-14019202. BBC News. 2019. “Democratic Republic of Congo Profile - Timeline.” News (blog). https://www.bbc. com/news/world-africa-13286306. Campbell, Elizabeth. 2006. “Urban Refugees in Nairobi: Problems of Protection, Mechanisms of Sur- vival, and Possibilities for Integration.” Journal of Refugee Studies 19 (3): 396–413. Dasgupta, Susmita, Mainul Huq, M Khaliquzzaman, Kiran Pandey, and David Wheeler. 2004. Who Suf- fers from Indoor Air Pollution? Evidence from Bangladesh. Washington, DC: World Bank. De Berry, Joanna, and Andrew Roberts. 2018. Social Cohesion and Forced Displacement: A Desk Review to Inform Programming and Project Design. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/125521531981681035/Social-cohesion-and-forced-displacement-a-desk- review-to-inform-programming-and-project-design. Dix, Sarah. 2006. “Urbanisation and the Social Protection of Refugees in Nairobi.” Humanitarian Exchange 35. London: Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute. https://odihpn. org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/humanitarianexchange035.pdf. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome: FAO. Federal Government of Somalia, World Bank, United Nations, and European Union. 2018. Somalia Drought Impact & Needs Assessment. Mogadishu: Federal Government of Somalia. Freeman, Jennifer, George Sugai, Steve Goodman, Brigid Flannery, and Sandra Sears. 2020. Improv- ing Attendance and Reducing Chronic Absenteeism. Eugene, OR: Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, University of Oregon. https://assets-global.website-files.com/5d3725188825e071f1670 246/5e50280ac2fdfdca9fdeeba0_Improving%20Attendance%20and%20Reducing%20Chronic%20 Absenteeism.pdf. Frelick, Bill. 2016. Kenya: Involuntary Refugee Returns to Somalia. New York: Human Rights Watch. Gavin, Michelle. 2021. “The Conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray Region: What to Know.” Council on Foreign Rela- tions, February 10, 2021. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/conflict-ethiopias-tigray-region-what-know. Government of Kenya. 2019. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2019 on A Policy Framework for Reforming Edu- cation and Training for Sustainable Development in Kenya. Nairobi: Government of Kenya. 29 Gundersen, Craig, and James Ziliak. 2015. “Food Insecurity And Health Outcomes.” Health Affairs 34 (11). Himelein, Kristen. 2014. “Weight Calculations for Panel Surveys with Subsampling and Split-off Track- ing.” Statistics and Public Policy 1 (1): 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2013.856170. HPN (Humanitarian Practice Network). 2018. Mobile Phone-Based Cash Transfers: Lessons from the Kenya Emergency Response. London: Overseas Development Institute. IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2016. “DHS Analytical Studies. Using Household Survey Data to Explore the Effects of Improved Housing Conditions on Malaria Infection in Children in Sub-Sa- haran Africa.” DHS Analytical Studies 61. Washington, DC: IFC. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/ AS61/AS61.pdf. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2013. Resolution Concerning Statistics of Work, Employ- ment and Labour Underutilization. International Conference of Labour Statisticians. Geneva: ILO. http://www.ilo.ch/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/normativeinstrument/ wcms_230304.pdf. ILO. 2017. Gender in Employment and Labour Market Policies and Programmes: What Works for Women? Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/documents/publica- tion/wcms_614168.pdf. ILO. 2019. ILO Glossary of Statistical Terms. Geneva: ILO. ILO. 2020. “Financial Education for Refugees, IDPs and Host Communities: New Addition to the ILO’s Financial Education Programme.” Partnership for improving prospects for forcibly displaced persons and host communities (PROSPECTS), October 26, 2020. https://www.ilo.org/global/pro- grammes-and-projects/prospects/WCMS_759667/lang--en/index.htm. IRC (International Rescue Committee). 2012. Urban Refugees. London: International Rescue Commit- tee. https://www.rescue-uk.org/sites/default/files/document/986/201112urbanrefsforechoadvocac- yevent0.pdf. Jesuit Refugee Service. 2019. Her Future. Challenges & Recommendations to Increase Education for Ref- ugee Girls. Washington, DC: Jesuit Refugee Service. https://jrs.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ JRSUSA_HER-FUTURE-for-web-3.3.19.pdf. Kagwanja, PM. 1999. “Challenges and Prospects for Building Local Relief Capacity in Kenya: Reflections on Humanitarian Intervention.” Nairobi. Kurmi, O.P., P.H. Arya, K.B. Lam, T. Sorahan, and J.G. Ayres. 2012. “Lung Cancer Risk and Solid Fuel Smoke Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Eur Respir 40: 1228–1237. Lind, J., P. Mutahi, and M. Oosterom. 2015. Tangled Ties: Al-Shabaab and Political Volatility in Kenya. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. Malonza, Rosemary, and Lumayo Fedha. 2015. “An Assessment Of Gender And Energy In Kenya: The Underlying Issues.” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 4 (9): 137–153. Miller, Olivia. 2020. “Social Cohesion Has Helped Communities Cope Better during Covid-19.” Uni- versity of Kent (blog). https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/26852/social-cohesion-has-helped- communities-cope-better-during-covid-19. Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government. 2014. Press Statement by Cabinet Sec- retary of Interior & Coordination of National Government on Refugees and National Security Issues on 26th March 2014. Nairobi: Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government. https:// www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/PRESS%20STATEMENT%20BY%20CABINET%20 SECRETARY%20FOR%20INTERIOR%20%20COORDINATION%20OF%20NATI%20%20%20.pdf. 30    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya Muindi, Kanyiva, and Blessing Mberu. 2019. Urban Refugees in Nairobi. Tackling Barriers to Accessing Housing, Services and Infrastructure. London: International Institute for Environment and Develop- ment. http://pubs.iied.org/10882IIED. Nabulime, Beatrice. 2019. “Successes and Challenges in the Reporting about the Situation of Persons with Disabilities Inline with the SDGs: The Uganda Case.” Paper presented at the Experts Group Meeting on Strengthening Evidence Based Research for Disability Inclusive Implementation, Moni- toring and Evaluation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), New York, October 15–17, 2019. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/10/Beatrice- Kaggya.pdf. National Council for Law Reporting. 2015. The Kenya Information and Communications Act. Nairobi: National Council for Law Reporting. NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council) and IHRC (International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School). 2017. Recognising Nairobi’s Refugees: The Challenges and Significance of Documentation Proving Identity and Status. Oslo: Norwegian Refugee Council. https://www.nrc.no/resources/reports/rec- ognising-nairobis-refugees---the-challenges-and-significance-of-documentation-proving-identi- ty-and-status/. O’Callaghan, Sorcha, and Georgina Sturge. 2018. Against the Odds: Refugee Integration in Kenya. Lon- don: Overseas Development Institute. Pavanello, Sara, Samir Elhawary, and Sara Pantuliano. 2010. Hidden and Exposed: Urban Refugees in Nairobi, Kenya. London: Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute. https://odi. org/en/publications/hidden-and-exposedurban-refugees-in-nairobi-kenya/. Peyton, Nellie. 2020. “Refugees Working in Shops and Cafes Have Been Hit Hardest by Coronavirus.” World Economic Forum (blog). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/working-in-shops- and-cafes-refugees-hardest-hit-by-coronavirus-jobs-cuts. Refugee Consortium of Kenya. 2008. Enhancing the Protection of Refugee Women in Nairobi. A Sur- vey on Risks Protection Gaps and Coping Mechanisms of Refugee Women in Urban Areas. Nairobi: Refugee Consortium of Kenya. Refugee Consortium of Kenya. 2012. Asylum Under Threat. Assessing the Protection of Somali Refu- gees in Dadaab Refugee Camps and along the Migration Corridor. Nairobi: Refugee Consortium of Kenya. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Asylum_Under_Threat.pdf. Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. 2018. “Urbanization.” Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/ urbanization#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20urban%20populations%20increased,in%20urban%20areas% 20in%202016. Rodgers, Cory. 2020. “What Does ‘Social Cohesion’ Mean for Refugees and Hosts? A View from Kenya.” COMPAS School of Anthropology (blog). https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2020/what-does- social-cohesion-mean-for-refugees-and-hosts-a-view-from-kenya/. Smith, Kirk, Sumi Mehta, and M. Feuz. 2004. “Indoor Air Pollution from Household Use of Solid Fuels.” Comparative Quantification of Health Risk: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Due to Selected Major Risk Factors. Geneva: World Health Organization. The Guardian. “UN Outlines Plan to Close Camps Housing 430,000 Refugees in Kenya.” The Guardian, April 15, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/apr/15/un-refugee-agency- plan-close-dadaab-kakuma-refugee-camps-kenya. UK DFID (Department for International Development). 2015. Girls’ Education Challenge. Project Pro- files. London: DFID. References    31 Ulrichs, Martina, Jessica Hagen-Zanker, and Rebecca Holmes. 2017. Cash Transfers for Refugees. An Opportunity to Bridge the Gap between Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection. London: Overseas Development Institute. https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/11252.pdf. UN Habitat. 2009. “The Right to Adequate Housing.” Fact Sheet No. 21/Rev.1, UN Habitat, Geneva. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf. UN Habitat, United Nations Human Settlements Programme. 2010. A Practical Guide for Conducting Housing Profiles. Nairobi: UN Habitat. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-07/a_ practical_guide_for_conducting_housing_profiles_-_revised_version.pdf. UN Women. 2019. “Gaining Protection for Indonesia’s Migrant Workers and Their Families.” UN Women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2019/6/feature-story-of-change-protection-for- indonesias-migrant-workers. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2021. “Development Futures Series.” UNDP. https:// www.undp.org/undp-development-futures-series. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2009. UNHCR Policy on Refugee Pro- tection and Solutions in Urban Areas. Geneva: UNHCR. https://cms.emergency.unhcr.org/docu- ments/11982/33306/UNHCR%2C+Policy+on+Protection+and+Solutions+in+Urban+Areas/16acdf78 -8ac3-4b12-85c9-939e04d8a4a4. UNHCR. 2017. “Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2016.” UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34. UNHCR. 2018. “Implementing Registration within an Identity Management Framework.” UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/registration-guidance/chapter5/. UNHCR. 2020a. “DR Congo Emergency.” UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/dr-congo-emergency.html. UNHCR. 2020b. Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2019. Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr. org/5ee200e37.pdf. UNHCR. 2020c. “Somalia.” UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/somalia.html. UNHCR. 2020d. “Urban Refugees Struggling to Survive as Economic Impact of COVID-19 Worsens in East, Horn and Great Lakes of Africa.” UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2020/5/5ec- cbfec4/urban-refugees-struggling-survive-economic-impact-covid-19-worsens-east.html. UNHCR. 2021a. Kenya: Registered Refugees and Asylum-Seekers. February 2021. Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/ke/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/Kenya-Infographics-28-Febru- ary-2021.pdf. UNHCR. 2021b. “Key Indicators.” Refugee Data Finder. https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/#:~:- text=An%20estimated%2030%20%E2%80%93%2034%20million,age%20(end%2D2019).&text=De- veloping%20countries%20host%2086%20per,refugees%20and%20Venezuelans%20displaced%20 abroad.&text=Data%20on%20some%204.2%20million,was%20reported%20at%20mid%2D2020. UNHCR and ILO. 2019. Doing Business in Dadaab. Market Systems Analysis for Local Economic Devel- opment in Dadaab, Kenya. Geneva: UNHCR and ILO. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/ resources/Doing-Business-in-Dadaab-April-2019_Final-Report.pdf. UNHCR and World Bank. 2019. Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya. Vol- ume A: Kalobeyei Settlement. Nairobi: UNHCR and World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/ en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/982811613626800238/understanding-the- socioeconomic-conditions-of-refugees-in-kenya-volume-a-kalobeyei-settlement-results-from- the-2018-kalobeyei-socioeconomic-survey. 32    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya UNHCR and World Bank. 2021. Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya. Volume B: Kakuma Camp. Nairobi: UNHCR and World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/ en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/443431613628051180/socio-economic-pro- file-of-refugees-in-kakuma-in-kenya-volume-b-kakuma-camp-results-from-the-2019-kakuma-socio- economic-survey. University of Groningen. 2020. “Integration despite Isolation.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2H1Wd7y6W60. USA for UNHCR. 2019. “South Sudan Refugee Crisis Explained.” UNHCR. https://www.unrefugees.org/ news/south-sudan-refugee-crisis-explained/#Where%20are%20Yemenis%20fleeing%20to?. USA for UNHCR. 2020. “South Sudan Refugee Crisis.” UNHCR. https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/ south-sudan/. WFP (World Food Programme). 2016. Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) Kenya 2016. Nairobi: WFP. https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ ena/wfp285586.pdf?_ga=2.228888092.1266842524.1591697544-990280095.1561532705. WFP. 2019. Cameroon: Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) January 2019. Yaoundé, Camer- oon: WFP. https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000107855/download/. WHO (World Health Organization). 2010. Preventing Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence. Taking Action and Generating Evidence. Geneva: WHO. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/ 44350/9789241564007_eng.pdf. WHO. 2020a. “What Are the Health Risks Related to Overcrowding?” WHO. WHO. 2020b. “What Is the Minimum Quantity of Water Needed?” WHO. https://www.who.int/water_ sanitation_health/emergencies/qa/emergencies_qa5/en/. World Bank. 2019. Using Micro-Data to Inform Durable Solutions for IDPs. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/761091557465113541/Volume-A-Executive-Summary. Zetter, Roger, and Héloïse Ruaudel. 2016. Refugees’ Right to Work and Access to Labor Markets – An Assessment – Country Case Studies (Part 2). Washington, DC: KNOMAD. https://www.knomad.org/ publication/refugees-right-work-and-access-labor-markets-assessment-country-case-studies- part-2. References    33 Appendices 1. Definitions Household: This definition is aligned with what is used by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) and was adapted to the refugee context. According to the KNBS’s 2015–16 Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey (KIHBS), households are groups of people who are living together, have a common household head, and share “a common source of food and/or income as a single unit in the sense that they have common housekeeping arrangements [...].” Based on the KNBS definition of a household, as well as on the feedback from the field-testing carried out before the data collection, the household definition adopted for this survey is: a set of related or unrelated people (either sharing the same dwelling or not) who pool ration cards and regularly cook and eat together. Household head: The household member who makes the key day-to-day decisions for the household. Their headship must be accepted by all the members of the household. Profile Global Registration System (ProGres) family: Defined upon registration. The Verification Reg- istration Exercise (VRX) classifies individuals into proGres families, which are groups of people who “live together and identify as a family and for whom a relationship of either social, emotional, or eco- nomic dependency is assumed.”93 VRX: UNHCR updating and verification of refugee registrations into the proGres data set. 93 UNHCR, “Implementing Registration within an Identity Management Framework.” 34 2. Refugee identification documents Type of document Purpose Validity Issuing authority Alien card Identity card that includes a notation (either 5 years Government in the card’s title or elsewhere) to indicate the holder is a refugee. Since 2006 they have been formally called “refugee identity cards” in Kenyan legislation. Depending on where and when the card was issued, its title could be “refugee identity card,” “refugee certificate,” “refugee certification,” or “alien certificate.” They can be renewed. Waiting card Document or appointment slip that could DRA/RAS or refer to any number of documents. These UNHCR documents usually indicate that the holder is waiting for a document, such as an alien card, that they are entitled to (but it may not state this is the case) or has an appointment for an interview as part of the refugee status determination process. These are common documents that vary significantly in form. Some refugees may have received multiple waiting documents, issued one after the other. Movement pass Document that requires a refugee to DRA/RAS move from an urban area to a camp within 10 days. It is also the name used for the document that DRA/RAS issues to camp- based refugees that gives them permission to leave the camp temporarily. Proof of registration Document that lists the members of a DRA/RAS family registered in an urban setting. Its camp equivalent is usually referred to as a “manifest” and is very similar in form. Proof of registration documents appear to have been issued by DRA/RAS at various points, including to refugees who took part in the urban verification exercise that was carried out by RAS and UNHCR in 2016–17. Refugee Letter that states the holder has been 1 year DRA/RAS recognition letter recognized as a refugee by the government (or notification of and is waiting for an alien card. recognition) Asylum seeker pass Document that indicates the holder has 6 months or DRA/RAS been recognized as an asylum-seeker by 1 year the government. Source: NRC and IHRC 2017.94 Note: DRA: Department of Refugee Affairs; RAS: Refugee Affairs Secretariat. 94 NRC and IHRC, “Recognising Nairobi’s Refugees: The Challenges and Significance of Documentation Proving Identity and Status.” Appendices    35 3. Overview of conflict events in major countries of origin 41. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is experiencing multiple conflicts affecting several parts of its vast territory. Since its constitution as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (and before that), the country has lived in political unrest, conflict, and violence. War and conflict between rebels—who have reportedly been supported by different African countries—and the government continued from 1997 to 2002, when a peace agreement was signed in South Africa between rebel groups and the gov- ernment in Kinshasa. Nevertheless, after the peace agreement, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has seen waves of fighting—especially in the eastern parts of the country. In 2016, a devastating wave of violence affected the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Kasai region, a vast area in the south and center of the country, which has caused thousands to flee. More than 800,000 Congolese live as refu- gees and asylum-seekers, while more than 5 million have been internally displaced.95 42. In Somalia, clan conflict, violence by armed non-state actors, and droughts have caused the dis- placement of nearly 2 million people. Somalia is one of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Since the Siad Barre government collapsed in 1991, the country has experienced successive cycles of conflict, mostly in the south. Somalia has also experienced violent jihadism, as well as conflicts over land, natural resources, pastureland, and economic rents. Furthermore, levels of criminality, inter- personal violence, and gender-based violence are high. Added to conflict and generalized violence, Somalia is extremely vulnerable to climate shocks and has long experienced cyclical droughts, as well as floods, desertification, and land degradation. Violence and environmental hazards have caused the displacement of over 900,000 Somalis in the Horn of Africa and Yemen, while an estimated 2.6 million people are displaced within the country itself.96 43. Clashes between Eritrea and Ethiopia have marked a history of conflict in Ethiopia, with the Tigray region being the main conflict-affected area. In 1999, the Ethiopian–Eritrean border tensions turned into a full-scale war. Coupled with that, ethnic clashes with the Gambella region’s Anuak people exacerbated insecurity conditions. In 2005, Human Rights Watch accused the army of “widespread murder, rape and torture.” In the same year, election violence erupted, while in 2006, Ethiopian troops fought Somali Islamists. In 2015, the victory of the ruling EPRDF in the general election sparked wide- criticism by the opposition, leading to violent protests that continued up to 2018. In 2018, the war with Eritrea was declared to be over, putting an end to a 34-year armed rebellion. In November 2020, long-rising tensions between the federal government and the leadership of the northern Tigray region exploded into military confrontation.97 Many Ethiopians have been displaced due to long-lasting con- flict, mainly in the northern region. 44. South Sudan has faced war and conflict that has led to mass displacement of over 2 million people. South Sudan is the youngest African country. It gained independence from Sudan in 2011 after years of a secessionist war that lasted from 1955 to 1972, restarted in 1983, and ended in 2005. South Sudan has faced continuous violence between security forces and rebels, and ethnic clashes, as well 95 UNHCR, “DR Congo Emergency”; BBC News, “Democratic Republic of Congo Profile - Timeline”; UNHCR, “Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2019.” 96 UNHCR, “Somalia”; Federal Government of Somalia et al., “Somalia Drought Impact & Needs Assessment”; UNHCR, “Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2019.” 97 Gavin, “The Conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray Region: What to Know.” 36    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya as conflict over recently found oil fields since independence. In 2013, a civil war erupted, forcing thou- sands more to flee. In September 2018, a peace deal between the government, the opposition, and other parties was signed. However, continued outbreaks of violence render the peace precarious. As a result, more than 2.2 million South Sudanese live as refugees; 63 percent of them are under the age of 18, and 1.3 million have been internally displaced within the country. South Sudanese refugees are hosted in Uganda (39 percent), Sudan (36.5 percent), Ethiopia (15 percent), Kenya (6 percent), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (4 percent).98 45. Decades of protracted conflicts and human rights violations have been the main drivers of forced displacement in Sudan. Peace in Sudan has been almost nonexistent due to war between the north and south of the country, tensions with Chad, fighting over oil in Abyei, Islamic extremism and sharia law punishments, ethnic clashes, numerous rebel groups’ conflicts against the government, and pro- tests against the re-election of former President Omar al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan from 1989 to 2019. Since 2003, conflict has mainly been concentrated in the western part of Sudan, Darfur. Around two- thirds of all conflict events in Sudan since 2003 have taken place in the five Darfuri states.99 Although Sudan is a host country of refugees, mainly from South Sudan, there are nearly 800,000 Sudanese refugees, and an estimated 2.1 million Sudanese have been internally displaced.100 98 WorldBank, “Using Micro-Data to Inform Durable Solutions for IDPs”; Africa Union, “Final Report of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan and the UN Panel of Experts Report to the UN Security Council”; BBC News, “South Sudan Profile - Timeline”; USA for UNHCR, “South Sudan Refugee Crisis.” 99 ACLED, “Armed Conflict Location and Event Database.” 100 UNHCR, “Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2019.” Appendices    37 4. Preceding socioeconomic surveys for refugees and host communities in Kenya Survey101 Details IFC. 2018. Kakuma as a A consumer and market study which examines Kakuma camp and Marketplace. A Consumer and town through the lens of a private firm looking to enter a new Market Study of a Refugee market. Camp and Town in Northwest The study comprises four components: an in-depth review of Kenya. Washington, DC: IFC. previous studies, a survey of 1,417 households in Kakuma camp and town, interviews with UNHCR and other agencies present in Kakuma, and case studies of private companies already active in the camp or that might be potentially interested in launching operations there. The household survey instrument covers modules on business ownership, access to finance and credit markets, telecommunications, employment, education, housing, sanitation, energy, and financial literacy. Kimetrica, UNHCR, and World The study contributed to an increased understanding of refugee Food Programme. 2016. livelihoods and the level of and differences in vulnerabilities Refugee Vulnerability Study: faced by refugee households. It also explored the feasibility of Kakuma, Kenya. delivering targeted assistance and identifying the mechanisms that would need to be put in place to do so. The study comprised three phases of fieldwork: an initial scoping study, a survey of 2,000 refugee households, and a follow-up mission to explore the feasibility of various targeting mechanisms. The household survey instrument covered modules on employment, access to finance and credit markets, social and physical networks, food security, consumption, and expenditure. World Bank. 2016. ‘Yes’ In My This report provides an original analysis of the economic and Backyard? The Economics social impact of refugees in Kenya’s Kakuma refugee camp on of Refugees and Their Social their Turkana hosts. The authors use a methodology that enables Dynamics in Kakuma, Kenya. running policy scenarios in a rigorous manner, ranging from Nairobi: World Bank and encampment to decampment (that is, camp closure). UNHCR. A household survey for refugees and hosts in Turkana (in Kakuma and in other towns) was carried out. The survey instrument included modules on household demography, income, and perceptions. Information on consumption was also collected, albeit in a limited fashion, and only intended to detect short-term changes in consumption. Betts, Alexander, Remco The report draws on data collected from the first of three Geervliet, Claire MacPherson, waves of surveys to be carried out over a three-year period. Naohiko Omata, Cory Rodgers, The resulting panel data set will be used to compare the self- and Olivier Sterck. 2018. reliance and socioeconomic indicators of recent arrivals living in Self-Reliance in Kalobeyei? the Kalobeyei settlement and the Kakuma camp. Focus group Socio-Economic Outcomes for discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with Refugees in North-West Kenya. refugees, host community members in the region, and other Oxford, UK: Refugee Studies stakeholders. The Kalobeyei refugee interviews cover individuals Centre, Oxford University. from South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Burundi, while in Kakuma they cover individuals from South Sudan. 101 This is a non-exhaustive list of surveys that used a representative sample and were published between 2016 and November 2020. 38    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya Survey101 Details Betts, Alexander, Naohiko The study explores the distinctive regulatory environment faced Omata, and Olivier Sterck. 2018. by refugees in urban and camp contexts. The report represents Refugee Economies in Kenya. a first systematic comparison of economic outcomes for Oxford, UK: Refugee Studies refugees and host communities. The data collection is based on Centre, Oxford University. participatory methods, including the recruitment and training of refugees and host nationals as peer researchers and enumerators. The data were collected in and around Nairobi and the Kakuma refugee camps, and the quantitative methods are based on representative sampling, with a total of 4,355 survey respondents (1,738 from the host communities and 2,617 refugees). Betts, Alexander, Antonia The report draws on a business survey with food retailers Delius, Cory Rodgers, Olivier to assess the impact of the “Bamba Chakula” (BC) model of Sterck, and Maria Stierna. 2019. electronic food transfers and business contracts. The aim was to Doing Business in Kakuma: examine what role BC status, among other factors, has played Refugees, Entrepreneurship, in influencing business performance and market structure. The and the Food Market. Oxford, study is based mainly on a business survey of three groups UK: Refugee Studies Centre, of food retailers: successful BC applicants, unsuccessful BC Oxford University. applicants, and food retailers who have not applied to be BC traders. The survey targeted all traders in the World Food Programme’s registry of applicants to BC and a random sample of non-applicant food retailers, sampled from a Norwegian Refugee Council census. A total of 730 entrepreneurs (of whom 629 currently have a business) were interviewed. The survey was complemented by qualitative data collection based on semi- structured interviews and focus groups. Vemuru, Varalakshmi, Rahul This social impact analysis describes the complexities of the Oka, Lee Gettler, and Rieti interactions between refugees and their host community, and Gengo. 2016. Refugee Impacts assesses their positive and negative outcomes within the current on Turkana Hosts. Washington, relief paradigm, contextualized by: (1) the history of interactions DC: World Bank. between the Turkana people and the central Kenyan government from the British colonial period to the current administration; (2) recent developments regarding devolution, oil, and water; and (3) since 1992, the arrival and continuing flow of large numbers of refugees into northern Turkana. To better understand the social economies of the Turkana people and the refugees of Kakuma, ethnographic approaches were used. UNHCR and World Bank. The Kalobeyei SES employed a novel approach to generating data 2020. Understanding the that are statistically representative of the settlement’s population Socioeconomic Conditions of and comparable to the national population. The SES included a Refugees in Kalobeyei, Kenya: range of standard socioeconomic indicators, at both household Results from the 2018 Kalobeyei and individual level, aligned with the national 2015–16 KIHBS and Socioeconomic Profiling Survey. KCHS. The SES and ensuing analysis provide a comprehensive Nairobi: UNHCR and World snapshot of the demographic characteristics, standards of living, Bank. social cohesion, and specific vulnerabilities facing refugees regarding food security and disabilities. Appendices    39 5. Scholarship programs As refugee students also access secondary education through private scholarships, this list is indica- tive only. • UNHCR directly supports a small number of urban refugees to attend day and boarding secondary schools. These students are supported due to their vulnerability—that is, they reside in urban areas for protection reasons. Fees are paid directly to the school, while the wrap-around costs are paid through cash transfers to the student or guardian. While UNHCR monitors these students, in most cases the school community is not aware of the students’ refugee status. • Wings to Fly is a merit-based scholarship initiative from Equity Foundation that aims to support secondary school students from financially challenged backgrounds for the duration of their sec- ondary education, based on their academic achievements or demonstrated talent. The program includes payment of tuition fees, accommodation, books, uniforms, pocket money, and transport to and from school during their four years of secondary education. It has so far supported eight ref- ugee students. Students are selected by specially appointed boards comprising key leaders in the community and chaired by the County or Sub-County Director of Education. • The Elimu Scholarship Programme is an initiative funded by the World Bank and the Government of Kenya, through the Ministry of Education, that seeks to improve access to secondary education under the Secondary Education Quality Improvement Project. To be eligible to apply, candidates must have been granted admission to a public or private secondary school that is registered with the Kenyan Ministry of Education (therefore, camp schools are not eligible). The scholarship, in most cases, will cover 100 percent of tuition, a monthly stipend, a dormitory room and board (where appli- cable), and other associated costs such as books, uniforms, and travel. Seven refugees were admit- ted in the first cohort—all from Kakuma but attending public primary schools in the host community. • M-Pesa Foundation Academy (MFA) is a mixed boarding high school supported by Safaricom. Full secondary school scholarship and bursary opportunities are offered for talented but economically disadvantaged students across Kenya. The focus is not only on academic performance, but also on “building the whole person” by engaging the students in talent and skills development, enhancing self-reliance, and establishing linkages in the job market. MFA accepts applications from urban ref- ugees directly, while UNHCR supports the process for refugees in Turkana West. No refugees from Dadaab have benefited to date. • Other partners that have offered scholarships to refugees in the past include Education For All Chil- dren and KEEP (a recipient of the Girls’ Education Challenge Fund). 40    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya 6. Methodology 6.1 Design and survey instrument 46. The SES was conducted by using the UNHCR proGres data set as a sampling frame. The aim of the SES was to interview refugees living in urban Kenya: Nairobi, Nakuru, and Mombasa counties. Since the data collection occurred during the COVID-19 lockdown (November 2020 to January 2021), face- to-face interviews were not possible. Hence, the survey data were collected via telephone. Selected proGres families (see Appendix 1 for more details) were called by trained enumerators who conducted the SES interviews via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). The SES is representative of households with active phone numbers registered by UNHCR. 47. While UNHCR proGres families were sampled, households were surveyed. The units in the pro- Gres list are UNHCR proGres families, which are different from households as defined in standard household surveys. Upon registration, UNHCR groups individuals into “proGres families,” which do not necessarily meet the criteria to be considered a household. A proGres family usually comprises no more than one household. In turn, a household can be integrated by one or more proGres families.102 Households were selected as the unit of observation to ensure comparability with national household surveys. Households are a set of related or unrelated people (either sharing the same dwelling or not) who pool ration cards and regularly cook and eat together (see Appendix 1 for details).103 As proGres families were sampled, the identification of households was done by an introductory section that con- firms that each member of the selected proGres family is a member of the household, and whether there are other members in the households that belong to other ProGres families. Thus, the introduc- tory section documents the number of proGres families present in the household under observation. 48. The SES was designed to produce data comparable with national household survey instruments, as well as with the Kakuma SES 2019 and Kalobeyei SES 2018. Modules on education, employment, household characteristics, and assets were aligned with the most recent national poverty surveys, the KIHBS 2015–16 and the KCHS, which have collected comparable statistics annually for all coun- ties in Kenya since the end of 2019, making the comparison between refugees and nationals possible. Additional modules on access to remittances, loans and credit, vulnerabilities, social cohesion, coping mechanisms to lack of food,104 displacement trajectories, and durable solutions were administered to capture specific challenges facing refugees. The questionnaire was divided into 12 sections (Table 4); four of them are comparable to the KIHBS and the KCHS, eight are comparable to the Kalobeyei SES 2018, and nine to the Kakuma SES 2019. The questionnaires were administered in English. The instrument was not translated into different languages, but rather enumerators were hired to inter- pret the questions during the interview. The questionnaire was interpreted from English to Oromo 102  Forinstance, someone may, at the time of registration, have identified a group of people as her family, yet they do not or no longer live together or cook and eat together. She would thus be registered as part of the same proGres family but not be part of the same household. Or a person may live and eat with a group of people but not have a shared proGres family ID. They will then be part of the same household but not be part of the same proGres family. 103  Registered individuals have both an individual proGres ID and a proGres family ID, which are stated on a “UNHCR manifest” document. Single individuals who are not part of a family are registered as proGres family size 1. ProGres IDs grant access to ration cards; thus, food rations vary depending on the registered proGres family size. 104  World Food Program Livelihoods Coping Index. Appendices    41 (west-central Kenya), Somali, Dinka, Rwanda, Kinyarwanda, Lingala, Kinyamurenge, Kongo, Kikongo, Congo, Rundi, Kirundi, Tigrigna, Amharic, and French. X TABLE 4: 2015–16 KIHBS, 2019 KCHS, Kalobeyei SES 2018, Kakuma SES 2019, and Urban SES 2020–21 questionnaires Questionnaire modules KIHBS KCHS Kalobeyei Kakuma Urban SES 2015–16 2019 SES 2018 SES 2019 2020–21 Random household selection ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Informed consent ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Education ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Employment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Household characteristics ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Assets ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Consumption and expenditure ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Access to finance ✔ ✔ ✔ Vulnerabilities ✔ ✔ ✔ Social cohesion ✔ ✔ ✔ Coping mechanisms ✔ ✔ ✔ Displacement and durable solutions ✔ ✔ Sources: KIHBS 2015–16; Kalobeyei SES 2018; Kakuma SES 2019; Urban SES 2020–21. 49. The Urban SES data can be linked to UNHCR’s proGres database for additional analysis and targeted programming. The SES questionnaire recorded the proGres IDs of the participants, which enables cross-checks and comparisons across the proGres and SES data sets. Such comparisons allow verification of the accuracy and plausibility of the data in the analysis. The correlation between vari- ables in the proGres database and the more detailed SES indicators can be further explored and used to inform targeted program design. Moreover, comparisons between proGres and the SES can be use- ful to better understand the implications of the currently available proGres data, which are collected for a large number of refugee populations worldwide. 6.2 Sample size estimation and sampling weights calculation 50. A sample size of 2,500 was needed to ensure a margin of error of less than 5 percent at a con- fidence level of 95 percent for groups represented by at least 50 percent of the population. The sample for the urban SES is designed to estimate socioeconomic indicators, such as food insecurity, for groups whose share represents at least 50 percent of the population. Considering the total urban refugee population as of August 2020 (Table 5) and the proportions of main countries of origin, as well as a 10 percent nonresponse rate, the target sample size is 2,500 households in total, with 1,250 in Nairobi, 700 in Nakuru, and 550 in Mombasa. A total of 2,438 households were reached: 1,300 in Nairobi, 409 in Nakuru, and 729 in Mombasa.105 105 The formula for the sample size is n =   where Z = 1.96, p = 0.5, e2 = 0.03 and N = 43,340. This yields a total sample size of ≈ 1,050. To ensure that the sample is large enough to be representative of the Nairobi population (N = 39,667 households), using the given formula (where Z = 1.96, p = 0.3, e2 = 0.05 and N = 39,667), and 20 percent nonresponse rate, the target sample size per stratum is 460 ≈ 500. Each stratum sample ensures proportional representation of main countries of origin. Mombasa considers 75 percent of households to be Somali = 500/.75 ≈ 700, Nairobi considers 41 percent of households to be Congolese = 500/.40 ≈ 1,250, while 93 percent of households in Nakuru are South Sudanese = 500/.93 ≈ 550. 42    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X TABLE 5: Number of families in locations, and selection probabilities Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Total ProGres families in population 40,096 934 2,755 43,785 ProGres families 1,250 550 700 2,500 Families proGres selection probability 3.1% 58.9% 25.4% Source: Authors’ calculations. 51. Before selecting the survey strata, the team attempted to better understand the type of bias observed by focusing on refugees with access to a phone. According to the proGres data, phone penetration in urban areas is high (Nairobi and Mombasa: 93 percent; Nakuru: 95 percent). To under- stand the type of bias observed by focusing on refugees with access to a phone, we looked at socio- economic outcomes for proGres family refugees with access to a phone number and those without. There are clear differences with respect to phone number ownership across the three locations, with refugees with phone numbers seemingly better off, with better educational outcomes, larger family sizes (larger households are typically poorer), and longer length of stay in Kenya (Table 6). X TABLE 6: Households (head) by phone ownership Has phone: No Has phone: Yes Two-tailed Mean Standard Mean Standard P-value deviation deviation Age 29.81 13.49 32.39 12.71 0.00 Family size 1.44 1.16 1.88 1.75 0.00 Female-headed household 0.43 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.13 Married 0.27 0.45 0.35 0.48 0.00 Separated/divorced 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.88 Single 0.67 0.47 0.59 0.49 0.00 Widow 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.21 0.24 Burundi 0.15 0.35 0.07 0.25 0.00 Democratic Republic of the 0.34 0.48 0.38 0.49 0.00 Congo Eritrea 0.03 0.18 0.03 0.17 0.12 Ethiopia 0.15 0.36 0.16 0.36 0.31 Somalia 0.20 0.40 0.24 0.43 0.00 South Sudan 0.06 0.23 0.08 0.27 0.00 Rwanda 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.12 0.66 Other 0.05 0.23 0.03 0.17 0.00 Tenure in Kenya 5.94 6.56 7.76 6.48 0.00 No education 0.26 0.44 0.24 0.43 0.01 Some primary 0.29 0.45 0.25 0.43 0.00 Completed primary 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.06 Some secondary 0.17 0.37 0.17 0.38 0.36 Completed secondary 0.03 0.16 0.04 0.18 0.01 Tertiary 0.21 0.41 0.27 0.44 0.00 Appendices    43 52. To obtain unbiased estimates from the sample, the information reported by households needs to be adjusted by a sampling weight (or raising factor). To construct the sampling weights, the steps outlined in Himelein (2014) were followed: (i) base weights; (ii) derive attrition-adjusted weights; (iii) trim weights; and (iv) post-stratify weights to known population totals.106 53. As a first step, the base weights (wi 1) are computed. The base weights (wi 1) will equal 1 for all households interviewed: wi 1 = 1 54. Derive attrition-adjusted weights for all households. To obtain the attrition adjustment factor, the probability that a sampled household was successfully interviewed in the survey is modeled with the linear logistic model at the level of the household. A binary response variable is created by coding the response disposition for eligible households that are not interviewed in the survey as 0, and house- holds that are interviewed as 1. These calculations use a logistic response propensity model with the binary variable as dependent and the household and individual characteristics measured in ProGres data set as covariates. Let Xi be a vector of characteristics, where i indicates the household in the location j: Pij ln = βXi + εi (1) 1 – Pij Where Pij is the probability that household i living the location j is surveyed, 1–Pij is the probability that the household is not surveyed, and Xi is the set of regressors considered (the characteristics of households and heads). Usually, the characteristics of the household head (i.e. education, labor force status, demographic characteristics), characteristics of the household (consumption, assets, financial characteristics), and characteristics of the dwelling (house ownership, overcrowding) are used. While the proGres database is limited in the number of socioeconomic variables, we have characteristics of the household head and household. β is a vector of parameters, and εi is the idiosyncratic error term. Based on the estimation results of (1), the attrition correction factor (aci) is computed as: aci = ij Consequently, the weights are adjusted and computed as follows: wi2 j  = wi 1 * acij 55. The weights of the previous step are trimmed to correct outlier weights. Complex weight calcu- lations have the potential to produce outlier weights, which increase the standard errors of estimates. A common practice is, therefore, to ‘‘trim’’ the weights at this stage to eliminate the outlier weights. Common values for trimming range between 1 and 5 percentage points at the top and bottom of the distribution. We trim weights by replacing the top 2 percent of observations with the 98th percentile cut-off point (r_98): wi2 j , |  wi2j  < r_98 wi3 j  = 2 r_98, |  wi j  ≥ r_98 106 Himelein, “Weight Calculations for Panel Surveys with Subsampling and Split-off Tracking.” 44    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya 56. As part of post-stratification, weights were scaled to the number of households in each location. The number of households in each location (N_HHj) was projected by the number of proGres families (NfamPGj) in the location j divided by family household factor conversion (Conv_FamToHHj), which is the average number of proGres families in surveyed households of a given location. NfamPGj N =  HHj ConvFamToHHj The final weights are given by: N_HHj wi4 3 2 . j  = wi j   * Σj(wi j ) 57. Estimates of national averages are calculated using the 2019 KCHS. The KCHS data used to obtain national estimates are downloaded from the KNBS website.107 Nationally representative esti- mates from the KCHS data are compared with population figures from the urban SES data to enable comparisons of socioeconomic indicators between urban refugees and Kenyans living in the three counties where urban refugees reside: Nairobi, Mombasa, and urban Nakuru (Table 7).108 However, since the KCHS data were collected before the onset of COVID-19, employment and education com- parisons are not meaningful. Hence, for these two sections, no comparisons with nationals are made. P-values from one-sample t-tests to test for differences between the KCHS estimates and the refugee population values are shown throughout the main report. Confidence intervals (95 percent) are also provided for figures based on the national estimates. X TABLE 7: Sample allocation for KCHS 2019 County Number of households Nairobi 543 Nakuru 211 Mombasa 471 Source: KCHS 2019. 107 https://www.knbs.or.ke/ 108 Both Nairobi and Mombasa counties are urban areas. Appendices    45 7. Additional figures 7.1 Demographics X FIGURE 30: Year of arrival by county of residence % of households 30 20 10 0 Before 1990 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Source: UNHCR 2021. UNHCR Kenya ProGres Registration Database Sub-Sample. Data not publicly available. X FIGURE 31: County of residence of urban refugees 100 Nairobi 80 Nakuru % of population Mombasa 60 89 40 20 7 4 0 Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 46    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 32: Population 18 years and below X FIGURE 33: Household size All 45 3.2 32 All 2.5 Nairobi 45 29 Man head 3.0 2.6 Nakuru 55 41 45 Woman head 3.5 Mombasa 2.5 37 0 20 40 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 % of population % of households Refugees Hosts Refugees Hosts Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. X FIGURE 34: Refugee woman-headed households by country of origin Burundi 14 South Sudan 62 Ethiopia 37 Somalia 62 Congo, Dem. Rep. 31 0 20 40 60 80 % of households X FIGURE 35: Type of disability among refugees (age 5+) and urban nationals (age 5+)* Communicate 6 8 Refugees Hosts Hear 11 10 Concentrate or remember 14 14 Self-care (shower, dress) 24 34 Walk or climb steps 34 33 See 44 38 0 10 20 30 40 50 % of disabled population Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. Appendices    47 X FIGURE 36: Type of document held, by gender 70 60 All 50 % of population Men 40 30 61 60 62 20 10 21 21 20 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 0 Refugee Birth UNHCR Proof of School identity card, certificate or mandate or registration diploma manifest notification decision letter Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 7.2 Services X FIGURE 37: Number of habitable rooms and density, by county of residence Average number of rooms and persons per room 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 1.0 2.2 2 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.0 All Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa All Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Refugees Hosts Number of habitable rooms Persons per habitable room Source: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. 48    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 38: Access to improved housing, by county of residence 100 % of households 80 60 93 88 40 82 78 82 73 83 89 20 0 All Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Refugees Hosts Source: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. X FIGURE 39: Main housing materials Improved housing 82 78 45 Wall material Stone with lime 37 Cement 27 40 Corrugated iron sheet 8 17 59 material Concrete 20 Roof Corrugated iron sheets 36 74 71 Floor material Cement 76 Ceramic tiles 15 20 Earth, sand, dung 4 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 Refugees % of households Hosts Source: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. X FIGURE 40: Energy for lighting Refugees 3 97 0.5 Hosts 4.5 95 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households Lamp/candle/torch Solar Electricity/generator Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Appendices    49 X FIGURE 41: Energy for cooking 100 3 1 11 0 5 4 7 6 8 21 24 25 21 21 80 20 7 % of households 56 53 60 24 26 22 40 5 74 58 6 67 46 48 45 20 36 32 1 22 10 0 1 1 12 1 1 1 12 1 1 All Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa All Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Refugees Hosts Firewood Electricity Liquefied petroleum gas/natural gas/biogas Kerosene/para n Charcoal Other Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. X FIGURE 42: Water and sanitation 100 100 80 % of households 60 99 99 97 91 92 93 87 86 87 40 84 83 76 71 61 51 55 20 32 30 17 0 All Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa All Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Refugees Hosts Improved drinking water Improved sanitation Private toilet Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 50    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya 7.3 Education X FIGURE 43: Distribution of population who have ever attended school (age 15+) % of population 100 80 60 98 99 97 98 99 97 40 81 90 82 82 72 61 20 0 Mombasa Mombasa Women Women Nakuru Nakuru Nairobi Nairobi Men Men All All Refugees Hosts Sources: Urban SES 2020–21; KCHS 2019. X FIGURE 44: Literacy, by gender and county of residence 100 80 % of population 60 96 90 88 87 40 81 74 70 72 65 66 57 48 20 0 All Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Sex County of residence Any language Kiswahili Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Appendices    51 X FIGURE 45: Literacy in languages, by gender and county of residence 100 80 % of population 60 74 66 65 57 70 40 48 70 49 40 40 45 20 32 24 28 18 17 18 20 3 15 3 12 3 15 3 5 7 10 7 7 0 All Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Sex County of residence Kiswahili English French Somali Arabic Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 46: School attendance before COVID-19 among those currently not attending 100 80 and households % of population 60 40 77 53 20 36 26 25 20 20 0 All School age Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Men Women (6–17 years) By Individual characteristics By sex of head Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 47: Main reasons for not re-enrolling in school 80 60 % of population not re-enrolling 40 71 72 68 20 22 26 1 16 14 0 7 All Men Women School cost Work to support expenses Need to do housework Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 52    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya 7.4 Livelihoods X FIGURE 48: Working-age population 80 60 % of population 40 72 64 20 0 Hosts Refugees Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 49: Labor force status, by gender of head and location 100 6 5 % of heads of household 21 26 80 37 40 43 45 46 16 6 60 8 8 9 12 12 88 40 63 68 55 51 43 43 48 20 0 Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women heads heads Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Outside the labor force Unemployed Employed Appendices    53 X FIGURE 50: Primary activity before and after displacement 1 Volunteer Before displacement 2 Current Unpaid 5 housework 1 Self-employed 8 (agriculture) Self-employed 6 (non-agriculture) 17 13 Paid employee 20 Seeking 3 employment 10 Full-time 38 student/pupil 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 % of population Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 51: Excellent or good proficiency in job-related skills 100 80 % of working age population 60 40 83 73 63 62 53 55 20 44 43 34 32 25 15 0 All Men Women Using internet Using a computer Basic math Advanced math Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 54    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya 7.5 Access X FIGURE 52: Access to loans in last 12 months and main sources 38 Accessed loans 43 41 37 Informal (family/relatives) 42 40 Source 2 Informal (community savings) 1 2 Women 1 Men Formal financial sources 1 1 All 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE D24 53: Enrollment in NHIF, and membership of a CBO or self-help group 60 50 40 % of households 30 48 50 45 20 34 32 36 10 9 9 9 10 11 8 0 Enrollment Insu cient funds Need money to Membership in NHIF meet basic needs of a CBO/ self-help group Reason for no enrollment in NHIF All Men Women Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: NHIF = National Hospital Insurance Fund; CBO = community-based organization. Appendices    55 X FIGURE 54: Saving practices 100 All Men 80 Women % of households 60 40 53 58 20 46 17 21 4 4 3 14 0 M-Pesa/digital banking Pillow banking Bank savings Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 55: Support needed to formalize saving practices 100 All 80 Men % of households Women 60 40 59 58 60 20 23 22 24 12 13 10 11 11 10 0 Refugee Access to Other support Assistance documentation SIM card to formalize to join a to open a and mobile saving VSLA/CSLA bank account money practices Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: VSLA/CSLA = village/community savings and loans associations. 56    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya 7.6 Assets X FIGURE 56: Number of owned assets, by county of residence and year of arrival of head All 4.8 County of residence Nairobi 4.7 Nakuru 5.5 Mombsa 5.4 Year of arrival Before 2008 5.4 of head Since 2015 4.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Average number of items Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 57: Owned assets Mattress 97 Smartphone 69 Bed (wood or metal) 61 Table 54 Charcoal jiko 52 Kerosene stove 37 Television 33 Mosquito net 26 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Appendices    57 7.7 Food insecurity X FIGURE 58: Lack of food or money to buy sufficient food in the last 7 days 100 % of households 80 60 40 75 76 73 76 68 67 20 0 Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa All Sex of head County of residence Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 59: Use of consumption-based coping strategies in the last 7 days Mombasa 74 Nakuru 83 Nairobi 85 Used at least one strategy 84 Coping strategies Less preferred food 80 Limit portion 69 Reduce the number of meals 68 Borrow food or money 60 Restrict adult consumption 34 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 58    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 60: Food insecurity level, consumption-based strategies All 60 19 5 16 Nairobi 61 19 5 15 County of residence Nakuru 68 12 3 17 Mombasa 54 16 4 27 Men 60 18 6 16 Sex of head Women 60 20 4 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households High food insecurity Medium food insecurity Low food insecurity No use of strategies Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 61: Number of times there was no food to eat due to a lack of resources to buy it in the last 30 days 100 21 17 22 24 26 25 80 % of households 24 26 23 24 60 22 44 22 40 24 23 26 25 19 20 28 28 27 28 32 20 0 All Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Sex of head County of residence Never Rarely (1–2 times) Sometimes (3–5 times) Often (more than 5 times) Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Appendices    59 X FIGURE 62: Livelihoods-based coping strategies All 39 45 8 8 Men 40 45 7 8 Sex of head Women 38 44 9 8 Nairobi 39 45 7 8 County of residence Nakuru 31 48 18 3 Mombasa 38 40 13 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households No use of strategies Stress Crisis Emergency Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X TABLE 8: Determinants of food insecurity High food insecurity -0.045** Number of employed members (0.008) Asset index (base: Q1) 0.033** Q2 (0.007) -0.050** Q3 (0.008) -0.066** Q4 (0.011) -0.157*** Q5 (0.015) -0.099** Received remittance (0.010) 0.024* Woman head (0.008) -0.007 Head has secondary or higher education (0.012) 0.021 Head is literate in Swahili (0.019) 0.045** Head has disability (0.010) R2(%) 10.7 N 2,041 Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Note: Significance level: 1%(***), 5%(**), 10%(*). Regression includes other control variables such as age of household head, country of origin of head, marital status of head, household size, access to private improved sanitation, access to electricity, sufficient drinking water, and access to a modern house. 60    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya 7.8 Trajectories of displacement and intentions to move X FIGURE 63: Conflict events and arrival year 9000 25 Number of conflict events 8000 7000 20 6000 % of Refugees 15 5000 4000 10 3000 2000 5 1000 0 0 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 20 19 20 20 Other events Violence against civilians All Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Sources: ACLED conflict events 1997–2019; Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 64: Plans to leave 100 80 % of households 60 96 99 93 89 93 40 20 0 Congo, Dem. Rep. Somalia Ethiopia South Sudan All Country of origin Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Appendices    61 X FIGURE 65: Plans for the foreseeable future among those not wanting to return 100 80 % of households 60 96 97 96 96 95 96 40 20 0.7 0 4 0.1 3 0.1 4 0.1 4 5 4 0.2 All Man head Woman head Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Seek solution in third country Move from urban area to refugee camp and stay there Stay in urban area Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 66: Plans if faced with an economic crisis and no support from UNHCR or partners 100 6 4 6 7 9 11 % of households 80 60 58 82 81 84 83 80 40 5 20 16 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 13 2 0 6 6 7 6 43 All Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Other Relocation to refugee camp Return to home country Will try to find work in urban area Make arrangements with my community Source: Urban SES 2020–21. 62    Understanding the Socioeconomic Conditions of Refugees in Kenya X FIGURE 67: Main reasons for wanting to leave based on destination 85 Better access to employment/ livelihood opportunities 85 84 69 Better access to education 65 and health services 74 69 Better security there 73 62 All Men 0 20 40 60 80 100 Women % of households Source: Urban SES 2020–21. X FIGURE 68: Most common sources of information 60 52 52 50 46 44 45 42 % of households 40 35 32 31 30 26 26 24 20 17 16 17 13 13 11 11 10 7 8 7 7 5 0 All Men Women Nairobi Nakuru Mombasa Sex of head County of residence Internet and social media Family and friends TV Radio Source: Urban SES 2020–21. Appendices    63