Measuring statelessness: A study of the Pemba - 2016 - Kenya

Abstract
---------------------------

The survey of the Pemba was an attempt to reach all households in Kenya with links to Pemba in Tanzania. It was conducted in the two counties of Kilifi and Kwale on the coast, north and south of Mombasa, respectively. According to information from village elders familiar with the Pemba community in Kenya, most of the Pemba population resides in these two counties. While there are some Pemba residents in Lamu, the security situation prevented data collection there. Further, a few Pemba are believed to live in the city of Mombasa and elsewhere in the country. But due to lack of further information, no data were collected in Mombasa or elsewhere.
The objectives of the full survey, conducted in August 2016, were:
1. To establish the number and characteristics of the Pemba living in Kenya, including their arrival period in Kenya, nationality and their problems;
2. To make recommendations for the issuance of the documentation that is required for those who apply for citizenshiop by registration

Geographic coverage
---------------------------

Kwale and Kilifi counties, Kenya.

Analysis unit
---------------------------

Households, individuals

Universe
---------------------------

The total number of households with links to Pemba in Tanzania, in Kilifi and Kwale counties.

Kind of data
---------------------------

Census/enumeration data [cen]

Sampling procedure
---------------------------

A household mapping exercise was conducted in Kilifi and Kwale to identify Pemba households and to make it easier to locate them on the ground. The mapping was done from 4 to 12 August 2016 by a team from UNHCR Kenya office and KNBS.
The mapping in each village commenced with a visit to the chief's office, who put the team in touch with the village chair. The team explained the purpose of its visit to the village chair and began the mapping exercise. The importance of involving the chiefs and village chairpersons is that they are well connected, recognised and trusted by residents in their communities. The same procedure is followed by KNBS when they are mapping for sample surveys and censuses.
The team established physical boundaries of the area to be mapped, located the boundaries on the map and then identified and listed the Pemba households within the enumeration boundary. A Pemba household, in this context, is one identified by the informants as having at least one person with origins or links to Pemba. The links may include a person's spouse, parents or grandparents, who migrated to Kenya from Pemba or where a person has migrated from Pemba to Kenya.
The mapping team was followed by the village chair to the Pemba households, where the UNHCR and Haki Centre staff listed number of persons in each, while the KNBS staff marked the location of the household on the map. The entrances of identified Pemba households were marked in chalk with the letters HCR and a number starting at 001 to make it easier to find the houses during the enumeration. Since it seems to be generally well known where the Pemba live it was not considered stigmatising to mark their doors. During the feedback forums with the Pemba after the survey, there was no mention of stigmatization due to marking the door with chalk.
The maps were from the 2009 national housing and population census, purchased from KNBS. The team made lists with information about the location, number and size of each household. The mapping team visited 17 villages in Kilifi and Kwale (see Table 1 in Section 2.7). All villages visited were identified before the mapping exercise by key informants as locations being home to the Pemba of Kenya. The key informants were Pemba elders in different sub-counties previously identified for providing background information on the Pemba arrival and history in Kenya. In each sub-country, the chief, the assistant chief or the village chair also accompanied the team. In Kwale, 358 households were identified with 2,220 persons, and in Kilifi, 86 households with 558 persons.

Mode of data collection
---------------------------

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument
---------------------------

The questionnaire was developed before the pilot survey and revised during and after the pilot survey, based on the experience gained. The pilot survey was used to test the questions and to check for inconsistences and misinterpretations due to unclear concepts and definitions. The testing process also revealed some important themes that had been left out.
The structure of the questionnaire was altered, including the order of the questions and the introductory pages, to facilitate administration of the questionnaire.
Finally, the questionnaire was translated into Swahili. Both the English and Swahili versions were used in the survey, even though the English version was preferred by almost all interviewers. The two versions of the questionnaire are attached in Annex 4 and 5. Enumerators used the English questionnaire to frame the questions in the local and less academic version of Swahili.

Cleaning operations
---------------------------

The data were imported into a Statistics Analysis Software (SAS) file and validated. Several errors were identified during the validation process, both on how the data had been recorded by the interviewers in the field and how the data had been entered by the clerks.
There were particularly many errors in the entry of the variable “Relation to the household head” (Q.2). There were also many errors in the entry of the age of the household head, which was mostly due to errors in recording the right codes. A substantial amount of time was spent cleaning the data after the data had been entered, which included consulting many paper questionnaires. The quality of the survey data was significantly improved after the data entry revision. The data were analysed using both SAS software and Excel spreadsheets.

Response rate
---------------------------

The rate of non-response was low. Of the 452 households visited, visits to only 23 households can be categorised as non-response. A lot of effort was made to revisit non-responding households, using interviewers living nearby. Out of the 23 non-responsive households, 12 were not at home or there was no adult at home. There were 2 interrupted interviews, 7 refusals and 2 with no links to Pemba. In one household the respondent was not mentally stable enough to be interviewed, according to the enumerator.

摘要
---------------------------
对佩姆巴的调查旨在触及所有与坦桑尼亚佩姆巴有联系的肯尼亚家庭。调查在肯尼亚沿海的基利菲和夸莱两个县进行，分别位于蒙巴萨的南北两侧。根据熟悉肯尼亚佩姆巴社区的村长提供的信息，佩姆巴的大部分人口居住在这两个县。尽管在拉穆也有一些佩姆巴居民，但由于安全形势，那里的数据收集受阻。此外，据信一些佩姆巴生活在蒙巴萨市及该国其他地区。但由于信息不足，蒙巴萨或其他地区没有收集到数据。
调查的总体目标，于2016年8月进行全面调查，包括：
1. 确定居住在肯尼亚的佩姆巴的数量和特征，包括他们在肯尼亚的到达时间、国籍以及他们的问题；
2. 为那些通过登记申请公民身份的人提供必要的文件建议。
地理覆盖范围
---------------------------
肯尼亚夸莱和基利菲县。
分析单位
---------------------------
家庭，个人
总体
---------------------------
与坦桑尼亚佩姆巴有联系的肯尼亚家庭总数，位于基利菲和夸莱县。
数据类型
---------------------------
人口普查/统计数据 [cen]
抽样程序
---------------------------
在基利菲和夸莱县进行了一次家庭定位练习，以识别佩姆巴家庭，并便于在地面上定位他们。定位工作由联合国难民署肯尼亚办公室和KNBS的一个团队于2016年8月4日至12日进行。
在各个村庄的定位工作从访问村长办公室开始，村长将团队与村主席联系起来。团队向村主席解释了访问的目的，并开始了定位工作。村长和村主席的参与至关重要，因为他们与居民有良好的联系，受到社区的认可和信任。KNBS在为样本调查和人口普查进行定位时也遵循相同的程序。
团队确定了要定位区域的物理边界，在地图上定位了这些边界，然后确定了并列举了普查边界内的佩姆巴家庭。在此背景下，佩姆巴家庭是指受访者表示至少有一个人有佩姆巴的起源或联系的家庭。联系可能包括一个人的配偶、父母或祖父母，他们从佩姆巴迁移到肯尼亚，或者一个人从佩姆巴迁移到肯尼亚。
定位团队随后由村主席陪同前往佩姆巴家庭，在那里联合国难民署和Haki中心的工作人员记录了每个家庭的成员人数，而KNBS的工作人员在地图上标记了家庭的地理位置。已识别的佩姆巴家庭的入口用粉笔标记了HCR字母和一个从001开始的数字，以便在普查期间更容易找到房屋。由于佩姆巴的居住地点似乎普遍为人所知，因此标记他们的门并不被认为是有辱人格的。在调查后的反馈论坛中，佩姆巴提到由于用粉笔标记门而受到歧视的情况。
地图来自2009年国家住房和人口普查，从KNBS购买。团队制作了有关每个家庭的位置、人数和大小的信息清单。定位团队访问了基利菲和夸莱的17个村庄（参见第2.7节中的表1）。所有访问的村庄都是在定位练习之前由关键信息提供者确定的，这些关键信息提供者是不同次级行政区之前确定的佩姆巴，他们提供有关佩姆巴在肯尼亚到达和历史背景的信息。在每个次级行政区，村长、助理村长或村主席也陪同团队。在夸莱，确定了358个家庭，共有2,220人，在基利菲，确定了86个家庭，共有558人。
数据收集方式
---------------------------
面对面 [f2f]
研究工具
---------------------------
问卷在试点调查之前开发，并在试点调查期间和之后根据获得的经验进行修订。试点调查用于测试问题，并检查由于概念和定义不明确而导致的不一致和误解。测试过程还揭示了一些被遗漏的重要主题。
问卷的结构被修改，包括问题的顺序和介绍页，以方便问卷的施测。
最后，问卷被翻译成斯瓦希里语。在调查中使用了英语和斯瓦希里语两种版本的问卷，尽管几乎所有调查员都更喜欢英语版本。问卷的两个版本附在附录4和5中。统计员使用英语问卷以当地和非学术版本的斯瓦希里语的形式提出问题。
数据清理操作
---------------------------
数据被导入SAS统计分析软件文件并进行验证。在验证过程中确定了几个错误，这些错误既涉及调查员在野外记录数据的方式，也涉及职员输入数据的方式。
在“与户主的关系”（问题2）的输入中尤其存在许多错误。在输入户主年龄的输入中也存在许多错误，这主要归因于记录正确代码的错误。在数据输入后花费了大量时间清理数据，包括查阅许多纸质问卷。数据输入修订后，调查数据的质量显著提高。数据使用SAS软件和Excel电子表格进行分析。
应答率
---------------------------
非应答率很低。在访问的452个家庭中，只有23个家庭的访问可以归类为非应答。为了重新访问非应答家庭，使用了附近居住的调查员。在23个非应答家庭中，12个家庭无人在家或家中没有成年人。有2次访谈中断，7次拒绝，2次与佩姆巴没有联系。据调查员说，在一个家庭中，受访者精神状态不稳定，无法接受访谈。