 I'm Stephanie, I work for Simeon Hall, Roofing, Tech and Social Enterprise, working on migration. And I had the quantitative component of this research project that has been discussed on this panel. So as was mentioned, it involves a large scale survey across four countries, contrasting refugees in camps with refugees in cities in a nutshell. So the tool focuses on profiling, of course, along with the battery of indicators on wellbeing and livelihoods. And today I present some preliminary findings. And I focus on the evidence from two countries, namely Kenya and Ethiopia. So we'd like to compare the wellbeing of refugees and the livelihoods of refugees in camps in cities. But first we wanted to ascertain whether it even makes sense to compare these cohorts without further statistical analysis. In other words, are these groups even similar in profile? It's a relevant question, right? Because it's not a controlled experiment where refugees are randomly assigned to a city or a camp to live in. Rather, we suspect there's an element of agency, but how important is this element of agency? How important is the prison, the cage that's open on me to the top that Michael was just talking about? If there is agency, rich refugees choose to live where? So we're gonna be talking about this a little bit today and we look at some preliminary analysis for livelihoods and wellbeing, contrasting the two settings. So just a brief reminder before we dive in of who we're talking about. So we interviewed 360, well, that was our sample target. I think we got a few more on each location. This place in two camps, the Dabu Camp in Kenya and Asaita Camp in Ethiopia. And then in cities, we identified an urban cohort that was to the degree we could tell just from the statistics, comparable. So we interviewed Somalis in Eastly and Eritrean refugees in the far region in the town of Tomorrowlogia. Selection was random based on geographic grid sampling and then random selection of dwellings and the household respondents. So to the extent we could ensure the sample interviews representative of the refugee population of the area. So what did we find out? So we found that agency is present. So it's not a perfectly sealed cage, right? More than we thought, more and more respondents we thought actually told us they had a choice in coming to their location. Surprisingly, if you said they had no choice, this then needs to be further explored in light of what was said in terms of the camp as prison. Who are camps of prison for and why? Whom do the cell doors open for? Something we're going to look at later on. We then asked what the choice was based on. Safety we found was an important draw towards the camp. Aid was not as important as factor in decision-making in favor of the camps as we had assumed. And employment was not as important a pull factor towards the city as we had thought. And this of course then remains to be further faceted by profile. Some go to the city for work, but who? This is what we want to find out. Family and social ties on the other hand are beyond dispute. They're an important factor in location choice, particularly for those who go to the city. So in other words, perhaps one hypothesis might be that no one is an island and that you do not go to the city without a place to land. This is not unimportant for planning purposes. So we found that the profiles of the two courts, refugees from similar places in the city and in camps are not the same. Refugees in the city are younger. They're more likely to be single. They're better educated, they're healthier. And in Kenya at least, they've been in their current location for much less time, which would imply they're more mobile. This is controlling for age. Regressions confirm this also. We find that those who arrived in the country of asylum because of its existing networks, who arrived seeking safety, who arrived to claimate or we simply had no choice or more likely to be in the camp. All are the things being equal. Those without UNHCR refugee status are more likely to be in the city. And we confirm, which is already shown in the cross tabs that poor health makes refugees more likely to live in the camp. So again, controlling for the rest of the profiles by gender, age, years in country, et cetera. We compare a few key indicators that were deemed relevant to well-being and to livelihoods between the camp and the urban refugees. So unsurprisingly, urban refugees are much more likely to live in an apartment or a house. They're much more likely to consider their dwelling dignified. Actually, however, they're perhaps also unsurprisingly much more likely to struggle to pay rent. This is the case especially in Nairobi. Refugees and camps are much more likely to be at a crisis level in terms of food security than their urban peers. And they score much lower when it comes to water and sanitation. How about livelihoods done? Well, we confirm what we suspected in Kenya to some degree refugees in the urban environment in Eastlake are much more likely to have a job than their urban, than their camp-based peers. This is the case for both men and women. In Ethiopia, this holds true only for men and generally the rates of having work are generally much lower. So what determines whether you say as an interviewed individual that you have a source of income right now? Well, we're looking at a few regressions here. And if you look at the left chart, so gender being single and location are significant predictions of having a source of income at the individual level. The light blue is the most significant. So being in a city is highly significant and positive. If we move away from the individual to the household level, we again see that if you're in an urban location, you're much more likely to be able to cover your household's expenses from income from work. You see that some of the other factors here that are lower on you see that if you don't have a dignified shelter, if you're single, if you're dissatisfied with your schools, if you're female, you're less likely to state that your household is able to cover its expenses from income from work. You're gonna see the internet pop up again. We're gonna have to investigate this further, but it is actually an important predictor also in terms of livelihoods. Again, this is correlation, it's not causation perhaps. If you have livelihoods, you're more likely to use the internet. But it is a correlation that stands out on the number of funds. So if we compare the mental wellbeing scale, we see that in Kenya, you're much more likely to have good mental wellbeing, at least on the scale if you're in the city than if you're in a campus. This is true also in Ethiopia, though the differences are less stark. And the qualitative interviews that were conducted by colleagues in the different countries confirmed this. We found out that the more dependent on our year on aid, the less likely you are to state that you have a high mental state of wellbeing. We had another interesting battery of questions on life satisfaction and perceived prospects. Basically how satisfied are you with your life overall? We get mixed results for current life satisfaction. In Ethiopia, we find everybody's scoring much higher in the cities than in camps. This is not necessarily however the case in Kenya. But the prospects on the other hand for the future generation are much better in cities. So I found this result quite stark and try to understand it a little bit better by looking at the determinants of expected future living standards of children, which refugees are more likely to think that children's future is bright or at least brighter than their own. So as we already saw before being urban, being urban is definitely positive in this regard, but also being satisfied with your school. The satisfaction with public transport will mean you're less likely to feel good about your children's prospects. And again, this is controlling for the others. So if you're unhappy in the city, you're still less likely to be positive about the happiness of the future generation. If you're not well connected in terms of public transport in the city, everything else being equal, you're less likely to be good about the future prospects of your children, excuse me. So anyway, this is the kind of information that we hope can influence policy and planning later on. We did confirm the hypothesis that access to infrastructure, access to places where you can buy food, access to health, access to green spaces is much better in all the countries we've looked at thus far in urban spaces than in camps. And we did confirm the hypothesis that this influences on wellbeing. Thank you for two minutes. Yeah, I am, I'm finishing my last slide, thank you. So what are the next steps? We're going to conduct more data and analysis on Afghanistan where the cohort is slightly different and that it's IVPs and not refugees. We're going to collect more data in Jordan. We're going to design metrics for refugee wellbeing and refugee economic wellbeing. And given how different the cohorts are between camps in urban, we're going to have to do some propensity score matching to make sure we compare refugees of the same profile in the two contexts. We are going to triangulate our quantitative findings with qualitative data and eventually engage municipal actors to foster local inclusion and basically inform pathways towards a more strategic urban response. And this is what I believe the next presentation will go into in more detail. Thank you. Thank you very much.