Baseline Survey & Initial Recommendations Report

2017

BASELINE SURVEY & INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

PSYCHOSOCIAL SUPPORT PROGRAM IN MOUNT SINABUNG AFFECTED VILLAGES IN 2017

MIRA CALIANDRA

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 2 1.1. Background ...... 2 1.2. Aims...... 2 1.3. Objectives...... 3 1.4. Locations ...... 5 2. Methodology ...... 6 2.1. Approach ...... 6 2.2. Ethical Issue ...... 6 2.3. Sampling Design ...... 6 2.4. Respondent Criteria ...... 7 2.5. Baseline Survey Preparations...... 7 2.5.1. Tools adjustment ...... 7 2.5.2. Enumerator and Supervisor Recruitment ...... 7 2.5.3. Briefing for Enumerators and Supervisor ...... 7 2.6. Data Collection ...... 8 2.7. Data Entry and Processing ...... 9 3. Findings ...... 10 3.1. Brief Description of Framework of Analysis ...... 10 3.1.1. Descriptive analysis ...... 10 3.2. Demographic Information ...... 11 3.3. Disaster Experiences and Its Impact ...... 13 3.4. Disaster preparedness ...... 15 3.4.1. Household level ...... 15 3.4.2. Community level ...... 17 3.5. Knowledge and capacity to respond disaster ...... 18 3.6. Psychosocial Impact and Support ...... 20 3.6.1. Psychological Distress ...... 20 3.6.2. Psychosocial Support (Self-care, coping strategy, community support) ...... 21 3.7. General Health Condition ...... 23 3.8. Correlation between disaster preparedness and psychological distress risk ...... 24 4. Conclusion ...... 25 Annexes ...... 27

1. Introduction

1.1. Background As a country with high vulnerability due to having a wide variety of disasters, Indonesia should have enough capacity to reduce risks of disasters, including psychosocial capacity. Many literatures captured the effects of disaster on mental health, include Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, acute stress disorder. However, these effects on mental health can be alleviated by building psychosocial capacity as well as competence of individual and community. Even though Disaster Management Law have included a reference to psychosocial support, the implementation of building psychosocial capacity in local level remains overlooked. To fill this gap, Crisis Centre, has been implemented a structured disaster risk reduction program, specifically in developing the psychosocial capacity of first responders in disaster prone areas. Since 2014, four villages in Bogor has been benefitted from this program and it will expand to other villages in Karo district, South Sumatera, Indonesia. Karo district has been affected by Mt. Sinabung eruption and its activity since 2010. This activity is predicted lasts until 2020 by Centre of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation1. There were two big eruptions occurred in 2010 and 2013, respectively. In addition, other hazards, such as pyroclastic flow, lahars and ash fall have been occurred for the last six years. The disaster not only forced people to evacuate, but also lead them to experience economic problem because of the prolong hazard which damage their farm field as main livelihood resource. The objective of this program is to improve the capacity of community responders to deliver psychosocial support in disaster situations. The program will target four villages affected by Mt. Sinabung eruption and its activities, but are not prospected to get relocation rights provided by local government. The program will be implemented for one year, since January 2017 until January 2018. Therefore, to ensure the implementation of the project is based on valid data and information, Crisis Centre conduct baseline study at the beginning and at the end of the program.

1.2. Aims Baseline study help to set achievable and realistic indicator targets for each level of result in a project’s design, and then determine and adjust progress towards these targets and their respective results. Thus, the aim of baseline study is to provide reliable baseline information to set realistic

1 Source: https://m.tempo.co/read/news/2017/01/18/061837338/gunung-sinabung-diperkirakan-berhenti- meletus-3-tahun-lagi

indicator targets, then the results can be used to assess the effectiveness of the program in building psychosocial capacity and fostering resilience to reduce disaster risks in communities. This baseline study of this program has two main objectives. The baseline study has two main objectives. First, gathering quantitative data amongst stakeholders measuring awareness, knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours about psychosocial support program to build resilience within the communities and to reduce disaster risks. Second, gathering qualitative data amongst stakeholders and local people in order to collect additional information about awareness, knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours related to psychosocial support program in their communities. To achieve these aims, three methods were implemented in the study, which are a household survey, focus group discussions, and interviews.

1.3. Objectives Specific objectives of this baseline survey are: 1. Gathering demographic information related to the project: a. Household size b. Length of stay in the project area c. Age d. Education e. Main source of household income f. Daily expense g. House ownership 2. Gathering information related to disaster experiences: a. Percentages of respondents who ever experienced disaster and the type of disaster they experienced b. Percentages of respondents who ever experienced the impact of disaster c. Percentages of respondents who have experienced evacuation due to disaster 3. Gathering information related to disaster preparedness in household level: a. Percentages of respondents who ever attend disaster risk reduction activities in the last six months b. Source of information related to disaster that is usually accessed by respondents c. Percentages of respondents who have and prepare survival kits in case of disaster d. Percentages of respondent who have and prepare plan as a guidance when disaster occurs

e. Percentages of respondents who perceived they have enough capacity to respond disaster f. Percentages of respondents who perceived their family aware and prepare enough to respond disaster 4. Gathering information related to disaster preparedness in community level: a. Percentages of respondents who can identify the agreed evacuation place b. Percentages of respondents who know where the evacuation route is c. Percentages of respondents who can identify existing village volunteers that responsible in disaster response d. Percentages of respondents who reported they were helped by the volunteers e. Percentages of respondents who know how to contact the volunteers f. Percentages of respondents who have willingness to be part of village volunteers for disaster response to help: 1) their own village; 2) other village affected by disaster 5. Gathering information related to knowledge and capacity in disaster response: a. Percentages of respondents who know when they should evacuate in case of disaster b. Percentages of respondents who correctly know where to evacuate c. Percentages of respondents who correctly know when to return to their own residence after evacuation d. Percentages of respondents who know what action should be taken when receiving an emergency warning 6. Gathering information related to psychological distress and psychosocial impact: a. Stressors that arise following disaster b. Percentages of respondents who able to identify psychosocial impact they felt following disaster c. Perceived current psychosocial condition following disaster 7. Gathering information related to psychosocial support: a. Percentages of respondents who do self-care activity in their daily life to prevent worsen psychological distress b. Percentages of respondents who have coping stress strategy to overcome negative emotion caused by difficult situation c. Percentages of respondents who received any socializations about: 1) sharing to others; 2) self-care; 3) positive coping stress strategy d. Percentages of respondents who have someone to share their difficulties

8. Gathering information related to respondents’ general health condition a. Percentages of respondents who have low and high risk of psychological distress

1.4. Locations The baseline survey was conducted in four villages in Karo District, namely Perbaji, Tiganderket and Suka Tendel village which located in Tiganderket sub-district, and Kebayakan village in Naman Teran sub-district. These four villages are located 5-7 km from Sinabung summit, which the first three villages are in southwest Sinabung mountain whereas the last village is in northeast Sinabung mountain.

2. Methodology

2.1. Approach Quantitative and qualitative methods were employed for this baseline survey. The household survey was used to capture information from community related to project indicator. This survey using paper-based structured questionnaire and it was conducted by interviewing the respondents. The advantage in using structured questionnaire as interview guide is the responses are gathered in a standardised manner amongst enumerators hence it minimizes bias. A face-to-face interview also increase response rate and allows interviewer to build rapport and to probe interviewee’s response easily as well. The qualitative method includes conducted focus group discussion and in-depth interview. Information from qualitative method complement data from household survey. Participants of focus group discussion were village members, whereas the participant of in-depth interview was head of village from four target villages.

2.2. Ethical Issue Prior to the field work, permission was obtained from all head of villages. To ensure ethical conduct, consent from the respondents was asked before the interview, supplemented by information explaining about the research hence they had a clear understanding of what was the research objectives, what was required from them, how their information would be used and its confidentiality as well as anonymity. Their right to terminate the interview was also notified, withdraw any information they give or withdraw their participation altogether. For the FGD, permission to record the discussion were asked to participants before it started.

2.3. Sampling Design The sample was drawn using multi-stage cluster sampling techniques. Sampling selection procedure for household survey was as follow: (1) set a minimum sample size for each village (N= 100 respectively); (2) develop a respondent list based on randomly selected household in targeted villages with consideration on equal distribution of sex which is 50 males and 50 females. Odd number in the respondent list was refer to male respondents and even number was refer to female respondents.

2.4. Respondent Criteria The criteria for respondents are:  Head of household: Adult (aged over 18 years old), who usually make decisions in their own household  Live in the program targeted areas (stay in the area at least 4 days in a week) Participants for qualitative study were selected purposively in targeted communities. All interviewees in in-depth interviewer were head of village. Whereas criteria for FGD participants were:  Live in the program targeted areas (stay in the area at least 4 days in a week)  Informative and able to communicate their opinions, especially in a group discussion setting

2.5. Baseline Survey Preparations

2.5.1. Tools adjustment The survey tool which employed in this baseline research was an adjustment from the tool that was used for baseline survey in Bogor district. There were several items added, adapted with the nature of disaster in Karo district and tradition followed by local people.

2.5.2. Enumerator and Supervisor Recruitment In close coordination with CC, 12 enumerators and 1 supervisor are selected. All of them are people who have been lived and worked in Kabanjahe and Mt. Sinabung area. There were three enumerators employed in each village, consist of village member, village volunteer and Tagana Karo District. Most of them were often employed as enumerators for other surveys and they able to speak Karo language.

2.5.3. Briefing for Enumerators and Supervisor Half day briefing was conducted on 19 November 2016. It included explanation of:  brief of the DRR project in Sinabung area  survey methodology and sampling selection  interview technique (do’s and don’ts)  baseline survey questionnaire  research ethic (the importance of safety, privacy, and maintaining confidentiality)

 survey procedure (i.e., missing responses, clarifying contradictory answers, the importance of accuracy)  mock interviews  team deployment and data collection plan

2.6. Data Collection Data collection was conducted on 20 November until 29 November 2016. In the data collection process consultant is supported by the supervisor in each district to manage the data collection process. At the time of data collection, the consultant facilitated the following activities . Lead and guide data collection process . Make sure all submitted questionnaires are completely filled out . Daily evaluation on collection team and provide a daily progress report, including challenges in the field and actions are taken to address it . Conducting in-depth interviews and FGDs. All data from interviews or FGDs were recorded with consent from respondents.

District Sub District Village Target #n Karo Tiganderket Perbaji 100 100 Suka Tendel 100 104 Tiganderket 100 100 Naman Teran Kebayakan 100 100 400 404

Table 1. Distribution of the household survey respondents

Village FGD Interview Perbaji Elderly Head of Village Suka Tendel Male adult Head of Village Female adult Tiganderket Male adult Head of Village Female adult Kebayakan Elderly -

Table 2. FGD and interview Data Collection

2.7. Data Entry and Processing Data entry processes conducted on 6-16 December 2016 involved 3 people for data entry and 1 to double check. The data entry program was designed using SPSS 23.0. The data entry processes the following activities:

 Briefing for data entry team (5 December 2016)  Conducted double check and double entry, about 10%, from total respondents to ensure quality of data entry.  Data cleaning to refine the data  Data processing using SPSS 23.0

3. Findings

3.1. Brief Description of Framework of Analysis Data from the survey was analysed by two types of analysis: descriptive and inferential analysis.

3.1.1. Descriptive analysis Descriptive analysis is conducted to summarize and organize data gathered in the survey. This section shows a summary of the specific objective of the baseline survey. Domain Variables Disaster experiences Type of disasters that they had experienced Impacts that they had experienced Evacuation experiences Disaster preparedness in Engagement in disaster preparedness related activities household level Sources of information about disaster Preparing tools at home that are ready to used once disaster occurs Any specific preparations for disaster preparedness Disaster preparedness in Availability of agreed evacuation place and route Availability community level of emergency response groups in the community Knowledge about how to contact the emergency response group Respondents’ willingness to be part of community volunteer in their own village Respondent’s willingness to be volunteer and help other village in case of disaster Knowledge and capacity to Knowledge about what they should do once they get respond disaster emergency warning Willingness to evacuate Knowledge about when, where, and how to evacuate Knowledge about when to return safely Psychosocial Impact Stressors that arise after disaster occur Psychosocial impact due to disaster

Current perceived psychosocial condition following disaster Psychosocial Support Self-care action in respondents’ daily life to prevent worsen psychosocial distress Coping stress strategy that respondents use to overcome negative emotion when they encounter difficult situation Existing support system in the community General Health Questionnaire Low or high risk of psychological distress (GHQ-12) Demographic information Gender, age, educational level, income, home ownership

Table 3. Summary of specific objectives

3.2. Demographic Information As mentioned before, total respondents participated in this study is 404, consist of 100 respondents from Perbaji, Tiganderket and Kebayakan, respectively, and 104 respondents from Suka Tendel. The respondents are 204 males (50.5%) and 200 females (49.5%), which mostly have been lived in the project area for more than 15 years (82.4%) and in their own house (52.7%). For their education background, 39.9% of respondents are high school graduate, followed by primary school graduate (24.5%), middle school graduate (20.0%) and diploma degree or higher graduate (8.7%). With such education background, introducing disaster risk reduction to the community might be not too difficult.

Age

2.7%

24.0% 21-25 y.o 26-55 y.o >55 y.o 73.3%

Figure 1. Age distribution

A significant proportion of them are in their productive age, which is 26-55 years old (73.3%) and do farming as their main source of household income (84.4%). In accordance to this data, the

program should have a strategy on how and when to implement the program as farming usually takes daytime. However, it should be noticed as well that 24.0% of respondents are elderly (more than 55 years old) thus the program needs adjustment in order to improve elderly participation.

Main source of household income Other, 0.2% Civil servant, 5.4% Village officer, 0.2% Labor, 2.5% Private sector employee, 0.7%

Entrepreneur, 6.4%

Farmer, 84.4%

Figure 2. Main source of household income

Perbaji Suka Tendel Tiganderket Kebayakan N % N % N % N % Sex Male 50 50.0 52 50.0 51 51.0 51 51.0 Female 50 50.0 52 50.0 49 49.0 49 49.0 Age 21-25 y.o 2 2.0 4 3.8 1 1.0 4 4.0 26-55 y.o 70 70.0 77 74.0 74 74.0 75 75.0 >55 y.o 28 28.0 23 22.1 25 25.0 21 21.0 Education No formal education 7 7.0 4 3.8 3 3.0 13 13.1 Elementary school 33 33.0 17 16.3 10 10.0 39 39.4 Junior high school 16 16.0 28 26.9 16 16.0 21 21.2 Senior high school 39 39.0 48 46.2 51 51.0 23 23.2 Diploma 1 1.0 2 1.9 8 8.0 1 1.0 Bachelor degree/ higher 4 4.0 5 4.8 12 12.0 2 2.0 Occupation Civil servant 1 1.0 6 5.8 15 15.0 0 0.0 Village officer 0 0.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Private sector employee 0 0.0 2 1.9 1 1.0 0 0.0 Entrepreneur 1 1.0 13 12.5 12 12.0 0 0.0 Farmer 94 94.0 75 72.1 72 72.0 100 100.0 Labor 3 3.0 7 6.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other 1 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Size of household 1-4 people 75 75.8 68 68.0 74 77.1 50 52.1 5-8 people 24 24.2 32 32.0 22 22.9 46 47.9 Length of Stay in Current Residence 1-5 years 6 6.0 11 10.6 1 1.0 6 6.0 6-10 years 6 6.0 8 7.7 1 1.0 6 6.0 11-15 years 8 8.0 9 8.7 4 4.0 5 5.0 >15 years 80 80.0 76 73.1 94 94.0 83 83.0 Table 4. Demographic data based on village

3.3. Disaster Experiences and Its Impact Sinabung mountain have been erupted since 2010, with two big eruptions in 2010 and 2013. The program target area is in red zone, radius of 5 kilometres from its summit, which is disaster affected area. The survey indicates 100% of the respondents experienced disaster, with almost all respondents (93.3%) encountered ash fall from the volcano and more than two-third of them (66.1%) had experience of volcanic eruption. Besides, 45.0% of the respondents were encountered by lahars which sometimes strike some villages suddenly. Such sudden strike of lahars is usually caused by heavy rain on top of mountain and the rain pushed the volcanic material down to the village around the mountain. To reduce the risks of lahars, some villages have an early warning system, that is BMKG and Beidar will inform village representative by walkie-talkie when heavy rain occur on top of the mountain then the representative will announce to the villagers to be prepared (interview with Head of Perbaji Village). However, more strategy to reduce the risks of lahars is still needed, such as strengthen the early warning system and equipped the villages with ropes and put it in the proper locations. Even though those three disaster types were frequently mentioned, the community awareness toward other disaster types (e.g. earthquake, tephra, pyroclastic flow, landslide, flood and drought) should be increased. Therefore, the program is suggested to not only focus on volcanic eruption related hazards, but also other disaster types.

100.0% 93.3% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 66.1% 60.0% 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 30.7% 30.0% 26.0% 20.0% 11.9% 3.5% 10.0% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% Volcanic Pyroclastic Tephra Ash fall Flood Lahars Landslide Earthquake Drought eruption flow

Figure 3. Type of disaster that have experienced by respondents (N=404; respondents can mention more than one disaster type)

Six years of prolonged disaster generates numerous impacts. Majority of the respondents reported business/livelihood loss (73.8%) as the consequence of the disaster. As a very large proportion of them are farmer, their agricultural crops cannot survive from ash fall and it leads to livelihood loss as well as livelihood shifting (6.7%). Some of them shift their occupation from farmer to farmhand or driver, or they will change the crops, from chocolate or tomato to coffee or shallot. FAO and a local business man have been assisted the farmers to shift their crops to the other plant such as coffee and shallot which more resistant to ash fall hence the farmers still earn some income (FGD in Suka Tendel and Tiganderket village; interview with Tiganderket’s Head of Village). However, after they shift to be a shallot farmer, they have to deal with illegal shallots imported from Vietnam which its market price is cheaper than theirs (FGD in Tiganderket village). Consequently, it causes another psychological distress which feeling of stress itself is one of reported disaster impact based on the survey (21.0%). This percentages of psychological distress later will be higher when the respondents specifically asked about it, which is 99.8% of respondents have psychological distress caused by disaster. Findings on psychological distress will be discussed later in section “3.6. Psychosocial Impact and Support”. Evacuation is other disaster impact mentioned by a significant proportion of respondents. Out of 404 respondents, 93.6% had experienced evacuation. Seventy percent of them evacuate twice in 2010 and 2013, 23.0% evacuate once and 0.5% evacuate thrice. In 2010, more than half of them evacuated for a month and less (61.6%) whereas in 2013, more than half of them evacuated for longer time, more than three months.

120.0% 99.8% 100.0% 93.6%

80.0% 73.8%

60.0% 36.6% 40.0% 24.0% 20.0% 6.7% 1.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% Evacuation Death Property Livelihood Livelihood Health Feel stress Marriage School damage loss shifting problem and loss of conflict dropouts sense of safety

Figure 4. Impacts of disaster that have experienced by respondents (N=404; respondents can mention more than one disaster type)

3.4. Disaster preparedness

3.4.1. Household level Surprisingly, in contrast with their prolonged disaster experiences and its numerous impacts, the proportions of respondents who attend disaster risk reduction activities in the last six months is quite small. Only 29.5% of them attend DRR activities, such as attending disaster preparedness meeting (17.6%), participate in the relevant training (9.4%), reading the relevant information (9.2%) and build levee around respondent’s house (0.2%). According to FGD in Suka Tendel and Tiganderket village, the participants said that government, NGO and other people who concern on Sinabung eruption, put their attention and support more to relocated survivors and refugees in camps. Affected people such them were quite neglected whereas they still need capacity to respond disaster.

Respondents who Attend DRR Activities

29% Yes No 71%

Figure 5. Percentages of respondents who have attended DRR activities in the last six months (N=404)

When the respondents were asked about disaster preparedness information sources in the last six months, more than half of them (57.7%) mentioned government officials as their source of information. However, there are 13.1% of respondents who never acquire information of disaster preparedness.

Information sources related disaster n % Government officials 233 57.7 Television 113 28.0 Community/religion leaders 80 19.8 Socialization from volunteers 55 13.6 Radio 54 13.4 Neighbour 48 11.9 Newspaper 10 2.5 Mobile phone (call/sms) 9 2.2 Internet 8 2.0 Others (Brochure, family and friend) 8 2.0

Table 5. Sources of information related to disaster (N=404; respondents can mention more than one response)

Almost half of respondents did not have and prepare survival kits to respond disaster (45.3%). Based on information from FGD, many people unpacked their survival kits to use it in their daily life as time goes by. Families who have prepared survival kits (54.7%), have prepared below survival kits.

Survival kits that family have prepared for disaster n % Clothes 119 29.5 Food and drink 75 18.6 Blanket 48 11.9 Important documents 30 7.4 First aid kits and medicine 25 6.2 Money 23 5.7 Torch 23 5.7

Dust mask/wet towel 16 4.0 Others 22 5.4

Table 6. Tools t that family prepared for disaster (N= 221, missing=1, i.e.: respondents who mentioned they prepared tools needed for disaster). Others refer to sleeping bag, raincoat, children’s needs, treasure and walkie-talkie.

As one of family’s disaster preparedness efforts, discussing about what actions to be taken is also important. There are only 65.1% of respondents who said their family have discussed about what-to-prepare, which mostly mentioned preparation of survival kits for evacuation (54.7%). It followed by preparing family evacuation plan (18.1%), tasks division among family members in case of emergency (4.5%), list of family contact (3.5%), money (2.0%), emergency contact list (1.0%) and clothes (0.5%). In addition, subjective perception of their preparedness were asked as well. Only 27.0% of respondents perceived they have enough capacity to respond disaster and only 36.4% of respondents who perceived their family members have enough capacity and ready to respond disaster. These low percentages should be highlighted because subjective perception on preparedness to respond disaster may increase psychological distress.

3.4.2. Community level Disaster preparedness in community level includes the existing of agreed evacuation areas and its route, village volunteers and how to contact them. Out of 404 respondents, only 17.3% claimed they acknowledge where the agreed evacuation areas are. Among 17.3% of those respondents are dominated by Perbaji’s village members (12.9%) who said know the agreed evacuation place. Then it followed by Suka Tendel’s village members (3.2%), Kebayakan’s village members (0.7%) and Tiganderket’s village members (0.5%). Even though that small number of respondents claimed they know the agreed evacuation areas, the mentioned areas should be clarified whether it is really the areas that has been agreed before and whether it is safe enough to be evacuation areas.

Village Evacuation Area Mentioned Perbaji Gudang Koperasi (47), mosque (28), church (15), SMA Perbaji (2), Jambur (1), Katir Koramil (1), Surbakti village (1), Tiganderket village (1), Tigabinanga village (1) Suka Tendel Terong Pren-Gudang Simpang Jandi Meriah (7), Pasar

Pinter (3), Payung (2), Simpang Empat (1), Genting (1), Kantor Pertanian Jandi Meriah (1), Kuta Galoh (1), Rumah Sekolah SD Suka Tendel (1) Tiganderket Jambur (1), West-side of village (1) Kebayakan Telagah (2), Berastagi KWK (1), Kerangen Kilang (1), Jambur (1)

Table 7. Evacuation Area Mentioned

This small percentages of people who know the agreed evacuation areas are contrast with the number of respondents who know the evacuation route. Two third of total respondents were able to identify evacuation route (67.1%); 18.8% do not know where is evacuation route and 13.1% said there is no evacuation route in their village. It might be caused by the dissemination of evacuation route information. In one informal discussion with a group of woman, they were able to tell orderly the evacuation route and where it leads, but they were not sure where exactly the assembly point is. Their knowledge about evacuation route might be influenced as well by the exposure of evacuation route signs which can easily be found in their daily life thus they can fluently name the routes. In accordance to this fact, it leads to other recommendation that the future program shall build an effective strategy to disseminate widely the agreed assembly point without neglecting the task to increase the number of respondents who can mention evacuation routes. In spite of their ten years’ disaster experience, only 40.8% of respondents who can identify the existing village volunteers in which 35.4% of them mentioned Beidar as village volunteers in disaster response and 34.2% of them reported were helped by the volunteers. In addition, out of 40.8% respondents who can identify the volunteers, only 25.2% who know how to contact the volunteers. These findings provide another inputs for the future program, namely, there are existing village volunteers which can be trained to have further capacity in disaster response and then find an effective strategy to disseminate their roles and responsibility as well as how to contact them. In addition, a significant majority of respondents have willingness to be part of village volunteers to help their own village (74.5%) and more than half of them eager to help other village in case of emergency (59.4%)

3.5. Knowledge and capacity to respond disaster This section discusses about respondents’ knowledge and capacity to respond disaster, i.e. when and where to evacuate, when is the right time to return to their residence and what actions

they should take after they received an emergency warning. More than three fourth of respondents understood they should evacuate right after hearing early warning (76.2%), but there are 0.2% of respondents who do not know when to evacuate and 0.7% who argued they do not need to evacuate. Respondents who said they do not need to evacuate, have their own reason, namely, they have difficulty to leave their house and they perceived the disaster was not always cause harm for them. Almost all respondents (92.1%) understand that they are supposed to evacuate to an agreed upon place. This demonstrates that they have enough knowledge to evacuate. However, refer back to previous section, most of respondents do not know where the agreed evacuation place is. Thus, it is important to identify the agreed evacuation place and disseminate information about it.

90.0% 80.0% 76.2% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0%

30.0% 22.5% 17.6% 20.0% 10.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% After hearing After being After the After being Other* Do not know Do not need to early warning picked up by others picked up by evacuate officials evacuate relatives

When to Evacuate

Figure 6. Percentages of respondents who know when they should evacuate (N=404; respondents can mention more than one response). *) Other refers to when the volcanic ash difficult to be tolerated; when the respondents perceive the situation is not safe anymore.

During the need assessment and baseline study preparation period, researcher often heard that some people returned to their residential area despite no official announcement from government. They returned to do farming as farming is their main livelihood. In accordance to this information, a query about time to return were asked. Figure 7 shows that 90.1% of respondents said will return to their residence after an official announcement to return is released by government. However, this number followed by 10.1% of respondents who reported will return to their residential area one day after they evacuate only to do farming even though the government has not release an official announcement to return. This finding provide a fact that some village members risk their lives to maintain their livelihood.

100.0% 90.1% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.1% 8.2% 10.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% After the Tomorrow, only to After the others Other Do not know government release do farming return despite of no an official official announcement to announcement return

When to return to residential area

Figure 7. Percentages of respondents who know when to return (N=404; respondents can mention more than one response)

Most of respondents (57.9%) will bring their important documents and 43.8% will evacuate themselves and their family when they receive an emergency warning. Be calm and do not panic were mentioned by 35.4% of respondents and 13.4% of respondents will inform their neighbours in case of disaster warning. Nonetheless, there are still 3.0% of respondents who do not know what action to be taken when they get an emergency warning.

3.6. Psychosocial Impact and Support Firstly, this section shows common psychological distress that is caused by disaster and its impact as well as their subjective current psychological condition. Next sub-section discusses about psychosocial support, including self-care activity they usually do; their coping stress strategy; whether they have attended socialization related to maintain positive or reduce negative psychological condition; and whether respondents have someone to share difficulties. 3.6.1. Psychological Distress Livelihood loss is a stressor that was mentioned by majority of respondents (89.4%). It is followed by concern on inability to afford children’s education (32.2%), uncertainty of the future (31.2%) and unpredictability of disaster occurrence (26.5%). The first two stressors are related one another: when they lose their livelihood, it influences their ability to pay children’s education needs. Karo people have a value that education is very important, they work so their children can

take higher education level (FGD in four villages and informal conversation with local people). The uncertainty of future and unpredictability of disaster occurrence as their stressors is not a surprising finding. Almost seven years the mountain has been erupted and this prolong disaster makes respondents like living in an uncertainty life.

100.0% 89.4% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 32.2% 31.2% 26.5% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 4.5% 2.7% 0.0% Livelihood loss Concern on Unequal aid Uncertainty of Unpredictability Other inability to distribution future of disaster afford children's occurrence education

Figure 8. Stressor that arise following disaster (N=404; respondents can mention more than one response)

Those stressors which is caused by disaster then affect their psychological condition. Most of respondents feel excess anxiety and worry (84.4%). Other psychological impacts are insomnia and sleep deprivation (26.2%), increased anger, irritability and edginess (18.1%), excess nervousness (14.9%), increased blood pressure and rapid heartbeat (11.4%) and other impacts can be seen in Annex 1. Eight of ten respondents reported they perceive their psychological condition worsen after the disaster (77.5%)., mainly caused by financial-related problems (46.8%), and followed by mental-health-related problems (24.2%), health-related problems (8.9%) and environment- related problems (0.5%). Two of ten respondents feel there is no change on their psychological condition and no one said their psychological condition better after the disaster.

3.6.2. Psychosocial Support (Self-care, coping strategy, community support) A large proportion of respondents spare some time to get together with family and friends (64.4%) as their self-care strategy. This finding also supported by data from FGD that spending time with family and friends is their culture: for men, they usually get together in coffee shops

while women get together with their neighbours in one of neighbour’s house and do nyirih2. Half of respondents are praying to care themselves (50.0%), 41.6% participate in religious activity and 21.5% participate in traditional/community event. These self-care activities are mostly included as communal activity which indicates they prefer to do group activity as their strategy to maintain their positive psychological condition. For coping stress strategy, a significant majority reported they pray to overcome negative emotion due to encounter difficult situation (74.3%). A large proportion of respondents also mentioned get together with their family and friends as coping stress strategy (55.4%). Twenty- three per cent said they would share their difficulties to mostly neighbour (11.4%), family (8.7%), friend (5.5%) and faith-based association (0.5%). Based on information from FGD, telling difficulties to neighbour is more favourable than telling it to family because in their custom, there are unwritten rules in communicate with family member, consequently they tend to avoid any mistakes generating by share their difficulties with non-family members. Slightly different with self-care strategy, working appear as the third most common response. Almost a third respondents said working as their coping stress strategy (28.7%). It indicates they use problem-based strategy to overcome their stress. This finding support information from FGD that besides praying and spending time with family and friends in coffee shop or neighbour’s house while nyirih, they work to shift their occupied mind on various difficulties due to disaster into more productive activity.

“Even only making the crops clean from volcanic ash by watering it, it makes me less stress. At least we are trying to put some effort to make the crop can be harvested.” (a participant of FGD in Suka Tendel village)

Socialization which related to psychosocial support have delivered by some organizations but only a small minority received it. More than eighty per cent reported they never received socialization about sharing to others, self-care and positive coping stress strategy. Most of those who have received such socializations mentioned faith-based association as the facilitator or organizer of the socializations. This finding provide other insight that faith-based association can be part of village volunteer group and build their existing capacity about psychosocial support. Even though only small numbers of respondents said they have attended the socializations, 82.7% of total respondents reported they have someone to share their difficulties, and more than

2 Nyirih is chewing spices wrapped by a leave.

half of them mentioned neighbour as their place to share difficulties. This indicates the respondents have awareness to not keep their difficulties by themselves. The finding also aligns with previous finding that they prefer to share and tell their difficulties to neighbour rather than family member.

90.0% 84.2% 83.2% 85.4% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 15.6% 15.8% 13.6% 10.0% 0.0% Sharing to other Self-care Positive coping stress strategy

Yes No

Figure 9. Respondents who were received psychosocial support socialization (N=404)

3.7. General Health Condition To complement findings above, 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was employed in order to detect psychological distress in the general population. The cut-off score 4 was used to indicate high risk and low risk of psychological distress; respondents who obtained total score between 0 to 3 was categorized as low risk and those who obtained between 4 to 12 was categorized as high risk of psychological distress. Score 3 was used as the cut-off score to indicate experience or not experience specific symptom (e.g. sleep problem; the score for specific symptom was between 1 to 4).

PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS

34.70% Low risk High risk 63.40%

Figure 10. GHQ-12 Result (N=396; missing=8)

Figure 10 shows that almost two thirds of respondents were in low risk of psychological distress (63.4%) whereas 34.7% of respondents were in high risk of psychological distress. This finding indicates that the prevalence of psychological distress was low in the population. However, this high percentages of people who were in high risk of psychological distress should be highlighted as this prevalence may increase if the respondents difficult to deal with stressors they have been encountered. Out of 12 symptoms assessed using GHQ-12, concentration problem and failure to enjoy day to day activities were the most experienced symptoms (40.1% & 37.4%, respectively). It followed by not feeling reasonably happy (35.6%) and sleep problem (30.9%). Other symptoms were experienced by less than thirty per cent of total respondents.

3.8. Correlation between disaster preparedness and psychological distress risk To ensure whether disaster preparedness and disaster response capacity have correlation with psychological distress risk, Pearson correlation measurement were conducted. There are three significant correlation findings. First, there are a significant correlation between attending DRR activities and general mental health condition (r=-0.304, p<0.01). This indicates, the more active respondents attend DRR meeting and training, and find information about DRR, the lower psychological distress risk they have. Second, there is a significant correlation between have and prepare family plan as disaster preparedness action and general mental health condition (r=-0.184, p<0.01). It shows that the more plan they have, the lower psychological distress risk they have. Third, there is a significant correlation between knowledge and capacity in disaster response and general mental health condition (r=-0.304, p<0.01). In other words, the more respondents know what action to be taken as disaster response, the lower risk of psychological distress they have.

4. Conclusion

Two main objectives of this baseline study has achieved. Information related to awareness, knowledge, attitudes, perceptions and behaviours about disaster experience, preparedness, response and psychological condition following disaster as well as the existing support have gathered through quantitative and qualitative methods. The baseline study involved the people in four villages, Perbaji, Suka Tendel, Tiganderket and Kebayakan, that affected by Mt. Sinabung eruption and its volcanic activities. The collected data shows that the majority of community members have awareness and enough knowledge in disaster response. However, although they have knowledge about it, the disaster preparedness knowledge and action should be improved in household level and also in community level. Instead of the prolong disaster they have experienced, their knowledge and behaviour on psychosocial support needs to be strengthen as well consider a significant proportion of community reported that the disaster affect their psychological condition. According to quantitative data, one hundred per cent of respondents experienced disaster and it mostly disasters that related to volcanic activities. Even though they have experienced such disasters, their awareness on other disasters should be improved as they live in Indonesia which geographically vulnerable to various kind of disaster. Should be highlighted as well, that despite of their awareness that disaster can occur anytime, most of community members did not do disaster preparedness activities in the last six months, such as attend disaster preparedness meeting, participate in related training, find information about disaster preparedness and prepare survival kits. More than half of respondents have discussed and prepare family plan as disaster preparedness action, but still many of them did not have family plan. Through the survey, data about source of information that community usually access have mapped, which mostly access the information through government, television, community/religion leader, volunteers, radio and neighbour. Put aside television due to its costs, local government, community/religion leader, volunteers, community radio and village members can be trained to improve their disaster preparedness capacity and to improve their skills to disseminate disaster preparedness information to larger community effectively. By mapped this source of information, CC can invite them to be part of village volunteer team that CC will establish and build their disaster preparedness and psychosocial capacity. The existing village volunteers which is known by village members, such as Beidar, Tagana and faith-based association members will also be involved in the capacity building. Besides that, based on baseline survey, there is high enthusiasm of village members to be disaster response volunteers and help their own village and other village surround

them. Those mentioned stakeholders will be formed as a structured and well-trained village volunteers team that will provide support in disaster response. Data also shows that village members have quite good knowledge in disaster response. For example, they know that they should evacuate immediately to agreed evacuation place after heard early warning of disaster and bring their important documents and ensure all family members evacuate as well. However, practically they do not know where the agreed evacuation place is. They familiar with the evacuation route, but after going through the route, they are not sure where the agreed evacuation place is. The program that CC will conduct should disseminate the information about the location of agreed evacuation place and ensure it is safe enough to be an evacuation place by collaborate with other stakeholders who have competence in determine safe evacuation place. In addition, it is also important to reduce the number of people who risk their lives by return to their residential area one day after disaster occur to work in their farm field hence this warning should be included in the course materials for village volunteers team. Nonetheless, even they have quite good knowledge in disaster response, a large proportion of respondents were not confident enough to respond disaster. They perceived they do not have enough capacity to respond disaster as well as their family members. The program needs to change their perception to be more confident in disaster response. This prolong disaster that have been experienced by village members for more than six years cause many impacts which mainly is livelihood loss and psychological distress. The common impact that was caused by psychological distress was excess anxiety and worry. Concentration problem was also one common symptom that was experienced by respondents based on GHQ-12 measurement. According to the measurement too, it was found that more than a third of respondents have high risks of psychological distress. Despite of the prolong duration of disaster and support from many stakeholders, activity or program related to psychosocial support to reduce psychological distress risk is still limited. There was socialization about sharing to others, self-care and positive coping stress strategy, but only small numbers of village members participate in those socialization. Considering the disaster is predicted lasts until 2020, psychosocial support program which include disaster preparedness capacity building will be very important to be implemented in the villages thus they have capacity to deal with uncertainty and livelihood difficulties. This suggestion is also supported by the findings that there is significant correlation between disaster preparedness and psychological distress risks. The more people equipped by disaster preparedness and response capacity, the less likely the psychological distress risks emerge.

Annex 1

Annex Summary of Findings Based on Specific Objectives of the Baseline Survey

Note: In this survey, there were two kinds of questions: [1] closed questions, where the answer was only one, and [2] open questions, where respondents might give multiple answers. All open questions were listed on the remark section on the table below.

No. Objective Result Question Remark 1 Demographic information related to the project Sex Male= 50.5% Q4 Female= 49.5%

(N= 404) Household size 1-4 people= 66.1% Q5 5-8 people= 30.7%

(N= 391; Missing= 13) The length of stay in >15 years= 82.4% Q6 the project area 11-15 years= 6.4% 1-5 years= 5.9% 6-10 years= 5.2%

(N= 404) Age 26-55 years old= 73.3% Q7 >55 years old= 24.0% 21-25 years old= 2.7%

(N= 404) Education High school= 39.9% Q8 Primary school= 24.5% Middle school= 20.0% No formal education= 6.7% Bachelor degree or higher= 5.7% Diploma degree= 3.0%

(N= 404)

Main source of Farming= 84.4% Q9 household income Entrepreneur= 6.4% Civil servant= 5.4% Labour= 2.5% Private sector employee= 0.7% Village officer= 0.2% Other (Part-time teacher) = 0.2%

(N= 404) Daily expense IDR 51,000-75,000= 33.7% Q10 IDR 100,000= 8.9%

(N= 404) Ownership of Self-owned= 52.7% Q11 current residence Rent= 20.0% Parent-owned= 14.9% Stay with others for free= 11.1% Government property= 1.2%

(N= 404) 2 Disaster experiences Percentages of Ash fall= 93.3% Q12 Respondent’s respondents who Volcanic eruption= 66.1% answer might be know type of Lahars= 45.0% more than 1 disasters that they Drought= 30.7% had experienced Earthquake= 26.0% Tephra/bombs= 11.9% Pyroclastic flow= 3.5% Flood= 1.5% Landslide= 0.2%

(N= 404) Percentages of Business/livelihood loss=73.8% Q13 Respondent’s respondents who Evacuation= 43.6% answer might be have experienced Property damage= 36.6% more than 1 disaster impacts Health problem= 24.0% Feel stress and loss of sense of safety= 21% Livelihood shifting= 6.7%, namely: - Previously chocolate farmer= 3.0% - Previously farmer= 2.7% - Previously tomato farmer= 0.5%

- Shift to coffee farmer= 3.0% - Shift to driver= 0.5% - Shift to farmhand= 2.2% - Shift to shallot farmer= 0.5% Death= 1.0% School dropouts= 0.7% Marriage conflict= 0.2% Do not know= 0.2%

(N= 404) Percentages of Yes= 93.6% Q17, Q18 respondents who - Twice= 70.0% have experienced - Once= 23.0% evacuation due to - Thrice= 0.5% disaster No= 6.4% (N=404)

2010: Yes= 90.1% (N=341; missing= 23) - A month and less= 61.6% - A week and less= 12.6% - Three months and less= 8.7% - More than three months= 1.5% No= 9.9%

2013: Yes= 74.0% (N=271; missing= 28) - More than three months= 53.7% - Three months and less= 12.9% - A month and less= 0.5% No= 26.0%

2015= Yes= 0.5% (N=2) - More than six months= 0.5% No= 99.5%

3 Disaster preparedness in household level Percentages of Never= 70.5% Q22 Respondent’s respondents who Yes= 29.5% answer might be have attend disaster - Attending disaster preparedness meeting= more than 1 risk reduction 17.6% activities in the last - Participate in disaster preparedness

six months training= 9.4% - Reading the information related to disaster preparedness= 9.2% - Build levee around the house= 0.2%

(N= 404) Percentages of Yes= 86.9% Q23 Respondent’s respondents who - Government officials= 57.7% answer might be access disaster - Television= 28.0% more than 1 related information - Community/ religion leaders= 19.8% from various - Socialization from volunteers= 13.6% resources in the last - Radio= 13.4% six months - Neighbour= 11.9% - Newspaper= 2.5% - Hand phone (phone call/sms) = 2.2% - Internet= 2.0% - Brochure= 1.5% - Family= 0.2% - Friend=0.2% Never= 13.1%

(N= 404) Percentages of Yes= 54.7% (N= 220; missing= 1) Q24, Q25 Respondent’s respondents who - Clothes= 29.5% answer might be have and prepare - Food and drink= 18.6% more than 1 survival kits in case - Blanket= 11.9% of disaster - Important documents= 7.4% - First aid kits and medicine= 6.2% - Money= 5.7% - Torch= 5.7% - Dust mask/wet towel= 4.0% - Sleeping bag/mattress= 2.7% - Raincoat= 1.0% - Children’s needs= 1.0% - Treasure= 0.5% - Walkie-talkie= 0.2% No= 45.3%

(N= 404) Percentages of Yes= 65.1% (N= 262; missing= 1) Q26, Q27 Respondent’s respondents who - Prepare survival kits for evacuation= 54.7% answer might be have and prepare - Prepare family evacuation plan= 18.1% more than 1 plan as a guidance - Prepare task division among family

when disaster members in case of emergency= 4.5% occurs - Prepare lists of family contact= 3.5% - Prepare money= 2.0% - Prepare emergency contact list= 1.0% - Prepare clothes= 0.5% No= 34.9%

(N= 404) Percentages of No= 72.8% Q28 respondents who Yes= 27.0% perceived they have enough capacity to (N= 403; missing= 1) respond disaster Percentages of No= 63.4% Q29 respondents who Yes= 36.4% perceived their family have (N= 403; missing= 1) awareness towards disaster risks and have prepared to respond disaster 4 Disaster preparedness in community level Percentages of No= 62.9% Q14, Q15 respondents who Do not know= 19.8% said that there are Yes= 17.3% agreed evacuation - Perbaji= 12.9% (Gudang Koperasi (47), areas mosque (28), church (15), SMA Perbaji (2), Jambur (1), Katir Koramil (1), Surbakti village (1), Tiganderket village (1), Tigabinanga village (1)) - Suka Tendel= 3.2% (Terong Pren-Gudang Simpang Jandi Meriah (7), Pasar Pinter (3), Payung (2), Simpang Empat (1), Genting (1), Kantor Pertanian Jandi Meriah (1), Kuta Galoh (1), Rumah Sekolah SD Suka Tendel (1)) - Tiganderket= 0.5% (Jambur (1), West-side of village (1)) - Kebayakan= 0.7% (Telagah (2), Berastagi KWK (1), Kerangen Kilang (1), Jambur (1))

(N= 404) Percentages of Yes= 67.1% Q16

respondents who Do not know= 18.8% know where is No evacuation route=13.1% evacuation route (N= 400; missing= 4) Percentages of Yes= 40.8% (N= 165; missing= 17) Q31 respondents who - Beidar= 35.4% can identify existing - Other= 4.4% (Faith-based organization, village volunteers Indonesian National Armed Forces, responsible in Community organization, NGO, Disaster disaster response response volunteer under Social Welfare Offices) No= 40.1% Do not know= 19.1%

(N= 404)

Percentages of Yes= 34.2% Q32 respondents who No= 6.7% said they were helped by the (N= 165) volunteers Percentages of Know= 25.2% Q33 respondents who Do not know= 15.6% know how to contact the (N= 165) volunteers 5 Knowledge and capacity to respond disaster Percentages of After hearing early warning= 76.2% Q19 Respondent’s respondents who After being picked up by officials= 22.5% answer might be know when they After the others evacuate= 17.6% more than 1 should evacuate After being picked up by relative= 1.0% Other= 1.0% (when the volcanic ash is difficult to be tolerated by respondent; when the respondents perceive the situation is not safe anymore) Do not know= 0.2% Do not need to evacuate= 0.7%, because - Having difficulty to leave the house - The disaster is not always cause harm for respondent

(N= 404) Percentages of Agreed evacuation place= 92.1% Q20 Respondent’s

respondents who Family’s place= 7.4% answer might be know where to Other safe village/town= 2.6% more than 1 evacuate Follow their neighbour= 1.2% Do not know= 1.0%

(N=404) Percentages of After the government release an official Q21 Respondent’s respondents who announcement to return= 90.1% answer might be know when is the Tomorrow, only to do farming= 10.1% more than 1 right time to return After the others return despite no official safely to their announcement= 8.2% residence Other= 1.0% (After respondent feel urge to work; after respondent perceived the situation is safe enough to return) Do not know= 0.2%

(N= 404) Percentages of Bring important documents= 57.9% Q30 Respondent’s respondents who Evacuate themselves and their family= 43.8% answer might be know what they Be calm and do not panic= 35.4% more than 1 should do when Inform the neighbours= 13.4% they get emergency Bring medical supplies and first aid kits= 5.2% warning Other= 1.6% (bring blanket, clothes and money, praying) Call emergency contact, such as village disaster response officials or other village officials= 1.5% None above= 2.0% Do not know= 3.0%

(N= 404) 6 Psychosocial Impact Stressors that arise Livelihood loss= 89.4% Q34 Respondent’s after disaster occur Concern on inability to afford children’s answer might be education= 32.2% more than 1 Uncertainty of the future= 31.2% Unpredictability of the disaster occurrence= 26.5% Unequal aid distribution= 4.5% Become more worry towards family stability= 0.5% Government’s unresponsiveness= 0.5% Health problem= 0.5%

Others= 1.2% (death threat, concern to family condition, have difficulties to evacuate, property damage, when they see other people panick)

(N= 404) Percentages of Excess anxiety and worry= 84.4% Q35 Respondent’s respondents who Insomnia and sleep deprivation= 26.2% answer might be able to identify Increased anger, irritability and edginess 18.1% more than 1 psychosocial impact Excess nervousness= 14.9% they felt following Increased blood pressure & rapid heartbeat= disaster 11.4% Frequent physical pain= 9.4% Overreaction to petty annoyances= 8.7% Become impatient= 4.2% Feeling of worthlessness= 4.0% Frequent muscle tension= 1.5% No psychosocial impact= 0.2%

(N= 404) Perceived current Worsen= 77.5%, because of: Q36 psychosocial - Financial-related problems= 46.8% condition following - Mental-health-related problems= 24.2% disaster - Health-related problems= 8.9% - Environment-related problems= 0.5% Unchanged= 22.5%

(N= 404) 7 Psychosocial Support Percentages of Spare some time to get together with family Q37 Respondent’s respondents who do and friends= 64.4% answer might be self-care activity in Pray= 50.0% more than 1 their daily life to Participate in religious activity= 41.6% prevent worsen Participate in traditional/community event= psychosocial 21.5% distress Working= 15.3% Refreshing= 3.7% Spare some time to be relax= 3.2% Get enough sleep= 1.7% Eat regularly= 1.7% Exercise= 0.7% Medical check-up= 0.5% Smoking= 0.2%

None above= 2.2%

(N= 403; missing 1) Percentages of Pray= 74.3% Q38 Respondent’s respondents who Get together with family and friends= 55.4% answer might be have coping stress Working= 28.7% more than 1 strategy to Share to others= 23.3% overcome negative - Family= 8.7% emotion when they - Friend= 5.5% encounter difficult - Neighbour= 11.4% situation - Faith-based association= 0.5% Smoking= 4.5% Ask help to other people= 2.5% - Family= 0.5% - Neighbour= 0.5% - Friend=0.2% - Faith-based association= 0.2% Other= 1.1% (Pray together, doing nothing, try to forget disaster, watching television) Gambling= 0.2% Nothing= 0.5% Do not know= 2.0%

(N= 404) Percentages of No= 84.2% Q39A respondents who Yes= 15.6%, organized by: received any - Faith-based organization= 11.9% socializations about - NGO= 0.9% sharing to others - Karo District Education Offices= 0.7% - Ideological-based organization= 0.2%

(N= 403; missing= 1) Percentages of No= 83.2% Q39B respondents who Yes= 15.8%, organized by: received any - Faith-based organization= 10.4% socializations about - NGO= 0.9% self-care - Karo District Education Offices= 0.7% - Ideological-based organization= 0.2%

(N= 400; missing= 4) Percentages of No= 85.4% Q39C respondents who Yes= 13.6%, organized by: received any - Faith-based organization= 10.4%

socializations about - NGO= 0.9% positive coping - Karo District Education Offices= 0.7% stress strategy - Ideological-based organization= 0.2%

(N= 400; missing= 4) Percentages of Yes= 82.7% Q40 respondents who - Neighbour= 45.6% have someone to - Family= 34.9% share their - Friend= 11.9% difficulties - Faith-based association= 1.5% No= 16.8%

(N= 402; missing= 2) 8 Sense of community Percentages of Yes= 74.5% Q41 respondents who No= 24.3% have willingness to be part of (N= 399; missing= 5) community volunteer in their own village Percentages of Yes= 59.4% Q42 respondents who No= 39.4% have to be volunteer and help (N= 399; missing= 5) other village in case of disaster

9. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)

Frequency % Low risk of psychological distress 256 63.4% High risk of psychological distress 140 34.7% N= 396; missing= 8

Symptom Category Total %

Concentration Problem Not experience 241 59.7%

(N=403; missing= 1) Experience 162 40.1%

Failure to enjoy day to day activities Not experience 252 62.4%

(N=403; missing= 1) Experience 151 37.4%

Not feeling reasonably happy Not experience 260 64.4%

(N=404) Experience 144 35.6%

Sleep Problem Not experience 278 68.8%

(N=403; missing= 1) Experience 125 30.9%

Decision Making Not experience 289 71.5%

(N=403; missing= 1) Experience 114 28.2%

Inability to face problem Not experience 297 73.5%

(N=400; missing= 4) Experience 103 25.5%

Feeling constantly under strain Not experience 311 77.0%

(N=404) Experience 93 23.0%

Not Playing Useful Part in Things Not experience 330 81.7%

(N=402; missing= 2) Experience 72 17.8%

Not Playing Useful Part in Things Not experience 330 81.7%

(N=402; missing= 2) Experience 72 17.8%

Feeling unhappy/depressed Not experience 333 82.4%

(N=404) Experience 71 17.6%

Feeling unable to overcome difficulties Not experience 337 83.4%

(N=403; missing= 1) Experience 66 16.3%

Lost confidence Not experience 344 85.1%

(N=404) Experience 60 14.9%

Feeling useless Not experience 375 92.8%

(N=404) Experience 29 7.2%