Findings of the Households Assessments of Syrian Households in Host Communities

Irbid Governorate

25th February 2013

BACKGROUND

The continued crisis in Syria has caused a large influx of Syrians into Jordan, amounting to more than 242,162 refugees (UNHCR, 25.02.2013). According to UNHCR registration data, more than 90% have settled in Northern Jordan, as well as the urban and peri- urban centres of Amman and Zarqa, with the large majority of refugees settling within host communities.

Information management systems available to humanitarian actors have struggled to keep pace with the rapidly changing refugee context. With this in mind, REACH was deployed to Jordan in October 2012 in order to complement information management efforts undertaken by other humanitarian actors, notably by UN agencies, and to contribute towards addressing information gaps on Syrian refugees located in camps and host communities. By establishing a baseline dataset that includes key information on the geographical distribution, conditions and priority needs of Syrian refugees, REACH aims to ensure better planning, coordination and traceability of humanitarian aid.

The data presented in this factsheet represents the findings of household level interviews that were conducted in the host communities of Irbid Governorate in December 2012. During this phase of the project, 8,903 displaced Syrian households, representing 38,479 individuals, were assessed. The household assessments focused on collecting five key sets of information from each households: 1. Household demographic data; 2. Registration card numbers; 3. Displacement profile; 4. Accommodation context; 5. Services and Needs. Additionally, assessment team leaders collected GPS data for each building housing Syrian refugee households in order to allow for the mapping of key data trends discovered through the analysis of collected data.

Assessment Methodology

REACH’s assessment methodology is based on a three step approach to data collection that gradually sharpens the understanding of the context both in terms of geographical focus as well as depth of data, as shown in the figure below. The objective of this process is to provide humanitarian actors with information that allows for more informed decision-making with regards to their targeting of specific geographic locations or beneficiary group based on their programme planning needs; thus enabling better planning, coordination and traceability of aid. As such the REACH methodology (outlined in the figure below) focuses primarily on the geographic identification of refugees living in host communities and collects a core baseline of household specific information that enables the preparation of situational analyses.

- Division of an area of intervention into neighbourhoods/mantikas as basic service units Phase I; Identification of Community (BSUs) that have the attributes of having boundaries that can be defined with a similar Units (BSUs) understanding by different community individuals or groups. Key Informant interviews are conducted within each BSU to collect information that can inform later steps in the process.

Phase II; HH - Household level assessment including demographic data, accommodation status, Survey and registration status, protection concerns, displacement profile, and needs / access to basic Context Analysis services. Collection of secondary data to support the analysis will be conducted.

Phase III; - Targeted programme assessment of areas in which refugee families are located according to project needs Thematic / assessment ToRs. Use of BSUs to link with community leaders to facilitate access to all groups and analysis

specifically most vulnerable households. Collected data informs programme planning and implementation. Geographical Scope / Depth of Data of Depth / Scope Geographical

A partnership of:

Key findings the exception of Al Hassakeh, with no households reporting it to be their area of origin, at least five households reported to A total of 8,904 households were identified through the originate from each Syrian Governorate. See Annex 2 for assessment, representing approximately 38,485 individuals. area of origin by sub-district. Of these, 5,471 households (22,975 individuals) were settled in urban areas in the Governorate (Irbid and Ramtha cities) Figure 2 - Household Governorate of Origin and 3,433 households (15,510 individuals) in rural areas. Rural Annex 1 shows the breakdown of individuals by BSU in Irbid Damascus Governorate. Damascus 2% City 5% Hama Other Dara Household profile 2% 2% As Sweida Homs The average size of households identified through the 9% Homs assessment was 4.3, with an even split between males and As Sweida Damascus City 2% females (2.1 and 2.2 per household on average). Hama 66% of individuals identified were reported to be under the Rural Damascus age of 18, of which 18% under the age of 5. Only 30% of Other reported direct family members were aged between 25 and Dara 59, indicating a high dependency ratio. 78%

Table 1 – Age profile of displaced households1 The Syrian Governorate of Dara, geographically adjacent to Age Males Females Total % Irbid Governorate, had overwhelmingly the largest population Under 5 3559 3442 18% displacement rate into Irbid of all Governorates in Syria at the 5 to 11 4047 3745 20% time of the assessment. The number of displaced Syrian households in Irbid reporting to be from Dara represents 2.9% 12 to 17 3053 2794 15% of the population of Dara as per the 2011 census (UNHCR, 18 to 24 2148 2705 13% 2011). The Syrian Governorates with the next largest 25 to 59 5306 6204 30% percentage of population displacement into Irbid Governorate over 60 477 669 3% are As Sweida and Homs, both with 0.2% of the 2011 Total 18590 19559 100% population being displaced into Irbid. Annex 3 maps this information.

205 households reported having children under 18 with them Figure 3 - Percentage of 2011 population who were part of their extended family but not directly related displaced to Irbid Governorate to them, and only 22 reported having children under 18 with 2.89 them who were not part of the family or extended family. 3.00 2.50 Displacement profile 2.00 1.50 The vast majority of households identified, 78%, reported that 1.00 they were originally displaced from the Syrian Governorate of 0.2 0.19 0.1 0.04 0.02 0.01 Daraa. Other Syrian Governorates from which a sizeable 0.50 0.00 proportion of identified households originate include Homs, census 2011per as populationof % 9%, Damascus city, 5%, Hama, 2%, and Rural Damascus, 2%. Additionally, a very small number of households reported being displaced from the Governorates of Aleppo, Idleb, Deir- ez-Zor, Ar Raqqa, Quneitra, Lattakia, and Tartous representing less than 2% of the total. The geographic spread Of the households identified through the assessment, 93% of household origin covered nearly the whole of Syria. With were displaced from their place of origin in 2012. The third quarter of 2012 saw the highest displacement rate amongst

1 Note: age breakdown of household was not answered by all households currently resident in Irbid Governorate, with 46% respondents

A partnership of:

of those who left their homes in 2012 being displaced in July, members would likely be joining them in Jordan within two August, or September. months from the time of assessment.

A very high proportion of households, 20%, reported that Figure 4 - Month of original displacement male family members over the age of 18 were left behind in

20% Syria at the time of assessment. Furthermore, a small number

15% of households reported having females over 18 left behind in Syria, 7%. In addition to those households with family 10% members left behind in Syria, a small proportion reported that

5% family members were residing outside either Jordan or Syria % of respondentsof % 0% at the time of assessment.

Figure 6 - Households with family members left 2012 behind

25 The reported dates of arrival in Jordan mirror these trends of 20 initial displacement, with 7,959 of the 8,456 respondents who 15 provided a date of arrival having arrived in 2012 – 47% of

% of householdsof % 10 these in July/August/September. 5 Only 12% of respondents reported having stayed in a different 0 location in Syria for more than a week after initial Males under 18 Females under Males over 18 Females over 18 18 displacement from their home, implying that the majority left the country immediately following initial displacement. The large majority of respondents, 82%, reported finding out 47% of Syrian households identified through the assessment about services available to them upon arrival in Jordan from reported that they arrived at their current location within 1 other Syrian families, and 11% reported finding out week of entering Jordan, with 27% of the total reporting arrival information from Jordanian families. 1% received information in their current location on the same day. A considerable about services through text messages, radio/television, or proportion of respondents, 28%, reported that they had been local charities2. present in Jordan for between one and six months before settling in Irbid. Only a very small proportion, representing 1% If their household faced problems or threats, the vast majority, of the total, reported that they had been in Jordan for over a 71%, of households reported that they felt comfortable to year before settling in Irbid Governorate. raise concerns with the Jordanian police. In addition to this a sizeable proportion of households, 25%, reported that they would seek the help of other Syrian families. Interestingly, Figure 5 - Time spent in Jordan before despite the perceived level of support from local NGOs / arrival at current location charities regarding the distribution of various forms of

30% assistance (see below), only a very small proportion, 1%, of

25% households felt these organisations were appropriate to 20% contact when facing problems.

15% of respondentsof

% % 10% 5% 0% Same 1-7 8-14 15 1-3 3-6 6 mths > 1 day days days days - mths mths - 1 year 1 mth year

The majority of households reported that they travelled to Jordan with their complete family unit, 72%. 25% of households reported having direct family members left behind 2 in Syria, of which 72% reported that the absent family The remaining 6% of households did not answer the question.

A partnership of:

the respondent had just arrived, or did not perceive a need to Figure 7 - Point of contact if problems / threats faced by households register.

80 71% Shelter situation

70

60 The vast majority of households, 96%, reported residency in 50 an apartment or house at the time of assessment. 82% of 40 26% 30 households reported paying rent for their accommodation,

% of householdsof % 20 with an average price of 150 JOD per month. Rental prices in 10 1% 1% 1% urban areas were reported to be considerably higher than in 0 rural areas, 164 JOD compared to 123 JOD. See Annex 4 for Police Syrian Other NGO/local Community families charity Leader the predominant shelter situation & Annex 5 for monthly rental costs per BSU. Context analysis within Jordan While a large proportion of Syrian households, 44%, reported to be resident in private accommodation as a single family, in Registration status the majority of cases, 53%, it was reported by Syrian Of the 8,903 households identified, 43% (3,808 households) households that they were sharing their accommodation with reported being registered with UNHCR. Of the households other families at the time of assessment. 3% of households that reported not being registered, 29% had a registration identified reported other accommodation contexts such as interview date schedule with UNHCR at the time of being resident in housing provided by local charity Al Kitab Al assessment. 3% of households reported having a UNHCR Sunna. ration card, suggesting that they have previously been resident in one of the camps. Figure 10 - Accommodation context

Other Figure 8 - UNHCR registration status 3%

19% Shared accommdation 43% Private Private Registered accom accommodation 44% Not registered Other

No answer Shared 38% accom 53%

Water and sanitation A slightly higher proportion of identified households reported registration with an organization other than UNHCR, 58%. With the vast majority of Syrian households being resident in The most commonly mentioned organizations with which apartments or houses (see above) the majority of households, households reported registration were local charities such as 91%, reported having a latrine inside their home. Only a small Al Takafol, Al Ketab Al Sunna, and Al Aytam. Despite high number of households reported having either a latrine outside levels of registration with both UNHCR and local their home, 105, or no access to a latrine at all, 25. 652 organizations a considerable proportion of households households did not provide a response to the question. See reported that they were not registered with any organization. Annex 6 for the predominate latrine situation per BSU.

Of these households the most commonly given reason for not The most commonly reported frequency of water delivery, being registered with UNHCR or a local organization was a 48% of households, was less than once per week. lack of knowledge of the registration process (50%). A handful Additionally 40% of households were able to receive water of households, 7, indicated that they were unable to register deliveries 1 – 2 days per week. On average water delivery with a local organization because they were not registered frequency was reported as being the same in both urban and with UNHCR. Other commonly given reasons included that rural areas. 92% of all respondents reported using coping

A partnership of:

mechanisms to complement their water needs. Of these Figure 13 - School enrollment and dropout households, 82% reported using water tankers to supplement their water household needs. See Annex 7 for access to 4000 water supply per BSU. 3000

2000 children Figure 11 - Frequency of water delivery # 1000 0 9% 3% Not enrolled - Not enrolled - Tried and Tried and 48% male female dropped out - dropped out - <1 day/week male female

1-2 days/week 3-7 days/week When asked the reason as to why children were not enrolled 40% in school, 31% reported that they were not aware of available no answer educational services at the time of assessment. Additionally, a large number of households, 36%, gave responses other than those listed on the assessment form. The most common of these being as a result of financial concerns, accessibility Employment issues, a lack of available space in local schools, or being un- Overall only a very small proportion of households identified registered/awaiting registration with UNHCR. reported that at least one family member was in employment at the time of assessment, representing 11%. Figure 14- Reasons given for child non- enrolment in school Of this number, the vast majority, 93%, reported that male 36% members of the household were in employment. The 31% remainder, representing only 7%, reported that female 16% 13% members of the household were in employment – a proportion 4% that represents less than 1% of the overall households identified through the assessment. Additionally, 9% Other No known Level/type of Concerns Work: (representing 73 households) reported having family services class not about safety paid/domestic available available members under the age of 18 in employment (of which 54 were located in urban areas). Health

Figure 12 - Household employment rate The large majority of households, 65%, reported that their 5% 11% children 6 months to 59 months old had not received any Someone currently vaccinations against measles since arriving in Jordan. See working Annex 9 for the number of children vaccinated against No-one currently measles per BSU. working 85% No answer Figure 15 - Children vaccinated against measles in Jordan

No answer Access to education 19% Yes 16%

In total, 6,823 children between the ages of 6 and 17 were Yes reported as not being enrolled in school, with an almost 50/50 No gender split. 4,919 children were reported as having tried No answer school in Jordan and then dropped out, see Annex 8 for number of children who have dropped out and the reason why No 65% per BSU. With 13,627 household members reported as being between the ages of 5 and 17, approximately half of all school-aged Syrians in the Irbid Governorate were not Assistance received and self-perceived needs enrolled in school at the time of the assessment.

A partnership of:

45% of all respondents reported having received some kind of Sanitation 0.9% 3.6% 5.1% assistance by the time of assessment. By far the most Cash for rent 87.8% 7.6% 1.8% commonly received form of assistance was food aid, having Household items 1.2% 14.6% 38.6% been received by 68% of households in receipt of assistance. CFW/Job Placement 1.9% 5.3% 5.7% In addition a sizeable number of households reported receipt Health assistance 2.0% 6.6% 11.5% Winter support 5.2% 58.4% 28.6% of cash/vouchers and winter support, 13% and 7% Other 0.2% 0.7% 2.2% respectively.

Regarding the source of assistance received, the vast majority was perceived to be locally sourced, having been provided by either local charities or local people, 82% and 13% respectively. Only a very small proportion of households perceived that the aid they received was provided by either the humanitarian community or the Jordanian Government, representing 5% of the total.

Shelter Figure 16 - Assistance recieved 4% Other HH Items 3% 5% Winter Support Food Aid 7% Cash/Voucher Winter Support HH Items

Shelter

Other Cash/Vouch er Food Aid 13% 68%

When asked to identify their top three priority needs, 88% of REACH households that responded ranked cash for rent as their top priority, with winter support and household items ranking REACH was formed in 2010 as a joint initiative of two INGOs highly as secondary and tertiary needs. (ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives) and a UN program (UNOSAT). The purpose of REACH is to promote and The considerably low number of households reporting facilitate the development of information products that residency in low quality shelters, such as tents/temporary enhance the humanitarian community’s capacity to make shelters or unfinished buildings (see above), is reflected in the decisions and plan in emergency, reconstruction and priority needs identified by households, with only a very small development contexts. proportion selecting shelter as either a first, second, or third At country level, REACH teams are deployed to countries priority. experiencing emergencies or at-risk-of-crisis in order to facilitate interagency collection, organisation and As already mentioned the majority of households were able to dissemination of key humanitarian related information. rely on fairly regular water deliveries / shops / reservoirs and Country-level deployments are conducted within the have access to functioning latrine in their shelters. This is framework of partnerships with individual actors as well as aid reflected in the priority needs identified by households, with coordination bodies, including UN agencies, clusters, inter- only a very small number selecting water or sanitation as one cluster initiatives, and other interagency initiatives. of their top three priority needs. Table 17 – Ranking of top three priority needs

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Water 0.2% 1.4% 3.3% Shelter 0.4% 1.8% 3.2%

A partnership of: