GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX | JANUARY - MARCH 2015

Methodology Coverage

The Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) is an information During this period, 9,924 groups were assessed (397,608 management tool developed by the International Organi- households and 2,385,648 individuals), in 2,599 locations. zation for Migration (IOM) that gathers information on the During the selection process, larger groups were prioritized. numbers, location and conditions of displaced persons across This GA cycle assessed 80% of the total locations identified in . the reporting period. The DTM has four components: Master List (ML), Returnee Map 1 shows the geographic distribution/location of groups Mater List (RML), Group Assessment (GA), and Emergency identified throughout the reporting period by the Master Tracking (ET). List component of DTM. Blue dots indicate groups that were assessed by the GA and orange dots indicate those that were Rapid Assessment and Response Teams (RARTs) work across not. Iraq collecting data on groups of IDPs and returnees, either through a well-established network of more than 1,300 key The map shows that most of the groups that were not as- informants (for the ML, RML and ET), or through direct visits sessed ( those in Ninewa, , and Salah al-Din) are in ar- (for the GA).1 eas with limited or no access due to the security situation at the time of the assessment. Data presented in this report were collected through the GA methodology between January and March 2015 and corre- spond to GA cycle I. The GA is a comprehensive assessment carried out by the RARTs, on displaced groups identified through the ML (see Annex 1 for the data collection form). 2

Dahuk

Erbil Ninewa

Sulaymaniyah Kirkuk

Salah al-Din

Diyala

Baghdad

Anbar

Wassit Kerbala Babylon

Qadissiya Missan

Thi-Qar

Assessed locations Non-assessed locations Basrah Muthanna

Map 1: Coverage of GA Cycle I. Assessed and non-assessed locations.

1. A group of IDPs is defined as “a group of families sharing the same governorate of origin, the same wave of displacement, housed in the same type of shelter, displaced in the same location”. A group of returnees is defined as “a group of returnee families sharing the same wave of displacement, the same governorate of last displacement and housed in the same type of shelter, who returned to the former district of residence”. 2. The GA form collects the following information: Age and Sex Disaggregated Data (SADD), information on area of origin, time of displacement, primary needs, vulnerabilities, reasons for displacement, health access and conditions, and movement intentions (please refer to Annex 1 to view the GA form).

1 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Map 2 shows the level of access by district, as reported by Governorate of Assessed Existing Coverage RART teams based on their knowledge and observation on displacement locations locations the ground. The map clearly illustrates that districts with Central North 1,667 2,054 81% limited access are , , , and Tilkaf (Ninewa governorate), Shirkat, and (Salah al-Din Anbar 273 281 97% governorate), Muqdadiya (Dyala governorate) and Tarmia Babylon 287 302 95% (). Baghdad 435 559 78%

Diyala 187 199 94% Table 1 shows the number of locations assessed between Kerbala 174 177 98% January and March 2015 and the coverage by governorate of Kirkuk 44 103 43% displacement and region. It is not possible to give an estimate of the coverage in terms of number of families in each loca- Ninewa 47 131 36% tion as these figures change rapidly with respect to the base- Salah al-Din 27 104 26% line. Estimates refer to coverage of the assessed locations Wassit 193 198 97% without taking into consideration the number of families. KRI 297 438 68% 89 105 85%

Sulaymaniyah 125 249 50%

Dahuk 83 84 99%

Zakho DahukAmedi South 635 683 93% Dahuk Mergasur Sumel Soran Basrah 193 219 88% Telafar Shikhan Choman Tilkaif Missan 113 118 96% Sinjar Hamdaniya Rania Pshdar Erbil Muthanna 14 16 88% Mosul Erbil Ninewa Koisnjaq Dokan Najaf 88 104 85% Makhmur Penjwin Ba'aj Dabes Sulaymaniyah Hatra Shirqat Kirkuk Sulaymaniya Thi-Qar 78 81 96% Kirkuk Hawiga Darbandihkan Qadissiya3 149 145 103%

Baiji Kalar Tooz Ru'ua Tikrit Total 2599 3175 82% Salah al-DinDaur Table 1: Number of locations assessed through GA Cycle I and Ka'im coverage by governorate and region of displacement. Thethar Khalis Ana Balad Diyala Muqdadiya Heet Fares Tarmia Ba'quba Baladrooz Adhamia Thawra2 Kadhimia Thawra1 Abu Ghraib Baghdad Mada'in Falluja Mahmoudiya Anbar Azezia Badra

Suwaira Musayab Rutba Mahawil Wassit Kerbala Ain Al-TamurKerbala HindiyaBabylon Ali Al-Gharbi Hilla Hashimiya Na'maniya Accessibility level Hai Diwaniya Afaq Amara Manathera Easy access Qadissiya Missan Shamiya Rifa'i Kahla Hamza Rumaitha Maimouna Shatra Qal'at Saleh Mejar Al-Kabi Samawa Khidhir Thi-Qar Najaf Midaina Limited access Najaf Nassriya Qurna Suq Al-Shoyokh Chibayish Shatt Al-Arab Basrah

Basrah Abu Al-Khaseeb Zubair No access Muthanna Fao Salman No locations/no data

Map 2: Security level (access) by district.

3. The number of locations in Qadissiya governorate increased during the period of observation. Therefore, the number of assessed locations is higher than the initial number of locations.

2 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

The report is articulated as follows

1. Geographic analysis: this chapter describes the location and size of the IDP population and the burden of displacement (namely the ratio of IDPs to resident population). Data are provided on a governorate and re- gional level.4 2. Demographic profile: this chapter presents demographic indicators such as age and sex distribution, child and elderly dependency ratios. 3. Displacement history: this chapter provides information on the displacement period, the location of dis- placement and governorate of origin. In addition to the information normally provided by the DTM biweekly report, the reason for displacement is also investigated. 4. Current conditions: this chapter explores the current conditions of the displaced population, assessing ac- cess to health, safety and security, duration of displacement and vulnerability.5 5. Future intentions: this chapter shows future prospects and intentions. The analysis attempts to assess the relation between intentions, current conditions in the place of displacement, and the conditions in the area of origin.

Partial data have already been reported in the biweekly DTM reports, published from January to March, and are also published on the DTM website.

4. To facilitate analysis, this report divides Iraq in three regions: the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) includes the Dahuk, Sulaymaniyah and Erbil governorates; the South includes the Basrah, Missan, Najaf, Thi Qar, Qadissiya and Muthana governorates; Central North includes the Anbar, Babylon, Baghdad, Diyala, Kerbala, Kirkuk, Ninewa, Salah al-Din and Wassit governorates. 5. The vulnerability index was calculated on the basis of multiple risk factors to create a composite score. The index adds identified risks such as the shelter type, the dependency and sex ratio, the feeling of safety and security and access to health; it then attributes a vulnerability score to each group (See Annex 2 for a detailed description of the methodology).

3 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

1. Geographic location of IDPs and burden of displacement

This section describes the location and numbers of IDPs. A total number of 397,608 families (2,385,648 individuals) have been assessed across 2,518 locations (Table 2); 62% of these families live in the Central North governorates and only 5% in the South.

Region Number of IDP households Number of IDP individuals Percentage

Central North 247,325 1,483,950 62.2%

KRI 128,908 773,448 32.4%

South 21,375 128,250 5.4% Total 397,608 2,385,648 100%

Table 2: Distribution of IDP families and individuals by region.

Map 3 shows the concentration of assessed IDPs across the country with a colour gradient. The assessed groups appear census estimate for Iraq in 2014. as dots. The map clearly shows that the highest concentra- In four districts, the number of IDPs exceeds the number of tion of IDPs is along the northern part of Anbar, in the Kurd- the resident population. These districts are Sumel, Rutba, istan Region of Iraq and in the central governorates of Dyala, Shikhan and Akre. Overall, Dahuk is the governorate with Salah al-Din, Baghdad, Babylon, and Kerbala. the highest ratio, with 51 IDPs per 100 residents. Map 4 shows the burden of displacement with dots, calcu- lated as the number of IDPs over the resident population. Darker dots represent higher ratios of IDPs to resident pop- ulation. The resident population is derived from the inter-

Dahuk Dahuk

Erbil Erbil Ninewa Ninewa

Sulaymaniyah Sulaymaniyah Kirkuk Kirkuk

Salah al-Din Salah al-Din

Diyala Diyala

Baghdad Anbar Baghdad Anbar

Wassit Wassit Kerbala Babylon Kerbala Babylon

Qadissiya Missan Qadissiya Missan

Thi-Qar Thi-Qar Najaf Resident population density Najaf

IDP concentration Basrah High Low Basrah Muthanna Muthanna High IDP to resident population ratio 0.00 0.01 - 0.02 Low 0.03 - 0.09 Assessed locations 0.10 - 0.24 0.25 - 1.89

Maps 3 and 4: IDP population density (individuals per area unit) and burden of displacement by district.

South Iraq has the lowest ratio of IDPs to resident population, or less than 2 IDPs per 100 residents.

4 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

2. Demographic profile of IDPs

This section describes the demographic profile of the displaced population assessed from January to March 2015. Data on age distribution is grouped in five age categories (0–5; 6–14; 15–24; 25–59; 60 and above) from a sample of families in each group. Data are disaggregated by single years, aggregated again into five-year age groups, and presented in the population pyramids. Dependency ratios are also calculated: these indicate how many dependant members (whether children, elders or both) one adult supports.

2.1 Sex and Age Disaggregated Data (SADD) The sex ratio of the Iraqi population is 0.97 or 0.98, that is, 97 or 98 women per 100 men, respectively according to the UN Total Population Division and to the CIA World 2015 Factbook. Sex ratios indicate the ratio between females and males (that is, the number of females for every 100 males). DTM figures show a ratio of 1.06, indicating that there are slightly more %49 %51 women among IDPs compared to the resident population (Figure 1). However, there are differences across the coun- try: Central North has the highest ratio (1.13), notably in the governorate of Kerbala (1.33), and the KRI the lowest (0.95). Muthanna and Dahuk are the governorates with the lowest ratio of women to men (0.92).

Central North South %53 %47 %50 %50

KRI

%51 %49

Figure 2: Males and females percentages by region.

Figure 3 shows age pyramids for the three regions and for the entire country. Age pyramids represent the absolute number of people in five-year age groups, separately by sex. As to age distribution, the child population (population under the age of 15) corresponds to 36% of the assessed IDPs, with 18% 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 of boys and girls each. This figure is remarkably close to the Iraqi Population 0.98 percentage of children under 15 in the general population (36.7%).6 The under-five IDP population is 21%, and women Total IDP ratio 1.06 in reproductive age (between 15 and 45) are 21%. Finally, the Figure 1: Sex ratio of IDPs population and Iraqi population. population over the age of 60 accounts for 8% of the IDPs. The general population has a much lower percentage of el- Overall, the IDPs sex distribution represented in Figure 2 derly (2.3%) .7 does not show remarkable differences across the South and KRI regions, whereas the Central North shows again a higher percentage of females (53%).

6. http://www.indexmundi.com/iraq/demographics_profile.html consulted on 15 August 2015 7. Note that in the general population, elderly means above 65 years, whereas the DTM uses 60 or above, which partly explains the higher percentage of elderly IDPs compared to the overall population. According to the World Bank, life expectancy at birth in Iraq is 69 years (2013 data). 5 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Central North Child dependency in the population, as reported by the two >=60 sources in 2015, is 80.6 and 69.3 respectively. It is lower 55-59 50-54 among IDPs (65 children under the age of 15 for every 100 45-49 working adults) suggesting that there are fewer children 40-44 35-39 among IDPs compared to the resident population. 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 Governorate of Child Elderly Dependency 5-9 displacement dependency ratio dependency ratio ratio 0-4 Anbar 0.40 0.10 0.51

100,000 50,000 0 50,000 100,000 Babylon 0.79 0.11 0.90

South Baghdad 0.66 0.22 0.88 >=60 Diyala 0.59 0.13 0.72 55-59 50-54 Kerbala 1.58 0.21 1.78 45-49 40-44 Kirkuk 0.66 0.18 0.84 35-39 30-34 Ninewa 0.70 0.11 0.81 25-29 20-24 Salah al-Din 0.73 0.12 0.85 15-19 10-14 Wassit 0.70 0.17 0.87 5-9 0-4 Central North 0.61 0.15 0.76 Erbil 0.79 0.30 1.10 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 Dahuk 0.66 0.09 0.75 KRI Sulaymaniyah 0.72 0.07 0.79 >=60 55-59 KRI 0.70 0.15 0.84 50-54 45-49 Basrah 0.74 0.06 0.81 40-44 Missan 0.86 0.07 0.92 35-39 30-34 Muthanna 0.81 0.06 0.87 25-29 20-24 Najaf 0.76 0.23 0.99 15-19 Qadissiya 0.69 0.17 0.86 10-14 5-9 Thi-Qar 0.66 0.10 0.76 0-4 South 0.75 0.19 0.93 10,000 5,000 0 5,000 10,000 Total (IDPs) 0.65 0.15 0.80 Total Total (Iraqi population 0.81 0.06 0.87 >=60 - UN 2015) 55-59 Total 50-54 (Iraqi population 0.69 0.06 0.75 45-49 - CIA 2015) 40-44 35-39 Table 3: Child, elderly and total dependency ratios, IDPs and Iraqi 30-34 25-29 population. 20-24 15-19 10-14 Overall, the elderly dependency ratio is high (0.15) compared 5-9 to the estimates of the UN Population Division and the CIA 0-4 World Factbook on the Iraqi population (both around 0.06). 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 The three regions do not present major differences in terms Figure 3: IDPs population sex and age pyramids by region. of elderly dependency ratio. Child dependency values show a higher number of children per adult in the Southern governorates (0.75) compared to 2.2 Dependency ratios KRI (0.70) and especially to Central North (0.61). Dependency ratios describe how many dependants (children, Governorates with the highest ratios of children to adults elders, or both) each working adult supports.8 are Kerbala (158 children for every 100 adults) Missan and Muthanna (respectively 86 and 81 children for 100 adults). The UN Population Division estimates that the overall de- pendency ratio in Iraq is 0.87, whereas according to the CIA World Factbook it is 0.75. The IDP population shows a ratio of 0.80, an average between the two.

8. Age dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (people younger than 15 or older than 64) to the working-age population- (15–64 years-old). Data are shown as the proportion of dependents per 100 working-age population (The World Bank).

6 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Map 5 shows the child dependency ratio by Dahuk district, that is, the proportion of IDP chil- dren under 14 in relation to the adult IDP population (15–59 years old). Higher num- Erbil bers indicate more children per adult and are Ninewa classified into quintiles with an increasingly dark colour. Sulaymaniyah Kirkuk The districts with the highest dependency ratios are Al-Hindiya, Kerbala and Ain Al- Tamur (all in Kerbala governorate), Pshdar in and Al-Midaina Salah al-Din in Basrah governorate. Diyala

Anbar Baghdad

Wassit Kerbala Babylon

Qadissiya Missan Child dependency

ratio Thi-Qar Najaf 0.39 - 0.62 0.63 - 0.70 0.71 - 0.79 Basrah Muthanna 0.80 - 0.89 0.90 - 1.86

Map 5: Child dependency ratio by district.

Map 6 shows the ratio of females to males Dahuk within the IDP population. The Sex ratio in- dicates how many females there are per 100 men, calculated as the number of women Erbil over the number of men: 1 indicates equal Ninewa numbers of women and men, and higher numbers indicate more women than men. Sulaymaniyah Kirkuk The districts with the highest sex depend- ency ratios are Al-Maimouna, Al-Hindiya, Al- Rifa’i, Ain Al-Tamur, and Nassriya. Salah al-Din

Diyala

Anbar Baghdad

Wassit Kerbala Babylon

Qadissiya Missan Sex ratio (females/males) Thi-Qar Najaf 0.87 - 1.00 1.01 - 1.06 1.07 - 1.16 Basrah Muthanna 1.17 - 1.26 1.27 - 1.77

Map 6: Sex dependency ratio by district.

7 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

3. Displacement history

3.1 Reason for displacement Reason for displacement

Governorate of Generalised Other Personal Generalized violence is the main reason people fled their Total displacement violence reasons threats homes according to 94% of the IDPs across Iraq, while others fled because of threats against themselves or a family mem- Anbar 64,443 0 12 64,455 ber (6%). Other reasons include lack of access to basic needs 99.98% 0% 0.02% and economic motives. Babylon 8,282 0 14 8,296 99.83% 0% 0.17% 0.2% Households: 373,001 Baghdad 46,238 0 1,021 47,259 Missing IDPs: 2,238,006 97.84% 0% 2.16%

6% Households: 23,767 Diyala 23,718 0 0 23,718 Personal IDPs: 142,602 100% 0% 0% threats REASON FOR Kerbala 11,940 64 6 12,010 DISPLACEMENT 93.8% Households: 23,767 99.42% 0.53% 0.05% Generalised IDPs: 142,602 violence Kirkuk 52,189 107 60 52,356 0.0% Households: 171 99.68% 0.2% 0.11% Other IDPs: 1,026 Ninewa 18,637 0 4,036 22,673 82.2% 0% 17.8% Figure 4: Reason for displacement. Salah al-Din 10,964 0 246 11,210 97.81% 0% 2.19% Wassit 4,734 0 17 4,751 3.2 Reason for displacement by 99.64% 0% 0.36% Central North 241,145 171 5,412 246,728 governorate of displacement and 97.74% 0.07% 2.19% governorate of origin Erbil 27,845 0 7,273 35,118 79.29% 0% 20.71% This section discusses the reasons for displacement according Dahuk 65,877 0 10,285 76,162 to the current location of IDPs. 86.5% 0% 13.5% In 15 of 18 governorates, over 90% of IDPs report that generalized Sulaymaniyah 17,547 0 42 17,589 violence as a main reason for displacement (Figure 4 and Table 4). 99.76% 0% 0.24% Overall, there is only minor variability across governorates KRI 111,269 0 17,600 128,869 and districts; however, IDPs in are those 86.34% 0% 13.66% who report fleeing due to personal threats the most (20.7%), Basrah 1,531 0 102 1,633 followed by Ninewa and Dahuk (17.8% and 13.5% respec- 93.75% 0% 6.25% tively). A possible explanation might be the ethno-religious Missan 1,202 0 19 1,221 composition of the IDPs who live in Erbil and Dahuk, the 98.44% 0% 1.56% presence of Christians who fled the eastern part of Ninewa Muthanna 132 0 0 132 in June and July, or the presence of Yazidis who fled the Sin- jar crisis in August (Table 6). 100% 0% 0% Najaf 13,180 0 508 13,688 Other governorates show negligible numbers of people fleeing 96.29% 0% 3.71% due to personal threats (see Map 7). The KRI shows the lowest Qadissiya 3,232 0 79 3,311 percentage of people who fled due to generalized violence. 97.61% 0% 2.39% Almost 100% of the IDPs who fled Anbar, Basrah, Dyala, Thi-Qar 1,310 0 47 1,357 and Kirkuk report generalized violence as the main reason 96.54% 0% 3.46% for fleeing (Table 5). However, personal threats appear to South 20,587 0 755 21,342 be a relevant factor for IDPs from other areas. IDPs report- 96.46% 0% 3.54% ing personal threats as their main reason for displacement are mostly from Babylon (7%), Baghdad (6%) and Salah al- Total 373,001 171 23,767 396,939 Din, (7%). It is worth noting that the percentage of IDPs from 93.97% 0.04% 5.99% 100.00% Ninewa and Erbil who report personal threats as a reason for displacement is remarkably high, 25% and 10% respectively. Table 4: Reason for displacement by governorate and regions of This can be attributed to the Sinjar and Mosul crises, as men- displacement. tioned in the analysis of the reasons for displacement in rela- tion to the governorates of displacement.

8 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Reason for displacement 3.3 Reason for displacement by Governorate of Generalised Other Personal Total origin violence reasons threats period of displacement

Anbar 121,697 58 1,827 123,582 98.47% 0.05 % 1.48 % This section describes the relation between the reasons for Babylon 4,168 6 328 4,502 displacement and the period of displacement (Table 6). IDPs 92.58 % 0.13 % 7.29 % displaced before the clashes started in Anbar in June 2014 Baghdad 7,443 107 462 8,012 reported generalized violence as main reason for displace- 92.9 % 1.34 % 5.77 % ment (98%). A similar situation has been reported among Basrah 10 0 0 10 IDPs who were displaced when hostilities affected Mosul be- 100 % 0 % 0 % tween June and July 2014 (96%), and among those displaced Diyala 36,933 0 122 37,055 after September 2014 (98%). 99.67 % 0 % 0.33 % Erbil 4,955 0 1,660 6,615 It is worth pointing out that among the IDPs displaced during Au- 74.91 % 0 % 25.09 % gust 2014 when the conflict affected mainly Sinjar in Ninewa governorate, a higher percentage of IDPs from this district Kirkuk 8,831 0 77 8,908 (12%), reported personal threats among the main reasons 99.14 % 0 % 0.86 % for displacement. Ninewa 143,070 0 15,892 158,962 90 % 0 % 10 % Reason for displacement Salah al-Din 45,894 0 3,399 49,293 Period of Generalised Other Personal Total 93.1 % 0 % 6.9 % displacement violence reasons threats Total 373,001 171 23,767 396,939 Pre-Jun 14 90,649 165 1,377 92,191

93.97 % 0.04 % 5.99 % 100.00% 98.33% 0.18% 1.49% Jun-Jul 14 92,585 0 3,918 96,503 Table 5: Reason for displacement by governorate of origin. 95.94% 0% 4.06% Aug 14 122,401 6 17,069 139,476 87.76% 0% 12.24% Post Sep 14 67,366 0 1,403 68,769 Dahuk 97.96% 0% 2.04% Total 373,001 171 23,767 396,939

93.97% 0.04% 5.99% 100.00% Erbil Ninewa Table 6: Reason for displacement by period of displacement.

Sulaymaniyah Map 7 shows displacement routes of IDPs who fled as a Kirkuk result of direct threats. Shaded districts show the IDPs’ districts of origin, whereas their governorates of des- tination are indicated with directional arrows. Precise locations of IDPs are marked with stars. Salah al-Din The largest numbers of IDPs who have fled due to direct threats are from Sinjar, Telafar, Mosul,District Al-Hamdaniya of origin Diyala (all in Ninewa governorate) and Falluja inFalluja Anbar gov- ernorate. IDPs who have fled due to directHamdaniya threats cur- rently mostly reside in district (DahukKirkuk governo- Baghdad rate), ()Mosul and . Samarra* Sinjar Wassit Telafar Kerbala Babylon Anbar Tikrit Tilkaif

Qadissiya Missan

District of origin

Thi-Qar Falluja Najaf Hamdaniya IDPs fled due to direct threat Kirkuk Number of IDP families Mosul < 1,250 Basrah Samarra* 1,251 - 2,500 Muthanna Sinjar Telafar 2,501 - 3,750 Tikrit 3,751 - 5,000 Tilkaif > 5,001

*The IDPs originated from end- ed up within the same district so the flow lines Map 7: Direct threat by district of origin. are not diplayed to show their movement path.

IDPs fled due 9 to direct threat Number of IDP families

< 1,250 1,251 - 2,500 2,501 - 3,750 3,751 - 5,000 > 5,001 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

4. Current conditions

According to the assessment, the most widespread diseases 4.1 Health (data not shown) are chronic illnesses (33%), colds (33%), Across all 18 governorates, 11% of assessed IDPs report they cough (17%) and diarrhoea (6%). Muthanna is the only gov- have no access to health care. ernorate where psychological problems (12%) have been re- ported among health issues. The situation varies greatly from one region to another, as described in Table 7. In Central North Iraq, 16% of IDPs re- 4.2. Safety and security port they have no access to health care, whereas 5% in the The majority of the assessed IDPs (83%) report they feel safe KRI and less than 2% in the South report the same. Specifi- in their current location of displacement, with some variation cally, the highest percentage of IDPs reporting that they have across governorates (Table 8). no access to health services is found in the governorates of Almost all IDPs displaced in the KRI (99%) and in the South Anbar (28%), Babylon (15%), Diyala (14%), Kirkuk (26%), (100%) report they feel safe in their current location. Salah al-Din (17%) and Erbil (15%).

Access to health Feeling of safety Governorate of Governorate of No Yes Unknown Total No Yes Unknown Total displacement displacement Anbar 17,828 45,659 988 64,475 Anbar 48,663 15,414 398 64,475 27.65% 70.82% 1.53% 75.48% 23.91% 0.62% Babylon 1,225 7,029 46 8,300 Babylon 17 8,268 15 8,300 14.76% 84.69% 0.55% 0.2% 99.61% 0.18% Baghdad 494 46,708 75 47,277 Baghdad 226 45,591 1,460 47,277 1.04% 98.8% 0.16% 0.48% 96.43% 3.09% Diyala 3,313 20,127 308 23,748 Diyala 0 22,728 1,020 23,748 13.95% 84.75% 1.3% 0% 95.7% 4.3% Kerbala 432 11,301 277 12,010 Kerbala 15 11,838 157 12,010 3.6% 94.1% 2.31% 0.12% 98.57% 1.31% Kirkuk 13,527 39,049 0 52,576 Kirkuk 6,468 46,108 0 52,576 25.73% 74.27% 0% 12.3% 87.7% 0% Ninewa 568 22,395 0 22,963 Ninewa 0 22,963 0 22,963 2.47% 97.53% 0% 0% 100% 0% Salah al-Din 1,874 9,215 121 11,210 Salah al-Din 7,136 4,074 0 11,210 16.72% 82.2% 1.08% 63.66% 36.34% 0% Wassit 329 4,393 44 4,766 Wassit 35 4,731 0 4,766 6.9% 92.17% 0.92% 0.73% 99.27% 0% Central North 39,590 205,876 1,859 247,325 Central North 62,560 181,715 3,050 247,325 16.01% 83.24% 0.75% 25.29% 73.47% 1.23% Erbil 5,391 28,243 1,484 35,118 Erbil 490 34,247 381 35,118 15.35% 80.42% 4.23% 1.4% 97.52% 1.08% Dahuk 946 72541 2675 76,162 Dahuk 0 76,060 102 76,162 1.24% 95.25% 3.51% 0% 99.87% 0.13% Sulaymaniyah 618 16,862 148 17,628 Sulaymaniyah 40 17,506 82 17,628 3.51% 95.65% 0.84% 0.23% 99.31% 0.47% KRI 6,955 117,646 4,307 128,908 KRI 530 127,813 565 128,908 5.4% 91.26% 3.34% 0.41% 99.15% 0.44% Basrah 12 1,641 0 1,653 Basrah 6 1,647 0 1,653 0.73% 99.27% 0% 0.36% 99.64% 0% Missan 45 1,173 3 1,221 Missan 7 1,213 1 1,221 3.69% 96.07% 0.25% 0.57% 99.34% 0.08% Muthanna 1 131 0 132 Muthanna 0 132 0 132 0.76% 99.24% 0% 0% 100% 0% Najaf 241 13,447 0 13,688 Najaf 7 13,675 6 13,688 1.76% 98.24% 0% 0.05% 99.91% 0.04% Qadissiya 100 3,223 1 3,324 Qadissiya 3 3,320 1 3,324 3.01% 96.96% 0.03% 0.09% 99.88% 0.03% Thi-Qar 5 1,306 46 1,357 Thi-Qar 5 1,351 1 1,357 0.37% 96.24% 3.39% 0.37% 99.56% 0.07% South 404 20,921 50 21,375 South 28 21,338 9 21,375 1.89% 97.88% 0.23% 0.13% 99.83% 0.04% Total 46,949 344,443 6,216 397,608 Total 63,118 330,866 3,624 397,608 11.81% 86.63% 1.56% 100.00% 16% 83% 1% 100%

Table 7: Access to health by governorate and region of displacement. Table 8: Feeling of safety and security by governorate and region of displacement. 10 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

On the other hand, 25% of IDPs displaced in Central North IDP groups with the highest Combined Vulnerability Score Iraq report they do not feel safe. are found primarily in Falluja, Heet and Haditha districts (all These percentages are particularly high in the governorates in Anbar governorate), Al-Mahawil district (Babylon gover- of Anbar, Salah al-Din and Kirkuk, where 75%, 64% and 12% norate), (Kerbala governorate), respectively report they feel unsafe in their location of dis- (Wassit governorate) and . The districts with placement. very high Combined Vulnerability Score and large IDP num- bers are Kerbala, Ramadi, Falluja and Heet. According to the collected data, shelter type does not seem to influence the feeling of safety. IDPs living in critical shel- Districts with very high Combined Vulnerability Score, but ter arrangements do not report feeling less safe compared to with fewer IDPs include Pshdar (Sulaymaniyah governorate), those who live in other shelter categories . The district and Al-Hindiya and Ain Al-Tamur (Kerbala governorate). governorate of displacement seem to be a determining fac- tor in shaping the perceived sense of security of the displaced population. 4.4 Vulnerability index Map 9 shows the according to the level of 4.3 Duration of displacement vulnerability of IDPs, as defined by the vulnerability - com posite score. The composite score is calculated by adding DTM collects data on people displaced since 2014; therefore the individual scores of seven different factors, namely child the duration of displacement at the time of the assessment dependency and elderly dependency ratios, female/male ra- ranged from 15 months to a few days. tio, shelter type, feeling of safety and security, repeated dis- Map 8 shows the location of IDPs by duration of displace- placement and access to health (See Annex 2 for a detailed ment, with the red dots indicating IDPs who have been dis- description of the methodology). placed for more than 10 months, whether in the same loca- tion or not. Green dots show IPDs who have been displaced for less than 6 months. The map shows that IDPs that have Dahuk been displaced the longest are mostly in Anbar, Baghdad and parts of the KRI. Erbil Ninewa

Sulaymaniyah Dahuk Kirkuk

Erbil Salah al-Din Ninewa Diyala Sulaymaniyah Kirkuk Baghdad Anbar

Salah al-Din Wassit Kerbala Babylon Diyala Qadissiya Missan Baghdad Anbar Najaf Thi-Qar Wassit Kerbala Babylon Combined IDP Vulnerability Score

High Basrah Muthanna Qadissiya Missan Low

Najaf Thi-Qar Locations with highest vulnerability

Basrah Map 9: Vulnerability score by district. Duration of displacement Muthanna >10 Months 7-10 Months 0-6 Months Map 8: Duration of displacement by group.

Overall, several factors affect the current conditions of IDPs. Governorate of displacement, shelter type, socio-de- mographic conditions such as the presence of children and/ or elders, access to health and to a safe environment, and repeated displacement, all contribute to the vulnerability of displaced people.

11 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

5. Future intentions

The majority of assessed IPDs (89%) expressed their intention of returning to their place of origin. The question does not ask IDPs about a specific timeframe. Only 8% prefer to wait to decide and 3% are willing to integrate locally. 5.1 Intention by governorate of sent a very high percentage of IDPs willing to integrate lo- cally (69% and 54% respectively). origin The governorates of displacement presenting the highest Intentions percentages of IDPs willing to return to their place of origin are Anbar, Babylon, Baghdad, Diyala, Kirkuk, and Ninewa. At Governorate of Local Go to a Waiting to Return Total origin integration third place decide the same time, the percentage of IDPs willing to relocate to a third place is negligible. Anbar 307 116,435 156 2,527 119,425 0.26% 97.5% 0.13% 2.12% Babylon 37 4,272 3 88 4,400 Intentions Governorate of 0.84% 97.09% 0.07% 2% Local Go to a Waiting displacement Return Total Baghdad 73 7,343 0 321 7,737 integration third place to decide

0.94% 94.91% 0% 4.15% Anbar 0 62,393 152 4 62,549 Basrah 0 1 0 9 10 0% 99.75% 0.24% 0.01% 0% 10% 0% 90% Babylon 46 8,205 2 0 8,253 Diyala 170 35,232 12 1,072 36,486 0.56% 99.42% 0.02% 0% 0.47% 96.56% 0.03% 2.94% Baghdad 0 46,740 109 95 46,944 Erbil 0 5,215 0 940 6,155 0% 99.57% 0.23% 0.2% 0% 84.73% 0% 15.27% Diyala 83 23,321 0 189 23,593 Kirkuk 172 7,773 4 921 8,870 0.35% 98.85% 0% 0.8% 1.94% 87.63% 0.05% 10.38% Kerbala 8,232 3,248 5 500 11,985 Ninewa 9,236 124,142 701 21,720 155,799 68.69% 27.1% 0.04% 4.17% 5.93% 79.68% 0.45% 13.94% Kirkuk 0 51,934 0 642 52,576 Salah al-Din 123 43,827 376 3,250 47,576 0% 98.78% 0% 1.22% 0.26% 92.12% 0.79% 6.83% Ninewa 52 21,393 375 253 22,073 Total 10,118 344,240 1,252 30,848 386,458 0.24% 96.92% 1.7% 1.15% Table 9: Intention by governorate of origin. Salah al-Din 0 9,117 2 2,091 11,210 0% 81.33% 0.02% 18.65% Table 9 shows the various intentions of IDPs according to Wassit 10 2,631 58 1,001 3,700 their governorate of origin. Ninewa, Erbil and Kirkuk present 0.27% 71.11% 1.57% 27.05% the lowest percentage of IDPs intending to return (80%, 85% Central North 8,423 228,982 703 4,775 242,883 and 88% respectively) and the highest percentage of IDPs who are waiting to make a decision (14%, 15% and 10% re- 3.47% 94.28% 0.29% 1.97% spectively). Around 6% of IDPs originally from Ninewa want Erbil 487 59,552 178 14,619 74,836 to integrate locally. According to the latest DTM report (Au- 0.65% 79.58% 0.24% 19.53% gust 2015) 19% of the IDPs displaced in Ninewa are originally Dahuk 0 28,285 250 3,684 32,219 from the same governorate. 0% 87.79% 0.78% 11.43% Sulaymaniyah 8 12,016 0 3,159 15,183 5.2 Intention by governorate of 0.05% 79.14% 0% 20.81% KRI 495 99,853 428 21,462 122,238 displacement 0.4% 81.69% 0.35% 17.56% Basrah 409 120 10 1,086 1,625 Table 10 shows future intentions by governorate of displace- 25.17% 7.38% 0.62% 66.83% ment. There are great differences among the three regions. Missan 54 1,039 5 123 1,221 In Central North Iraq, 94% of IDPs report they intend to re- 4.42% 85.09% 0.41% 10.07% turn to their place of origin, with 3% willing to integrate local- Muthanna 67 57 0 0 124 ly and 2% waiting to decide. In the KRI, 82% of IDPs are will- 54.03% 45.97% 0% 0% ing to return and approximately 18% are waiting to decide. Najaf 552 10,186 98 2,852 13,688 Finally, in South Iraq, 72% of IDPs intend to return to their 4.03% 74.42% 0.72% 20.84% place of origin, 22% are waiting to decide and 6% are willing Qadissiya 65 2,787 3 469 3,324 to integrate locally. Specifically, Kerbala and Muthanna gov- 1.96% 83.84% 0.09% 14.11% ernorates present a very high percentage of IDPs willing to Thi-Qar 53 1,216 5 81 1,355 integrate locally (69% and 54% respectively). 3.91% 89.74% 0.37% 5.98% The governorates of displacement that present the highest South 1,200 15,405 121 4,611 21,337 percentages of IDPs willing to return to their place of origin 5.62% 72.2% 0.57% 21.61% are Anbar, Babylon, Baghdad, Diyala, Kirkuk and Ninewa, Total 10,118 344,240 1,252 30,848 386,458 while the percentage of IDPs willing to relocate to a third 3% 89% 0% 8% 100% place is negligible. Table 10: Intentions by governorate and region of displacement. More specifically, Kerbala and Muthanna governorates pre- 12 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Summary by region: Central North

Dahuk

Erbil Ninewa

Sulaymaniyah Kirkuk Central North

Salah al-Din

Diyala

Baghdad Anbar Wassit Kerbala Babylon

Qadissiya Missan

Najaf Thi-Qar

Basrah Muthanna

Central North Iraq hosts 62% of IDPs, (1,483,950 individu- Overall in the Central North, only 4% of IDPs have experi- als) (Table 1). enced secondary displacement (meaning that they have been previously displaced in another location); this percent- The proportion of females to males is slightly different from age increases to 26% and 13% in the governorates of Diyala the total assessed IDP population, with women in Central and Kerbala respectively. North Iraq representing 53% of the assessed population in the region (Figure 2). The sex ratio (1.13) is also higher than The majority of IDPs (83%) report they have access to health among IDPs (1.06) and the general population across the services (against 87% among IDPs nationally). In the gov- whole country (0.98), (Map 6). ernorates of Anbar and Kirkuk, heavily affected by armed clashes, 28% and 26% of the IDP population report they do Children under the age of 15 represent 35% of the IDPs in have access to health services. It is worth highlighting that Central North Iraq, (16% boys and 19% girls), while at the 84% of IDPs (nationally) who report they do not have access national level the proportion among IDPs is even, around to health care are displaced in this region (Table 7). 18% each (36% of the total IDP population). Women in their reproductive age, (between 15 and 45), are 22% of the popu- Only 73% of IDPs report feeling safe in their location of dis- lation (21% nationally). IDPs over the age of 60 represent placement, against 83% nationally. High values have been 8% of the population, with a predominance of females (5% of registered in Anbar and Kirkuk governorates, where 75% the elderly IDP population in Central North Iraq, against 3% and 64% of IDPs report feeling unsafe (Table 8). males). (Figure 3). In regard to future intentions (Table 9), most IDPs are willing The overall dependency ratio in Central North Iraq is 0.76, a to return to their location of origin (94%). This percentage figure lower than the 0.80 registered among IDPs at the na- is higher than the one recorded nation-wide (89%). Further- tional level. Child and elderly dependency ratios show that more, 3% of IDPs are willing to integrate locally (the same as there are approximately 61 children per adult and about 15 nationally), while only 2% expressed the intention to wait to elderly per adult; these figures are also lower than the na- decide (against 8% nationally). tional values. The majority of IDPs displaced in Central North Iraq report generalized violence as the main reason for displacement (98%), while only 2% report personal threats (Table 4).

13 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Summary by region: Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI)

KRI

Dahuk

Erbil Ninewa

Sulaymaniyah Kirkuk

Salah al-Din

Diyala

Baghdad Anbar Wassit Kerbala Babylon

Qadissiya Missan

Najaf Thi-Qar

Basrah Muthanna

The Kurdistan Region of Iraq hosts 32% of the identified IDP Almost all IDPs in KRI report feeling safe (99%), just as in the population (773,448 individuals), (Table 1). South (Table 8). The proportion of females to males is inverted in compari- Furthermore, 96% of IDPs did not experience secondary dis- son to IDPs on a national scale, with fewer women than men placement. (49%). The sex ratio shows that there are 95 women per 100 men, which is the lowest among the three regions (Figure 2). As for health services, 91% of IDPs report access, against 87% nationally (Table 7) The population under the age of 15 is 38% of the total IDP population in KRI (20% boys and 18% girls), which is higher In regard to the future intentions (Table 9), only 82% of IDPs than the 36% recorded nationally. The percentage of women are willing to return to their location of origin and 18% are in their reproductive age (between 15 and 45) is 20% of the waiting to decide, while no one is willing to integrate locally. population, similar to the national IDP population figure of 21%. The elderly population over the age of 60 is 8% of the IDP population, approximately 4% male and 4% female (Fig- ure 3). The overall dependency ratio for KRI shows that there are 84 dependants per 100 adults supporting them, slightly higher than the national value. This is mainly attributable to the high child dependency ratio (0.70 against the national figure of 0.65). The elderly dependency ratio is not different from the one registered among IDPs in the whole country (0.15), (Table 3). The KRI presents a higher percentage of IDPs who report personal threats as the main reason for displacement (14%) compared to other regions. On a national level, only 6% of the total IDP population report personal threats as a reason for displacement. On the other hand, 74% of IDPs who re- port personal threats are displaced in KRI. This is shown in detail in figure 3, table 4 and table 5.

14 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Summary by region: South

Dahuk

Erbil Ninewa

Sulaymaniyah Kirkuk

Salah al-Din

Diyala

Baghdad South Anbar Wassit Kerbala Babylon

Qadissiya Missan

Najaf Thi-Qar

Basrah Muthanna

South Iraq hosts 5% of the total IDP population (128,250 in- About 18% of IDPs report having experienced a secondary dividuals), (Table 1). displacement. This percentage is particularly high, as the na- tional figure is 4%. Of the total IDP population in Iraqreport- The population’s sex ratio is even (50% males and 50% fe- ing secondary displacement, 25% are displaced in South Iraq. males). The sex ratio is lower than the one recorded country wide, 0.98 instead of 1.06. This figure is close to those of the In relation to health access, less than 2% of IDPs report hav- UN Population Division (0.97) and the CIA World Factbook ing no access to health, against 12% nationally (See Table 7). (0.98) for the overall Iraqi population (Table 3). Furthermore, almost all IDPs (slightly less than 100%) report The population under the age of 15 represents 39% of the feeling safe in their current location of displacement (Table total population (20% boys and 19% girls), which is higher 8). than the IDP national figure of 36%. Women in reproductive The percentage of IDPs willing to integrate locally is 6%, age (between 15 and 45) are 20% of the population. The el- 72% are willing to return to their place of origin while 22% derly population over the age of 60 represents 10% of the are waiting to decide. These figures are different from those population (5% male and 5% female). recorded in the rest of the country, where only 3% of IDPs The child dependency ratio and the elderly dependency ra- are willing to integrate and 89% are willing to return to their tio are the highest among the three regions (0.75 and 0.19 location of origin (Table 9). respectively), while the figure is lower nationally (0.65 and 0.15), indicating that there are more children and elderly in the South. The overall dependency ratio is the highest, at 0.93. These values are higher than the estimates of the UN Population Division (0.87) and the CIA World Factbook (0.75). The majority of IDPs in South Iraq report generalized vio- lence as the main reason for displacement (96%). This figure is higher than the national figure of 94% (see Table 4).

15 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Annex 1: GA form

Group ID Governorate

District Location

Longitude Latitude

Interview Date (DD-MON-YYYY) Employee Name

If other, Specify: Shelter Type

Wave of Displacement Governorate of Origin (Pre June, June & July, Post August, Post September)

Number of families as provided in the Master List

Shelter Type: Camps, Rented Houses, School Buildings, Unfinished Buildings, Hotel/Motel, With host community, Religious Buildings, Informal settlements, Unknown

1. Group Details

1.1 Reason for Displacement If other, Specify:

Reason for Displacement: Family member killed in generalized violence - Direct threats to family - Generalized violence and armed conflict - Evacuated/displaced by government - Evicted from property - House damaged/destroyed - Lack of access to basic services - Lack of access to sustainable income - Other (Specify):

This is a table to define the IDP population by district of origin within the already defined governorate of origin

1.2 District of Origin 1.3 # of Families 1.4 Est. # of Individuals 1.5 Ethnicity 1.6 Religion

Total 0 0 Ethnicity Arab, Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Kurd, Shabak, Turkmen, Unknown, Other. Religion Christian, Jewish, Sabean-Mandean, Shia Muslim, Sunni Muslim, Yazidi, Unknown, Other.

16 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Gender/Age Breakdown: The following table intends on capturing the breakdown of the group if the number of families is equal to or less than 20 families.

1.7 Age/Gender Breakdown 0-5 6-14 15-24 25-59 60+ Total

Males

Females **

Total

*: Number of Individuals **: this must be equal to the total in Question 1.4

1.8 What sources of information were consulted in conducting this Group / Family Assessment? Name and Type)

Key Informant Name Sex of Key Informant (M/F) Key Informant Number Key Informant type

Informant type: Host community member, Community representative/Mukhtar, Governorate representative, IDP representative, Government representative, NGO representative, UN worker, Education representative, Healthcare representative

1.9 Credibility Rating*

*Based on the Guidelines and Instructions document for this form, please rate RART level of confidence in the information provided in this assessment:

2. Multi-displacement and intentions

2.1 Have members of the group been displaced more than once since 2014? (Y/N)

2.2 How many times have most families in the group been displaced since Jan 2014? (2, 3, 4+)

Governorate District 2.3 If yes where is last place of displacement of the Majority?

3. Displacement Intentions (This section includes all displacement groups whether they displaced once or more than once)

3.1 What are the intentions of the majority of the group?

Intentions: Return to their place of origin, Locally integrate in the current location, Resettle in a third location, Waiting on one or several factors to decide

17 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

4. Vulnerability

4.1 Which of following vulnerabilities does the group members have?

Vulnerability

1. Unaccompanied children (not with parents and 2. Separated children (not with parents but with relatives) other relatives)

3. Children at risk (child labor, no access to educa- 4. Minor Headed Households tion…)

5. Female Headed Households 6. Women at Risk: (Pregnant, Lactating women)

7. Older person at risk (not accompanied by rela- 8. Single parent or care giver tives)

9. Persons with physical disabilities 10. Persons with mental disabilities

11. Serious medical conditions (chronic illness, 12. Missing relatives (disappeared, kidnapped, critical medical condition, difficult pregnancy, arrested, forced enrollment in armed forces/ conflict injury…) groups…)

13. Survivor/at risk of violence (torture, SGBV…) 14. At risk due to profile (high profile, minority…)

15. Other (Specify):

5. Needs

5.1 Priority Needs: What are the current priority needs of the Group? Choose from the list below, ranking with 1,2,3,4,5 in order of prominence.

Item Ranking Item Ranking Item Ranking

Water Sanitation/ Hygiene Access to income

Food Shelter Legal help

Health Education NFI

Other Specify:

6. Health 6.1 Are there accessible health care services in the area with a radius of 2 km? (Yes, No, Unknown, refused to answer) 6.2 What is the most prevalent health problem of the group? (Cough, Colds, Fevers, Breathing Problems, Chronic illnesses, If other, Specify: Physical disabilities, Skin Disease, Psychological Problems, Other)

7. Security

7.1 Do people in the Group feel safe in their current location? (Y,N) 7.2 What is the relationship between IDPs and the local communi- ty here? (Excellent (no problems or tensions), Good (generally fine, some tensions at some times), Poor (repeated incidents of tension))

18 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

8. Site Information

This table intends to cover each site for this group in the governorate within the specific shelter type identified in the ID details, please list the official name of the site and provide the longitude and latitude for each of these sites.

# Name of Site Longitude Latitude

19 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

9. Gender/Age Sample

Male Female

HHs 0-5 6-14 15-24 25-59 60+ Total 0-5 6-14 15-24 25-59 60+ Total

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

8 0 0

9 0 0

10 0 0

11 0 0

12 0 0

13 0 0

14 0 0

15 0 0

16 0 0

17 0 0

18 0 0

19 0 0

20 0 0

Total 0 0

20 GROUP ASSESSMENT: CYCLE I JANUARY-MARCH 2015 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Annex 2: Vulnerability score methodology The Vulnerability Score is a composite index designed to represent the vulnerability of groups, locations, districts and governorates with a single, comparable number. Data is gathered through the GA methodology. The score is composed of 7 factors that are thought to affect the vulnerability of each group of IDPs identified in the Master List and evaluated through the GA assessments: • Shelter category • Multiple displacement • Feeling of safety and security • Access to health • Children dependency ratio • Elderly dependency ratio • Sex Ratio

For the first four factors, each group receives a score of 1 for cases that are considered vulnerable, and 0 for values that are not.

GOVERNOR Local integration Assumption (justification)

Critical shelter arrangements = 1; 1. Shelter category IDP groups living in critical shelter are more vulnerable All the others = 0

Displaced more than once = 1; 2. Multiple displacement IDP groups who have been displaced more than once are more vulnerable Displaced once = 0

3. Feeling of safety and Feeling unsafe =1; IDP groups who report to feel unsafe are more vulnerable security feeling safe = 0

No = 1; IDP groups who report to not have access to health services are more 4. Access to health Yes = 0 vulnerable

The last three factors are assigned a value of 0 if the ratio is below national average. The factors are assigned a value between 0 and 1 when the ratio is equal to or higher than the national value.

If there are less than 75.3 children per 100 adults = 0 IDP groups with a higher share of children are more vulnerable. IDP 5. Children dependency If there are 75.3 or more children per 100 adults groups with ratio less than national average are not considered especially ratio the index has value between 0 and 1, propor- vulnerable. tionate to the actual dependency

If there are less than 61 adults per 100 adults = 0 IDP groups with a higher share of elderly are more vulnerable. IDP 6. Elderly dependency If there are 61 or more elders per 100 adults groups with ratio less than national average are not considered especially ratio the index has value between 0 and 1, propor- vulnerable. tionate to the actual dependency

If there are less than 52 women and girls per 100 IDPs = 0 IDP groups with a higher share of women are more vulnerable. IDP 7. Sex ratio (female to If there are 52 or more women and girls per groups with ratio less than national average are not considered especially male) 100 IDPs the index has value between 0 and 1, vulnerable. proportionate to the actual ratio

The individual scores are then added together. This results in the combined vulnerability, where each group is scored between 0 and 7. Additionally, for clearer visualization of the entire data, the combined vulnerability score is summarized at the district level via weighted mean to adjust for the group population size.

21