IMC/ASAM Rapid Needs Assessment of Gaziantep Based Syrian Refugees Survey Results RNA Background and Scope

• Key activity for the new IMC/ASAM Multi Service Centre (MSC) in Gaziantep. Also an avenue of outreach to Syrian community • Findings will be used to inform future programming for Syrian refugees in Gaziantep. • Findings will provide information into the status of Syrian refugees living in Gaziantep and serve as a baseline for MSC activities. RNA Methodology

RNA Steps: • Desk Review of Secondary Data – AFAD 2013 Report, Research Centre on Asylum and Migration (İGAM) Report (2013), Brooking Institute Report (2013) + Crisis International Report (2014). • Team Establishment (x3) – Multiple teams each with Arabic speakers + male and female interviewers • Data Collection from Beneficiary Population and Key Informants – Referral or ‘snowball’ sampling methodology used – Initial target of 150 households exceeded (178 households reached) – Short survey questionnaire (~30mins) • Analysis RNA Responders Overview

• Total of 178 households interviewed, covering 1025 total pop, large sample (~5% confidence interval, if total pop is 156,918), although some ‘community bias’ expected. True random sampling not possible with hidden populations. • More than 18 neighbourhoods covered. • Average household size of 5.8 (median 5, range 1-19) – very similar to urban Syrian populations in Jordan (average household size of 6.2 in 2013 study) & Istanbul 6.3 • Mostly 2 or 3 families living together • Average of 3.1 children per household • Overwhelming majority of responders from Aleppo – 95%, Al-Raqqa – 4% and Damascus – 1% RNA Responders Overview

N = 178 RNA Responders Overview

N = 178 RNA Results – Length of Stay in Turkey

• Average length of time in Turkey 8.9 months and Gaziantep 8.7 months • Median length of stage 7 months, N = 178 range of 0-25 months • Only 6% of respondents had lived elsewhere in Turkey (5% Kilis, 1% Urfa) RNA Results – Coming to Gaziantep

• No responders reported staying in camps in Turkey • Reasons for not going to camps were varied N = 178 • Common reasons for not going to the camps were wanting independence and wanting to work. RNA Results – Health Services Access

• 81% of responders had tried to access health services in Turkey. • Of those 53% said they were able to access health services (almost all had completed registration), 21% said they weren’t able and 25% said access was variable (depended on assistance required). • Language + lack of proper identification/registration impediment to access. • Cost of medication a challenge for many households, stories of medication being brought from Syria. • Treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes and cancer very difficult to access. • Number of Syrian doctors have established private facilities in communities – cost per consultations ~30TL. RNA Results – Health Services Access

N = 163 (15 NR), multiple responses permitted RNA Results – Access to Education

• 78% of households (138) had school age children. • 16% of school age children currently attending school (14% of girls, 18% of boys) – result mirrors AFAD findings and Istanbul RNA. • Of Syrian children in school, 80% are attending private Syrian schools, 17% Turkish public schools and 3% Turkish private school. • Syrian schools enrolment costs ~150TL/3months and/or 50- 100TL/month transport. Variation from school to school. • Education seen by many as a secondary priority after housing, food and health. RNA Results – Access to Education

N = 138 (40 households with no school age children) RNA Results – Household Income

• Average household income was 427TL, only 5% of households N = 176 (2 NR) reported receiving income support (almost in all cases from family in Turkey).

• Income adjusted per person people working was 406 TL – minimum wage in Turkey 846TL. RNA Results – Employment

N = 176 (2 NR)

• On average 1.04 people per household where working and receiving an income. • Large number of households mentioned begging to supplement income (no specific question asked). Waste picker figure probably higher as children are involved in this activity but families are reluctant to mention. RNA Results – Employment

N = 176 (2 NR) RNA Results – Housing

• Main housing difficulties noted were high rents, difficulty finding houses (esp for Syrians) & not having references/ bond. • Average monthly N = 176 (2 NR) rent per household of 181TL. • Large numbers of people living in abandoned buildings and very poor standard of housing. RNA Results – Relationship with Community

• Majority (66%) of responders had a positive relationship with their host community. Many reports of solidarity – ‘Turks are better than Syrians’. N = 178

• Negative or mixed were for various reasons such as; neighbours complaining about overcrowding and noise; discrimination with hospital access and rental costs; and employers being exploitative RNA Results – Registration + Entry into Turkey

• 59% (604) of people covered by survey had registered with AFAD. 41% had not. • If these figures are extrapolated against current registration figures total unregistered refugee population in Gaziantep would N = 125 (53 n/a) be ~104,000. Total population ~294,000. • 19% of people entered Turkey on a passport, 3% through a border crossing but without a passport, and 78% via other routes. Mainly men not registered. Fears of data reaching Syria. RNA Results – Relatives in Turkey & Abroad

• 69% of responders had relatives in living in Gaziantep. • 30% had relatives living elsewhere in Turkey. • 19% had relatives living elsewhere outside Syria. The most common countries where Lebanon (56%), Saudi Arabia (15%) and Europe (12%).

N = 53 (124 n/a, 1 NR) RNA Results – Refugee Intentions

N = 172 (6 NR) RNA Results – Needs

N = 178 (note more than one response permitted) RNA Results – Neighbourhoods Covered Comparison with Istanbul RNA Results

Comparison - RNA Results Gaziantep and • Household sizes, # of children and Istanbul length of stay - comparable • Gaziantep Istanbul In both cities a majority of people had arrived in the past 6mths Ave. Household Size (pax) 5.8 6.3 • Access to health services higher in Ave. Children / Household 3.1 3.1 Antep (pax) • Households in Istanbul saw Ave. Length of Stay in Turkey 8.9 7.3 education as more of a priority (mth) • More reports of labour force % Survey Pop Arrived in Past 6 exploitation/challenges in Istanbul 50% 51% mths but greater participation/access Reported Health Services • Housing issues more acute in 53% 31% Gaziantep, much higher rates of Access (%) squatting and homelessness School Age Children in School 16% 17% • Relationship with host community (%) far more likely to be neutral (e.g. Relationship with Host good and bad/mixed) in Gaziantep – Community, Overall Positive 66% 74% 25% to 4%. People more likely to not (%) have a relationship with host community in Istanbul. % Survey Pop Employed 18% 21% Final Notes + Observations

• Significant survey fatigue among refugee population, many households mentioned that they had been questioned and photographed previously by other actors but had not received support. • No questions about ethnicity included in survey but very few Kurdish or Turkmen households interviewed. • Large number of female headed households (~10%) • Conditions across neighbourhoods fairly constant with exception of Akyol which had more families squatting, unemployed and the community seemed more politicised. Questions