Rapid Needs Assessment (RNA) of Recently-Displaced Persons in the Kurdistan Region

ERBIL GOVERNORATE November 2007

1 Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION...... 3 2. SUMMARY OF GOVERNORATE ...... 3 3. IDP MONITORING ...... 4 3.1. METHODOLOGY ...... 4 3.2. IDP MONITORING SUMMARY ...... 5 4. IDP PROFILE...... 7 4.1. IDP FLOW ...... 7 4.2. MOVEMENT PROFILE ...... 7 5. IDP PROTECTION...... 11 5.1. ACCESS TO GOVERNORATE ...... 11 5.2. PERMISSION TO REMAIN IN THE GOVERNORATE ...... 11 5.3. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND SECURITY...... 12 5.4. DOCUMENTATION ...... 12 6. IDP LIVING CONDITIONS AND ACCESS TO SERVICES...... 12 6.1. HOUSING...... 12 6.2. EMPLOYMENT ...... 15 6.3. BASIC SERVICES...... 15 6.4. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE ...... 17 7. PRIORITY NEEDS AND SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS ...... 18 ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES ...... 19 ANNEX II: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SUMMARY ...... 21

2 1. Introduction1 The purpose of this report is to reflect the situation of the newly displaced in the Governorate of , in particular, the movement and demographic profile of IDPs, their access to shelter, employment and basic services (including food, education, healthcare and water), as well as their future intentions. It is estimated that over 2.4 million people remain displaced within as of September 2007, some 1.2 million of whom were displaced following the bombings in February 2006.2 These attacks resulted in the escalation of sectarian violence with large-scale revenge killings on both sides, alongside anti-state insurgency, counter-insurgency and crime. Overall, this led to widespread violence, killings and insecurity throughout Iraq. Mixed communities, particularly in Baghdad, have borne the brunt of the conflict between members of Iraq’s principal religious groups, Shi’a and Sunni Muslims. Minority groups in southern and central Iraq, including Christians and Kurds, are without strong protection networks and are particularly vulnerable to violence and intimidation. A significant minority of IDPs displaced since February 2006, have sought refuge in the KRG administered areas of Dahuk, Erbil and which in comparison to other regions of Iraq, remain relatively secure. According to official KRG sources, 28,886 (September 2007) IDP families have been displaced from the south and centre to the Kurdish area since 2003, the majority of whom were displaced after February 2006. The influx of new IDPs has had a significant impact on the host community: increasing house and rent prices, additional pressure on already strained public services and by creating concerns about security and demographic shifts. At the same time, however, the Kurdish area has also benefited from the migration of professionals, bringing with them skills and disposable incomes that boost the local economy. While there have been IDP returns to Baghdad, no significant return movements have taken place from this area. 2. Summary of Governorate3 Size 14,428 km2 Administrative Erbil City Capital Districts Erbil City, , Administration Qadha (districts) and Nahiya (sub- Soran, Koysinjaq, district) Councils, Governorate Mergasor, Choman Council (de facto control over Checkpoints5 Choman district, , Makhmour district)4 , Pirmam (Masif Salahuddin sub-district checkpoint), Internal Dahuk, Ninewa, Erbil City checkpoint Boundaries , Sulaymaniyah

Population 1,392,093 (ILCS 2004) IDPs from South Individuals: 34,717 excluding and Centre IDPS (Since 2003) Families: 6,104 (June 2007) Dominant Sunni Muslim Dominant Kurd Religion Ethnicity

1 The Report was researched and drafted with UNHCR’s partner, IRD. 2 Cluster F, Update on IDPs, 21 November 2007. 3 For further details on the Governorate of Erbil, please consult UNHCR’s Governorate Assessment Report, September 2007, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=governorate.

3 3. IDP Monitoring

3.1. Methodology UNHCR’s partner, International Relief and Development (IRD) monitors IDPs in the three Northern Governorates of Iraq, through its local monitoring team6 who collects information from household interviews,7 consultations with UNHCR field staff, the Erbil Protection and Assistance Centre’s (PACs), and interviews with local community leaders. A survey plan was set up according to geographic concentrations of IDPs across the governorate as per April 2007 figures. Statistics used in this analysis are correct as of June 20078 and data is rounded off to zero decimal places. The source of figures for the number of IDP families in Erbil is the Directorate of Residency and Housing. Figure 1: Survey sample and achievements9 Location IDP Target No. of % of IDP % District Sub- baseline (10 % forms target figures against district figures of collected achieved Jun 07 IDP Apr 07 figures figures Apr 07) Jun 07

Erbil Center 2,687 269 350 130% 3,396 10%

Erbil Ankawa 1,994 200 194 97% 2,214 9% Center Khabat 140 14 19 136% 221 9% Shaqlawa Shaqlawa 130 13 16 123% 178 9% Makhmur Makhmur* 40 3 3 100% 57 5% Soran Soran 25 Note: These districts did not meet the criteria of the survey plan: A village/quarter must have more than 25 families and a sub-district must have more than 50 Koya Koya 1 families to be covered Total 5,017 499 582 117% 6,066 10%

An effort was made by monitors to ensure a representative sample of ethnicities, based on the information provided by the Erbil Directorate of Residency and Housing. Source of IDP statistics: All new IDP arrivals to are required to register their temporary residency at the Erbil Directorate of Residency and Housing.

4 Makhmour was detached from Erbil Governorate in 1996 and reassigned to the predominantly Arab Governorate of Ninewa as part of the former regime’s Arabization campaign. The Kurdish authorities hope to incorporate the town into the Region of Kurdistan through a popular referendum on the basis of Article 140 of the National Constitution; see also Chicago Tribune, Liz Sly, In vulnerable, remote north, Iraqis await a vote on future, 2 September 2007, http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php?refid=DH-S-03-09-2007&article=21300. 5 List includes permanent checkpoints only. 6 The IRD monitoring team in Erbil consists of one male and one female monitor, working in partnership. 7 IRD’s monitors use UNHCR’s IDP/Returnee Household Monitoring Form, Version C, October 2006. 8 No new figures were available from the Directorate when drafting this report. 9 20 May to 30 September 2007.

4 3.2. IDP Monitoring Summary Districts surveyed Erbil Center, Shaqlawa, Makhmur Number of surveys 582 Percentage of IDP population surveyed 9.5% Districts with highest IDP concentration Erbil: 5,831, Shaqlawah: 178, Makhmur: 57, Soran: 37 Main cause of flight Post-Samara events (93%) Main governorate of origin Baghdad Main ethnicity Arab Main Religion Muslim Priority protection needs Access to food, including issuance of temporary food ration card; access to education for Arabic-speaking IDP children Priority assistance needs Shelter Received assistance 21% of surveyed IDP population

5 Figure 2: Percentage of IDP families surveyed in Erbil Governorate, by district.10

10 Source of map: http://www.esri.com.

6 4. IDP Profile

4.1. IDP flow The number of IDP families arriving in Erbil Governorate increased steadily since February 2006, with the highest increase in May 2007. (Fig.3). Figure 3:11 IDP increase in Erbil Governorate (IND) 3,000 2,781

2,394

1,904 1,962 2,000

IND 1,236

1,000

0 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07

4.2. Movement profile Place of origin: The majority of IDP families surveyed are from Baghdad (70%). Families also fled from Ninewa (24%), Diyala (4%) and Kirkuk (2%). Of those that came from Baghdad, 59% were from Al-Rusafa and 40% from districts. 100% of families from Ninewa arrived from . (Fig.4). Figure 4:12

Governorate of origin

80% 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 24%

Households 20% 10% 4% 2% 0% Baghdad Ninewa Diyala Other Govs. Governorate

11 Source: Erbil Directorate of Residency and Housing. 12 Sample size: 582.

7 Flight: Sectarian violence after 22 February 2006 was the main cause of flight for some 93% of IDP families surveyed, whilst 7% fled because of other violent events occurring since 2003. 42% of IDP families surveyed stated their family was specifically targeted either through a direct threat to life, specific sectarian violence or forced displacement from property. (Fig.5). Figure 5: (Multiple answers)13

Reason for leaving place of residence

90% 83% 81% 80% 70% 56% 60% 50% 40% 30% Households 16% 20% 10% 3% 1% 0% Fear of f uture General violence Discrimination Armed conflict Specific Forced from harm sectarian threats property

Most families surveyed stated that the reason they were specifically targeted was because of their association with an ethnic or religious group.(Fig. 6). Figure 6:14

Reasons family targeted

60% 49% 46%

40%

20% Households

4% 1% 0% Ethnic group Religious group Social group Political group

13 Sample size: 582. 14 Sample size: 516.

8 Improved security was a key motive for all of the families that moved to Erbil, whilst financial motives were of least concern to the large majority of families. (Fig.7). Figure 7: (Multiple answers)15

Reasons for moving to current location

Improved security 100%

Change in political situation 97%

Relatives living there 91%

Political support 7%

Financial incentives 1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Households

IDP Intentions: The large majority of families surveyed intend to locally integrate into their host community whilst very few families plan to return to their place of origin or to relocate to a third location. A significant number of families (14%) are waiting on one of several factors in order to make a decision (Fig.8). Figure 8:16

IDP intentions

4% 3% 14%

79%

Locally integrate Undecided Return (place of origin) Resettle (third location)

4.3. Demographic profile Gender and age breakdown of families: From the group surveyed, the male / female ratio was almost equal.17 Female heads of households represented 13% of the survey group,

15 Sample size: 582. The values may not add up to 100% because households may list up to three reasons for leaving. 16 Sample size: 582. 17 Gender ratio: 49% male and 51% female.

9 compared to 87% male. Children under the age of 18 years of age, represented over 40% of the survey group, and persons over 60, less than 4%. (Fig.9). Figure 9: Age breakdown of IDP families surveyed18 Age groups Total (%) 0-4 12 5-17 29 18-59 55 60+ 4 Total 100 Ethnicity: The IDP group surveyed is largely representative of the ethnic breakdown of IDP households across the Governorate of Erbil. Arabs, ethnic-based Christian groups and Kurds are the dominant three ethnic groupings. The group “other” includes Turkman and Armenian. (Fig.10). Figure 10: 19

Ethnicity breakdown

100% 80% 1% 29% 37% 32% 60% 40% 38% 2% Households 20% 31% 29% 0% Kurd Arab Christian Other Ethnicity

IDP families (Aug 07) IDP families surveyed

Religion: The IDP group surveyed is largely representative of the religious breakdown of the IDP households in the Governorate of Erbil. The large majority of those displaced to Erbil in the surveyed group are Muslim. Christians represent approximately one third of the surveyed group of IDP households. (Fig.11). Figure 11:20

Breakdown by religion

80% 70% 67%

60%

40% 29% 32%

Household 20% 1% 1% 0% Muslim Christian Other

IDP Families Surveyed IDP Families (June 2007)

18 Sample size: 582. 19 Sample size: 582 IDP households vs. IDP statistics. 20 Sample size: 582.

10 Vulnerabilities: Over a fifth of IDP families surveyed reported having one or more family members with special needs, of which chronic disease was the main cause of vulnerability. (Fig.12). Figure 12: 21

Special needs of IDP households

Chronic disease 78% Physical disability 15% Women at risk 3% Other 3% Mental disability 2% Serious medical condition 2% Malnutrition 1% Old age (assistance) 1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Households

5. IDP Protection

5.1. Access to governorate Persons not originating from the three Northern Governorates require a sponsor in order to be admitted to the Governorate of Erbil,22 which may prove difficult.23 The sponsor must present him/herself at the entry checkpoint providing personal detail and IDPs must fill out a card at the entry checkpoint to enter the region; IDPs without a sponsor are denied entry.

5.2. Permission to remain in the governorate Persons not originating from the three Northern Governorates must fulfill specific criteria and also require a sponsor in order to legalize their stay in the Kurdish area.24 Provided a person has a sponsor and has established a reason allowing him/her to remain, he/she will be issued a quasi-residency permit (karta manawi), valid for three months, after which an extension is required to remain in the Governorate.25 Persons without a sponsor will generally not be able to obtain a quasi-residency permit.26 IDPs allowed to remain in Erbil Governorate must report

21 Sample size: 130 out of 582 (multiple answers were possible). 22 The sponsor must either be a government employee or a private company. The responsibility of the sponsor is to inform the KRG authorities that he/she knows the IDP and in the case of security-related incidents, the sponsor will be questioned. 23 Christian and Arab IDPs often have previous links with the Governorate (e.g. family or business relations) or manage to find a sponsor based on their economic or professional profile. 24 IDPs must report to the Residency Section in the Security Department, accompanied by their sponsor and must establish either political links to the region or that s/he has fled violence or persecution. UNHCR is not aware of persons being removed from the Governorate. 25 In the case that no extension is granted a person is required to leave the Governorate. 26 In rare cases, exceptions are made but the person remains under security surveillance.

11 to the Residency Section or the nearest security office if they wish to move, visit or return permanently to their place of origin.

5.3. Freedom of movement and security Almost all the IDP families surveyed reported no official restrictions placed on their movement within the three Northern Governorates and all surveyed individuals (including all women surveyed) reported feeling safe.

5.4. Documentation Half of all IDP families surveyed reported difficulty in renewing documentation. Of those who reported a problem renewing documents, transferring PDS cards between governorates was a problem for nearly all households surveyed.(Fig.13). Figure 13:27

Difficulty to renew documents

PDS Card 96%

Passport 5%

Other 1% Document type National ID 1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Households

6. IDP Living Conditions and Access to Services

6.1. Housing The majority of IDP households surveyed live in rented housing and less than 10% of households own their own house. (Fig.14)

27 Sample size: 290 of 582.

12 The type of shelter does not vary greatly between districts with the majority living in rented houses and no families in the surveyed group living in tents or public buildings. Figure 14:28

Type of shelter

80% 62% 60%

40% 29%

Households 20% 9%

0% Rented house With relatives Owned house on owned land

82% of families surveyed live in urban areas of Erbil Governorate29 and are paying between $200-300 a month for poor quality housing and $400+ for minimum standard housing. Many IDP families are unable to afford the high rents and some are living in one room of a house, sharing communal facilities with several other families; several families are living in former store rooms of mosques or shops. Overcrowding was reported as an issue for 62% of families surveyed, with many living in either somewhat crowded or extremely crowded conditions.30 Rental accommodation used by IDPs in Erbil is generally of a low standard31 and often dilapidated with poor or no ventilation, leaking roofs, missing window panes, no internal doors separating communal areas from bathrooms or kitchens, no or very poor kitchen and bathroom facilities. (Fig.15). None of the IDP families surveyed reported having faced pressure to leave their accommodation.

28 Sample size: 582. 29 82% of IDP families surveyed live in urban areas, 2% in semi-urban and 16% live in rural areas. See Annex 2. 30 62% of IDP families surveyed reported living in crowded housing, 47% somewhat crowded (5+ person per room) and 15% extremely crowded (8+ persons per room). 31 Any housing that an IDP family is paying rent for is recorded as rental housing.

13 Figure 15: Examples of accommodation rented by IDPs in Erbil Governorate.

Two room house used by family of 15, Daratu. Outside wall (left) and bedroom (right). Rent $250 per month.

Three room house occupied by three families,25 individuals (left). Public toilet used by these and other families (right). Rent $150 per month.

Two room house rented by family of ten (eight children), Ankawa. Rent $100 per month.

Two room house rented by family of five (three children), Nawroz quarter. Rent $250 per month.

14 6.2. Employment 65% of IDPs of working age have been unemployed since their displacement. This percentage varied marginally across districts with the highest unemployment rate amongst IDPs surveyed in Shaqlawa.32 (Fig.16). Figure 16:

IDP unemployment (by district)

100% 86% 80% 71% 65% 60%

40% Household 20%

0% Erbil Centre Shaqlawa

Of the total 1,285 family members of working age, 35% are working, predominantly in casual labour or the private sector. (Fig.17). Figure 17:33

Work sectors (as % of household with working members)

50% 42% 41% 40%

30% 20% 17%

10% % Household with with % Household working members working 0% Casual Private Public Employment sector

Source of income: Out of the surveyed working age IDP population, 64% listed some form of employment as their main source of income, 4% savings and 3% remittances.

6.3. Basic services Food: Overall, 46% of IDP families surveyed are able to access the Public Distribution System (PDS) rations in Erbil Governorate. However, access to the PDS varies by district (Fig.18). Of

32 Shaqlawa is traditionally a tourist area with no major industry or other economic activity. 33 Sample size: 375 households out of 582.

15 the 46% of surveyed households who do receive PDS rations, 95% of these rely solely on the PDS to meet their dietary requirements. Figure 18:34

Access to PDS (by district)

80% 67%

60% 47%

40%

Households 20% 13%

0% Erbil Center Makhmur Shaqlawa District

54% of households surveyed were not able to access the PDS. The main reasons for this were an inability to transfer PDS cards to their current location and ongoing insecurity preventing families from collecting the PDS in their place of origin. (Fig.19). Figure 19:35

Reasons unable to access PDS

Unable to register (lack documents) 1%

Distance prevents access 2%

Unknown 3%

Other 7%

Delays in ration card transfer 16%

Insecurity prevents access 71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Houesholds

Health: 100% of IDP families surveyed reported access to healthcare services and basic pharmaceuticals, and 100% of children have up to date vaccination records. 27% of families received visits from a health worker: 87% of the visits pertained to vaccinations; 12% to other services and 1% to medical examination. Education: Literacy rates were high amongst the surveyed group. Only 1% of IDP families surveyed with children under the age of 15 had a child who is illiterate.

34 Sample size: 582. 35 Sample size: 582.

16 25% of IDP families surveyed have school-age children not attending school.36 The majority of families listed curriculum language as the main reason for non attendance. (Fig.20). There are currently eight Arabic language schools in Erbil Governorate37 with 6,801 IDP children currently enrolled.38 Figure 20:39

Reasons not attending school

60% 46% 43% 40%

20% Households 5% 3% 3% 0% Curriculum Other Work Cultural / Financial language religious

Water and sanitation: 100% of IDP families surveyed reported having access to potable water all of whom received water from municipal underground pipes in sufficient quantities for cooking, cleaning and washing. All IDP families surveyed reported having access to toilets. However, 43% share the toilets with other families. Electricity and fuel: ِAlmost all IDP families have access to four or more hours of electricity per day. 89% reported being able to afford kerosene and 71% are able to afford benzene.

6.4. Humanitarian assistance 21% of surveyed families have received some assistance, of which 8% received food and 92% other assistance. The church provided the large majority of support, through the provision of food items and other assistance. IRCS, the KRG authorities, relatives and other religious groups have also contributed to humanitarian assistance to this group. Female heads of households represented 13% of the survey group, from which 14% received assistance

36 Of 249 IDP households surveyed with children aged 5-17. 37 Six Arabic language schools in Erbil city (two primary, two intermediate and two secondary) and two primary schools in Ankawa, a sub-district close to Erbil city. 38 Information provided by the Ministry of Education. 39 Sample size: 63 households from 249 with children.

17 7. Priority Needs and Suggested Interventions Shelter was overwhelmingly identified as a priority need across all sub-districts in Erbil. Under the category ‘other’, households frequently requested general financial support. (Fig 21). Figure 21:40 (Multiple answers)

Priority needs (top three)

Shelter 93%

Other 83%

Assistance 80%

Employment 27%

Food 11%

Health 3%

Documentation 1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Households

Interventions are urgently needed in the areas of shelter, food, education and access to employment for vulnerable IDP families in Erbil Governorate: While most IDPs appear to be renting houses, resources are limited. Interventions should target vulnerable families through income generation projects and where possible, government stipends. Programmes should also target the upgrading of sub-standard shelters, taking into account ownership rights. Since accommodation is rented out for very high prices, the local authorities are encouraged to regulate rent prices by introducing standard rent ceilings for some categories of accommodation. Recognizing that some agencies operating in the North are providing limited food provisions for some families, a two-pronged approach is recommended for the large number of families who do not have access to the PDS: continue to lobby with authorities to issue temporary food ration cards for all IDPs; at the same time, vulnerable IDP families should be specifically prioritised. The local authorities in Erbil should be supported to offer primary and secondary schooling in Arabic to assist the 25% of schoolchildren who currently face language barriers. Additional support to vulnerable IDP families covering transportation, school uniform and book costs should also be provided. To support vulnerable IDP families, an assessment of the viability of vocational training for IDPs should be undertaken and adult education language lessons should be provided for IDPs who see lack of Kurdish language as the main barrier to employment.

40 Sample size: 582 households.

18 ANNEX I

Case Studies41

Mr.Thamer and his wife and two young daughters were displaced from Baghdad to Erbil City in November 2006, where they are currently living off their savings and paying $400 a month rent for a modest house (looks more like a hovel). They recently withdrew one of their daughters from an Arabic school, where she was enrolled, due to lack of funds.

"We are living hand to mouth and our standards and hopes have sunk to an unimaginable low…We have gone from saving for our children's future to praying we can feed them and keep them safe for one more day. We need help."

Yusif Toma and his two children fled to Erbil from Al-Jadida, Baghdad in 2006, after a sectarian attack destroyed their home. “It happened in the middle of the night, we woke to find ourselves surrounding by fire. Terrified we jumped out of a window into our neighbour’s garden.” Luckily they all survived, however the fire destroyed the contents of their home and their daughter sustained a broken leg in the fall. Shortly after the attack they fled to Erbil where there are currently staying with relatives in a small and overcrowded house. Yusif has no work and no income.

Mrs Waffan lives with her husband, three children, her sister-in-law and her two sons. They fled from Baghdad where Mrs Waffan lost her brother and sister due to sectarian attacks and now live in Erbil centre in a small two-room rented house. They are all unemployed and have not been able to receive their PDS rations. They are currently living off their limited savings. Her husband suffers from a hernia and cannot afford the operation he needs. Mrs Waffan was an accountant in Baghdad with 15 years experience, now she is a housewife. Her daughter who was studying in the teaching institute left her studies uncompleted and is currently trying to find a job to provide for her family. Her chances, as with the rest of her family, are limited because she is unable to speak Kurdish.

41 This section provides comments from individual IDP families currently located in Erbil Governorate. All names have been changed.

19 Abu Mustafa and his wife, two sons and three daughters fled to Baharka from Baghdad, in September 2006 where they live together in a tent. Abu Mustafa is very concerned for the welfare of his children: "Our living condition are really bad, especially for our children because they have language problems and can't attend school. The bombing, kidnapping and killings close to our home, including the death of my brother, has seriously impacted their mental health ". Most of the IDP families in Erbil City live in difficult conditions due to financial, social and economic problems. Most cannot find work to support their families and many of them are traumatized due to violence and personal attacks which they have endured.

Mr. Hassan and his family of ten were displaced from in October 2006 and are currently staying in “Shorest Quarter” in Erbil City. Mr Hassan and his wife have three sons and five daughters, all under the age of 18. “I have lived under military rule and Ba'ath party dictatorship. I have watched my country being led into a 10 year war with Iran and a war with Kuwait and its Western allies. I have lived through over a decade of harsh economic sanctions, never have I seen anything like the past four years, never have I feared more for the survival of my family and country at large…. It is my children that suffer most. What inhumanity have they seen? What poverty and insecurity? What deprivation have they experienced? From this how will they grow?". Sara, Hassan's wife, expressed similar concerns about her children: "Our children’s future is very grim because of the affect that this terrible conflict and displacement is having on them. They have had to abandon their education and they don't have any friends here and can’t communicate with local people. They have been surrounded by death and destruction, seen dead bodies in the street and lost family and friends.”

20 ANNEX II:

Household Survey Summary

Governorate: Erbil Duration of data 20/05/07 - 30/09/07 Sample size 582 households Governorate: Erbil

Some questions were omitted because they pertain to returnees only or do not draw data.

No Question Result % Comments 1-16 Distinguish between IDP and n/a n/a n/a Returnees and record interviewer details Basic Profile Head of household and age and gender breakdown 17 Head of Household HOH is Male 506 86.94% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed HOH is Female 76 13.06%

18 Household Profile Out of 582 IDP households surveyed Average family size 4.0 a Males 1149 49.38% b Females 1178 50.62% c Age under 1 69 2.97% d Age 1-4 217 9.33% e Age 5-17 668 28.71% f Age 18-59 1285 55.22% g Age 60 and above 88 3.78%

Ethnicity and Religion 19- To which Ethnic group does the Out of 582 IDP households surveyed family belong to a Arab 180 30.93% b Kurd 208 35.74% c Feili Kurd / Iranian Kurd 14 2.41% d Turkmen 5 0.86% e Other (specify) 2 0.34% f Assyrian 48 8.25% g Chaldean 120 20.62% h Armenian 5 0.86%

21- What is the Family Religion Out of 582 IDP households surveyed a Islam - Shi'ite 36 6.19% b Islam - Sunni 371 63.75% e Christian 171 29.38% g Sabean / Mandean 4 0.69%

Most Recently Displaced From Governorate/District 28 Most Recently Displaced From Gov Out of 582 IDP households surveyed Baghdad 407 69.93% Ninewa 139 23.88% Diyala 25 4.30% Kirkuk 9 1.55%

21 Salah al-Din 1 0.17% Basrah 1 0.17%

Most Recently Displaced From Out of 582 IDP households surveyed District Baghdad - Abu Ghraib 3 0.52% Baghdad - Al Resafa 239 41.07% Baghdad - Karkh 164 28.18% Baghdad - Mada'in 1 0.17% Basrah – Al-Zubair 1 0.17% Diyala – Al-Khalis 3 0.52% Diyala - Baladrooz 2 0.34% Diyala – Ba'quba 18 3.09% Diyala - 2 0.34% Ninewa - Mosul 139 23.88% Salah al-Din - 1 0.17% Kirkuk- 1 0.17% Kirkuk- Kirkuk 8 1.37%

Number of Displacements and Reasons for Leaving Village/Town 29- How many times has the household Out of 582 IDP households surveyed been displaced inside Iraq 1 522 89.69% 2 57 9.79% 3 3 0.52%

30- Reasons for leaving village/town Out of 582 IDP households surveyed. The values a March 2003 events 41 7.04% may not add up to 100% because households listed r Post-Samarra events 541 92.96% up to three reasons for leaving. Some reasons were added or removed in newer form versions.

Cause of Flight and Reasons for Moving to Other Locations 31 Why did the family flee Out of 582 IDP households surveyed. The values a Direct threats to life 223 38.32% may not add up to 100% because households may b Specific sectarian threats 20 3.44% list up to three reasons for leaving. c Left out of fear 483 82.99% d Generalized violence 469 80.58% e Armed conflict 91 15.64% f Forced displacement from property 3 0.52% g Discrimination 326 56.01% h Other 49 8.42%

32 Was the family targeted Out of 516 IDP households surveyed targeted a Belonging to a certain ethnic group 253 49.03% b Belonging to a certain religion or sect 239 46.32% c Holding a certain political opinion 3 0.58% d Belonging to a certain social group 21 4.07% e Do not think the family was targeted 66 11.34% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 33 Reasons for Moving to Current Out of 582 IDP households surveyed. The values Location may not add up to 100% because households may a Improved security 581 99.83% list up to three reasons for returning. b Change of political situation 565 97.08% d Property claim 1 0.17% f Relatives living there 531 91.24% i Political support 42 7.22% k Other 3 0.52% m Tribal links 3 0.52% n Financial incentives 7 1.20%

22

IDP: Intentions 34 What are the main intentions Out of 582 IDP households surveyed a Return to their place of origin 24 4.12% b Locally integrate in the current 459 78.87% location c Resettle in a third location 20 3.44% d Waiting on one or several factors 79 13.57%

35 When does the family plan to return Out of 582 IDP households surveyed a In less than 6 months 34 5.84% b In 6 to 12 months 46 7.90% c In more than 12 months 406 69.76% d Whenever the security situation 96 16.49% improves

Shelter 36 Type of Shelter Out of 582 IDP households surveyed. a Owned house on owned land 52 8.93% b Rented house 360 61.86% c With relatives 169 29.04% d Public building 1 0.17%

37 House Crowding Out of 582 IDP households surveyed a Not overcrowded 236 40.55% b Somewhat overcrowded 251 43.13% c Extremely overcrowded 95 16.32%

38 House Location Out of 582 IDP households surveyed. a Rural 91 15.64% b Urban 480 82.47% d Semi-rural 11 1.89%

Pressure to Leave 39 Pressure to Leave Out of 1 IDP households surveyed faced pressure f Other threat or pressure 1 100.00% to leave a No pressure to leave or threat of 581 99.83% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed eviction Property Owned Before Being Displaced 40 Property owned before being displaced a House 229 96.62% Out of 237 IDP households surveyed Having b Apartment or room 4 1.69% Property Owned before being displaced c Land for housing 0 0.00% d Land for agriculture 1 0.42% e Shop/small business 17 7.17% f Other 4 1.69% Now able to access property 41 Now able to access property? Out of 237 IDP households surveyed having a Yes, property accessible 70 29.54% property not able to access. f Do not know 120 50.63% b Property destroyed or damaged so as 3 6.38% Out of 47 IDP households surveyed having to be unusable property not able to access c Property occupied, controlled or 35 74.47% claimed by private citizens d Property occupied, controlled or 3 6.38% claimed by the government

23 e Property currently in military use 1 2.13% g Property occupied by militia groups 4 8.51% h Property sold or exchanged 1 2.13%

42- Did your family lose property From Out of 3 IDP households surveyed who lost A 17 July 1968 to 9 April 2003, if so, property from 17 July 1968 to 9 April 2003 how? Other 2 66.67% Threats by others 1 33.33%

42- Property lost from 9-Apr-03 to 22- Out of 6 IDP households surveyed who lost B Feb-06 property from 9-Apr-03 to 22-Feb-06 Threats by others 5 83.33% Other 1 16.67%

42- Property lost after 22-Feb-06 Out of 57 IDP households surveyed who lost C property after 22-Feb-06 Threats by others 36 63.16% Other 21 36.84%

Water 49 Family normally drinks clean water 582 100.00% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 50 If no access, why not?

51 Main water sources (multiple Out of 582 IDP households surveyed choice) a Municipal water (underground pipes) 582 100.00% d Tanker/truck vendor 317 54.47% h Other 219 37.63%

52 Other Water Questions a Enough water for drinking & cooking 581 99.83% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed b Enough water for hygiene 581 99.83% 53 Access to Sewerage system 582 100.00% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 54 What type is it? Out of 582 IDP households surveyed having a Modern (underground pipes) 581 99.83% access to sewerage system b Traditional (runs through the streets) 1 0.17%

55 Access to toilets 581 99.83% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 56 Toilets shared with other families 253 43.47% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed Food 57 Receives PDS rations 266 45.70% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 58 If not receiving PDS rations, why Out of 316 IDP households surveyed not receiving a Delay transferring PDS registration to 50 15.82% PDS rations new location b Unable to register for PDS because of 4 1.27% lacking documentation or PDS card d Inability to access food distribution 224 70.89% point due to insecurity e Inability to access food distribution 5 1.58% point due to distance g Do not know why 11 3.48% h Other 22 6.96%

59 Do you receive food from other 16 2.75% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed sources on a regular basis? 60 Do you rely solely on the PDS? 554 95.19% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed

24

Health Care 61 Access to PHC in village 582 100.00% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 62 Access to drugs mostly needed 582 100.00% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 63 Reason for no access to health/drugs

64 Children have vaccination records 205 99.51% Out of 206 IDP households surveyed with children under 5 66 Purpose of visit by health worker Out of 582 IDP households surveyed a Has not been visited 427 73.37% b Medical examination 2 1.29% Out of 155 IDP households surveyed visited by d Vaccinations 134 86.45% health workers f Other services 19 12.26%

Education 68 Access to education in village 268 100.00% Out of 268 IDP households surveyed having children/adolescent of school or university age. 70 Students attending school 70a- Primary students - Male 136 51.52% Percent of primary students 1 70a- Primary students - Female 128 48.48% 2 70b- Intermediate – Male 45 41.28% Percent of intermediate students 1 70b- Intermediate – Female 64 58.72% 2 70c- Secondary – Male 45 43.27% Percent of secondary students 1 70c- Secondary – Female 59 56.73% 1 70d- Higher – Male 14 29.79% Percent of higher students 1 70d- Higher – Female 33 70.21% 2 70e- Total Male 240 45.80% Percent of all students 1 70e- Total Female 284 54.20% 1

Percent of children in school 477 71.41% 71 Families with children >6 not 63 25.30% Out of 249 IDP households surveyed with children attending age 5-17 a-1 Primary – Male 82 60.74% Percent of non-attending students a-2 Primary – Female 53 39.26%

72 Reasons for not attending Out of 63 IDP households surveyed having a Work 3 4.76% children not attending school. b Curriculum language 29 46.03% d Financial 2 3.17% f Cultural / religious 2 3.17% g Other 27 42.86%

74 Children enrolled and correct grade 187 99.47% Out of 188 IDP households surveyed having level children attending school 75 Illiterate children under 15 6 0.95% Out of 249 households surveyed with children 5- 17 76 Children not speaking school 65 10.28% Out of 249 households surveyed with children 5-

25 language 17

Access to services 80 Access to electricity Out of 582 IDP households surveyed a No electricity 1 0.17% Out of 581 IDP households surveyed having c 4 or more hours per day 581 100.00% access to electricity

81 Access to Fuel a No access to fuel 1 0.17% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed b Benzene 415 71.43% Out of 581 IDP households surveyed having c Diesel 3 0.52% access to fuel. d Propane 396 68.16% e Kerosene 519 89.33% f Other 178 30.69% Documentation 82 Problems getting documents 290 49.83% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed Out of 290 IDP households surveyed having a National ID new 4 1.38% problem in getting documents b Passport 14 4.83% c Birth certificate 1 0.34% d PDS Card 279 96.21% e Other 4 1.38%

Security Situation 85 Family members feel safe 582 100.00% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 87 After 2003, how many people in family have been a Detained 2 Out of 582 IDP households surveyed b Kidnapped 21 c Killed by Militants 4 d Killed by Another citizen 4

88 Number still not accounted for 35 Out of 582 IDP households surveyed

Gender 90 Women/girls feel safe outside the 571 100.00% Out of 571 IDP households surveyed having house woman in the family 91 Women approach whom for help Out of 571 IDP households surveyed having a Family 569 99.65% woman in the family b Tribal leaders 2 0.35%

92 Women's ability to move outside of Out of 571 IDP households surveyed having home since 2003 woman in the family b Less able 115 20.14% a More able 456 79.86%

Special Needs 98 Families with Special Needs Out of 130 IDP households surveyed having one 1 Mentally Disabled 2 1.54% need or more. The total may not adding 100% as 2 Physically Disabled 20 15.38% some households may list more than one need. 3 Malnutrition 1 0.77% 4 Serious Medical Condition 2 1.54% 9 Woman at Risk 4 3.08% 13 Old Age in Need of Support 1 0.77% 17 Chronic Diseases 101 77.69% 18 Other 4 3.08%

26 19 One or more need 130 22.34% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed Income and commodities 99 Main source of income Out of 375 IDP households surveyed having a a Full time employment 133 35.47% source of income b Casual/irregular employment 103 27.47% c Self-employment 139 37.07% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed d No employment 170 29.21% e Remittances 16 2.75% f Savings/benefits 21 3.61%

100 Family members of working age who are: a Of working age 1285 Out of 582 ODP households surveyed. b Working 448 34.62% c Working and paid 190 42.41% Out of 448 ODP households surveyed. d Working in private sector 181 40.40% e Working in public sector 78 17.41%

102 Items brought with family a Livestock 3 0.52% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed b Agricultural tools 0 0.00% c Shelter material 0 0.00% d Car/transportation 68 11.68% e Winter clothing 576 98.97% f Other 240 41.24%

Assistance 103 Received assistance 124 21.31% Out of 582 IDP households surveyed 104 Type of assistance received Out of 124 IDP households surveyed f Other 114 91.94% g Food 10 8.06%

Priority needs 105 Top Priorities Out of 582 IDP households surveyed. The values a Electricity 1 0.17% do not add up to 100% because households listed b Health 15 2.58% up to three priorities for assistance. c Job 155 26.63% d More money 4 0.69% e Public services 2 0.34% g Shelter 541 92.96% I Documentation 4 0.69% m Education 2 0.34% q Assistance 466 80.07% u Food 62 10.65% z Other 485 83.33%

27