comparative multi-cluster assessment of internally displaced persons living in camps iraq

Comparative Multi-Cluster Needs Assessment of Internally Displaced Persons Inside of Camps in Iraq - January 2016

1

COMPARATIVE MULTI-CLUSTER ASSESSMENT OF

INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS LIVING IN CAMPS

IRAQ

ASSESSMENT REPORT

JANUARY 2016


2

Executive Summary Iraq has been in the grips of a displacement crisis since January 2014, as a result of clashes between Armed

Groups (AGs) and the Iraqi government. Starting in Anbar Governorate, violence escalated in June 2014,

spreading across much of northern and central Iraq and causing large scale internal displacement, primarily

towards the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). As of January 2016, an estimated 3.2 million people have been

internally displaced1, with 236,626 individuals registered as living in 40 formally managed camps across Iraq in

August 2015.2

Whilst many IDP camps in the KRI have been inhabited for over a year, others have only recently opened. Some

were planned and are run with strong government support, whereas others have developed from spontaneous

settlements – many of which, in the central and southern areas of Iraq, are still managed by private individuals with

community support. As such, there is a clear need to monitor all the camps over time as infrastructure either

continues to develop or is in need of maintenance, and actors delivering services in the camps shift according to

funding and management.

The CCCM Quarterly IDP Camp Profiling exercise, conducted by the CCCM Cluster and REACH Initiative

(REACH) is the third of its kind conducted in Iraq. Primary data was collected through household surveys between

1 September and 12 October 2015. The purpose of this assessment was to provide updated information on

developments, needs and gaps in all IDP camps across Iraq, in particular to highlight priority household needs in

order to inform the planning of a more effective humanitarian response. The key change between this round and

the previous two rounds (conducted in October 2014 and January 2015) is the scope of the assessment, which

has expanded from only those camps in the KRI to cover IDP camps across Iraq. This change is primarily due to

the swift growth in number of camps across the country since the last round of assessment, in particular the

establishment of 20 new camps in the central-southern governorates.3 In this third round, a total of 34 out of 40

identified formal camps were assessed by REACH, covering the KRI, Ninewa4, Diyala, Baghdad and Missan.5 The

nine camps that were not assessed were not accessible to field teams at the time of assessment, due to security

concerns and/or lack of authorisation.

Findings from this comparative study clearly reflect how the current status of IDP camps is affected by geographical

location, type of governance, development timeline, and the original purpose of the site. Predictably, camps

established earlier, tended to have more well-established services than camps that were built later on. For example,

many of the camps in Dahuk, Ninewa and Erbil were planned in response to the initial IDP influx in August 2014,

have better developed infrastructure and services, and are more likely to meet CCCM, Sphere and/or UNHCR

minimum standards in relation to living space and access to water and sanitation. In comparison, authorities in

Sulaymaniyah and Diyala are still in the process of relocating IDPs from transit sites and spontaneous settlements

that have been occupied since the end of 2014 to newly constructed or planned camps.6 In these areas, limited

investment, overcrowding in temporary sites, and prolonged delays in the establishment of new camps, has meant

that services in these sites have generally been poorly maintained. Findings in the South reflect an entirely different

context in which many camps in Baghdad have grown from spontaneous settlements following the Ramadi influx

1 IOM, Displacement Tracking Matrix, January 2016 2 Formally managed camps are those recognized by the Camp Coordination and Camp Management, CCCM, Cluster in Iraq. CCCM Cluster, Iraq CCCM Settlement Status Report, 8 August 2015. An additional nine camps exist in the KRI for Syrian refugees, but are not included in this report with pertains to conditions for Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) within Iraq living in camps. 3 These camps were situated in Anbar (6), Baghdad (10), Diyala (2), Missan (1) and Salah al Din (1) governorates (Iraq CCCM IDP Sites List, September 2015). 4 Including IDP camps geographically located in Ninewa Governorate, but managed by the Dahuk administration (DMC). 5 A full list of assessed camps per governorate can be found in Annex 1 6 2,100 IDP individuals were relocated from Arbat IDP camp (originally a temporary settlement for Syrian refugees) to the newly opened Ashti camp in August and September 2015.

http://iomiraq.net/dtm-page


3

of IDPs since June 20157, and are now managed by volunteers - often religious or local community leaders. Here,

development of infrastructure has been limited, with most camps featuring tented accommodation shared by

multiple families and a limited number of poorly maintained communal latrines and showers.

This assessment found clear variation between camp conditions in the northern governorates (Dahuk, Ninewa and

Erbil), and those in Sulaymaniyah and central-southern governorates of Diyala, Baghdad and Missan. In particular,

IDPs residing in camps in Sulaymaniyah and Diyala were found to face the most critical need for food and

winterisation assistance, while camps in Baghdad and Missan were generally found to have poorer waste

management and particularly limited access to healthcare.

According to IDPs, immediate priority needs include the provision of special medical assistance for households

hosting vulnerable members, shelter and NFIs related to winterisation, as well as improved water supply and

sanitation. High proportions of IDPs across all camps were struggling to afford their most basic needs and resorting

to negative coping strategies in order to make ends meet. With the overwhelming majority of assessed IDP

households reporting no intention to move within the foreseeable future, access to livelihoods and increased

community representation in camp management remain key challenges in the medium to longer-term.

Key issues of concern for IDPs in camps across Iraq include the following:

Protection: The large majority of households in IDP camps in Iraq do not intend to move permanently

from the camp within the next three months (91%), apart from in Diyala where 61% did not know their

intentions. The IDP population in camps includes a significant proportions of individuals in need of

special assistance, particularly chronically ill individuals (6%), and pregnant or lactating women (4%).

Camps in Baghdad had a particularly large proportion of households (41%) with a least one disabled

member who have no livelihood and therefore have a high dependency ratio.

Food security: IDP households living in camps across Iraq often struggle to afford their current levels

of food consumption and engage in negative food-based coping strategies: 62% of households reported

eating cheaper food than they normally would, 26% borrowing or buying food on credit, and 15% eating

fewer meals. A particularly high proportion of households living in IDP camps in Sulaymaniyah and

Diyala was found to be unable to sustain adequate levels of food consumption, with 15% and 14%

respectively reporting ‘poor’ or ‘borderline’ Food Consumption Scores (FCS)8.

Livelihoods: Most IDP households in camps are engaging in negative livelihoods-based coping

strategies in order to afford their basic needs: a large amount of households reported to have spent

savings (49%), bought food on credit or borrowed money to buy food (41%), or sold household assets

(27%) within the 30 days preceding assessment. Across Baghdad camps and certain Northern

camps, the majority of households reported not having any members in employment. Even

amongst households in IDP camps earning an income, high proportions of households were reliant on

inactive income (such as pensions) and/or dependent on assistance (such as aid or gifts).

Shelter and Non-Food Items (NFI): Vector control and insulation were key shelter issues across

most governorates: 92% of households reported a presence of vectors, 62% reported gaps between the

flooring and walls of their shelter, and 42% of tents do not have a second fly sheet, to protect them against

harsh weather conditions. At the time of assessment in September 2015, many IDP households were

without key shelter and NFI-related winterization items.

7 Fighting between Armed Groups and the Iraqi government has engulfed Anbar governorate since January 2014, with Ramadi the focus of ongoing violence. An escalation of hostilities in Ramadi city throughout April 2015, which resulted in AG consolidation of control over the city in mid-May, triggered an especially urgent displacement crisis within the region. 8 A measure of the frequency of consumption and the nutritional value of food consumed. For the MENA region, including Iraq and Syria, WFP interprets an FCS score of 28 or under to indicate a poor food consumption profile; a score from 28.1 through 42 to be borderline; and an FCS score above 42 to indicate an acceptable food consumption profile of food security.


4

WASH: Frequent water shortages were reported by IDPs, with only 71% of households in camps

across Iraq reporting access to water every day in the week preceding assessment. The majority of

households across most governorates had access to functional latrines (99%) and showers (95%).

However, lower levels of latrine access and a lack of privacy were particularly concerning in camps

in Sulaymaniyah and Diyala, and to a lesser extent in camps in Baghdad. Waste disposal was found to

be particularly poor in certain camps in Baghdad and Diyala, raising concerns related to the spread of

disease.

Camp Management: Across the governorates, households often raised concerns that their needs

were not represented in the camp (13%). The proportion of households reporting access to information

on legal issues (40%) was significantly lower than access to information on humanitarian assistance

(67%) and registration (78%).


5

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Contents ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Abbreviations and Acronyms .............................................................................................................................. 6

List of Figure and Maps ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Contextual Overview........................................................................................................................................... 7

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Annex I – Sampling Framework and Individual Camp Profiles ......................................................................... 18

Annex II – Questionnaire .................................................................................................................................. 20

Cover image: Kerbala MODM Camp, December 2015. ©REACH, 2016

About REACH Initiative

REACH is a joint initiative of two international non-governmental organizations - ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives -

and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). REACH was created in 2010 to facilitate

the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-

based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted in

support to and within the framework of inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information about

REACH and to access our information products, please visit: www.reach-initiative.org. You can also write to us

at: [email protected] and follow us @REACH_info

http://www.reach-initiative.org/

mailto:[email protected]


6

Abbreviations and Acronyms FCS IDP FAO HRP KRG KRI MCNA NFI NGO ODK PDS UN WFP

Food Consumption Score Internally Displaced Person Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Humanitarian Response Plan Kurdistan Regional Government Kurdistan Region of Iraq Multi-Cluster Needs Assessment Non-Food Items Non-Governmental Organisation Open Data Kit Public Distribution System United Nations World Food Programme

List of Figure and Maps

Map 1: Assessed IDP camps across Iraq ........................................................................................................................ 8

Figure 1: Demographic breakdown of IDP camp population across Iraq ........................................................................ 9

Figure 2: Reported household intentions to leave the camp permanently, by governorate ........................................... 10

Figure 3: Proportion of total IDP camp population (individuals) in need of special assistance ...................................... 10

Figure 9: Food-based coping strategies employed by IDP camp households at least one day in the week preceding

assessment, by governorate ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3: Proportion of IDP camp households reporting at least one household member to be working in the 30 days

preceding assessment, by governorate ......................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4: Livelihoods-based coping strategies adopted by IDP camp households in the month preceding assessment,

by governorate ............................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: Proportion of IDP camp households without winterisation NFI items (blankets, carpets and stoves), by

governorate ................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 8: Number of days access to water supply ......................................................................................................... 14

Figure 7: Access to latrines, including access to latrine privacy (locks and lights), as reported by IDP camps

households, by governorate .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8: Primary method of waste disposal by IDP camp households, by governorate ............................................... 15

Figure 11: Proportion of households who reported that their complaints are raised and acted upon, by governorate .. 16


7

Contextual Overview Iraq has been in the grips of a displacement crisis since January 2014, as a result of clashes between Armed

Groups (AGs) and the Iraqi government. Starting in Anbar Governorate, violence escalated in June 2014,

spreading across much of northern and central Iraq and causing large scale internal displacement. As of January

2016, an estimated 3.2 million people have been internally displaced9, with 236,626 individuals registered as living

in 40 formally managed camps across Iraq in August 2015, 31 of which were assessed for this report.10

In November 2015, key findings from this round of data collection were disseminated by the CCCM Cluster and

REACH in the form of individual camp profiles for each assessed camp. The profiles included information collected

from camp management; performance related to core CCCM and SPHERE standards; and updated infrastructure

maps of each camp. These had been reviewed by both camp managers and CCCM governorate-level focal points

prior to publication. Following preliminary analysis, the CCCM Cluster and REACH presented and shared initial

findings with the Food Security, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), Shelter and NFI, and Livelihoods and

Social Cohesion clusters, taking feedback from cluster partners. The timing of these presentations was planned to

coincide with the start of the planning cycle for the November Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) for 2016. The

camp profiling exercise therefore provided a quantitative evidence base for decision makers with the purpose of

planning, sector prioritization and for target group identification at the camp level.

The first part of the report introduces the methodology designed and applied by REACH, followed by a profile of

the IDP populations covered by the assessment. The second part of the report outlines sector specific assessment

findings on livelihoods, shelter and NFI, winterization, water and sanitation, food security, and community

representation, and where possible, includes some comparison with findings from the previous round of camp

profiling.

Methodology

This assessment sought to provide updated information on developments, needs and gaps in all IDP camps across

Iraq, in particular to highlight household priority needs in order to inform the planning of a more effective

humanitarian response. Primary data was collected through household surveys between 1 September and 12

October 2015, in all open and accessible formal camps identified by CCCM at the end of August 2015.11 A total of

31 camps were assessed in the KRI, Ninewa, Diyala, Baghdad and Missan, and a full list of camps per governorate

can be found in Annex 1. Households in each camp were randomly sampled to a 95% confidence level and 10%

margin of error based on population figures provided by the CCCM. In total, 2769 households were interviewed.

The indicators and questionnaire12 for this assessment were developed in collaboration with CCCM cluster focal

points and partners, as well as shared with camp managers for their inputs, prior to the assessment.

Data was collected through household-level interviews. For the purpose of this assessment, a household unit was

defined as consisting of one head of household and all individuals residing within the boundaries of the household

sharing income and food – including family and non-family members.13 Interviews were conducted in Arabic,

conducted by mixed-gender teams. Teams entered data directly using Open Data Kit (ODK) software on hand-

held devices. The raw data was cleaned to eliminate demonstrably erroneous entries.

9 IOM, Displacement Tracking Matrix, January 2016 10 Iraq CCCM Settlement Status Report, 8 August 2015. An additional nine camps exist in the KRI for Syrian refugees, but are not included in this report with pertains to conditions for Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) within Iraq living in camps. 11 Iraq CCCM Settlement Status Report, 8 August 2015 12 For the full questionnaire, please see Annex 2. 13 In broader terms, a household could therefore be defined as a set of individuals or families sharing a corresponding shelter or set of shelters as well as income. It is important to note that a single household can, at times, host more than one family unit. In the field, the exact boundaries of each household unit – and therefore the number of individuals residing within it – were determined, where appropriate, on a self-defined basis by the head of household or the most senior household member available at the time of the assessment.

http://iomiraq.net/dtm-page


8

Map 1: Assessed IDP camps across Iraq

Following the preliminary analysis, REACH shared the initial findings and requested feedback from the Food

Security, Water and Sanitation Hygiene, Shelter and NFI and Livelihoods and Social Cohesion clusters. Where

possible, these inputs have been incorporated into this report, in order to include cluster-specific contextual

knowledge and ensure that the indicators included are relevant to cluster activities.

Throughout this report, data is generally presented at two levels: disaggregated by governorate; or generalized for

sites across Iraq. For findings of specific concern in certain camps, data is presented at camp level. Data presented

at the Iraq level has been weighted based on each governorate’s IDP camp population size; and data presented

at the governorate level has been weighted based on each camp’s IDP population size. In most cases where data

is presented at the governorate-level only, there was no significant variation between camps.

Limitations Formal camps in Anbar and Kirkuk were not assessed due to security concerns and authorization issues at the

time of assessment. The specific needs of the large proportions of IDPs residing in camps in these governorates,

are therefore not reflected in the ‘Iraq-wide’ statistics in this report.

It should be noted that the overall confidence level of 95% applies to those findings which pertain to the full sample.

Any findings presented solely on subsets of the population – e.g. households who reported that they live in a tent

– inevitably have a lower confidence level. In particular those findings which relate to a very small subset of the

population should therefore be treated as indicative only.

Findings in comparison to the previous assessment in October 2014 are only possible for Al Yawa New, Arbat IDP,

Baharka, Bajet Kandala, Garmawa, and Khanke camps, as remaining camps have since moved or were not yet


9

open at the time. Therefore camp specific comparisons can be made (as both assessments were conducted with

the same level of confidence and margin of error), however generalizations at governorate or country level cannot.

Due to the timing of assessment in September, the academic school year had not re-started at the beginning of

assessment. For consistency of findings, no enrollment data is included in this report.

When reading this report and using findings presented herein, the reader should bear in mind that this assessment

represents responses given by beneficiaries. While REACH always endeavors to create an open dialogue with

respondents in order to collect objective responses, the subjectivity and possibility of bias in the response should

be taken into account.

Key Findings

IDP Camp Population Profile

Across Iraq, 53% of the IDP camp population are minors, with 8% below the age of two, and 19% below the

age of five. Only 4% of the population was above the age of 60. This demographic profile varied little between

governorates.

Figure 1: Demographic breakdown of IDP camp population across Iraq

Typically each household occupies one shelter, in some cases two. The average number of shelters per household

across Iraq was 1.4. 8% of households residing in camps across Iraq were female headed. Baghdad (14%),

Sulaymaniyah (14%) and Missan (13%) saw a higher proportion of female headed households, while the other

governorates saw between 5% (Dahuk and Ninewa) and 9% (Diyala and Erbil).

The overwhelming majority of IDPs individuals in camps - between 94% in Diyala and 100% in Missan - are

registered as IDPs. However, Dahuk (8%), Ninewa (6%) and Erbil (5%) saw higher proportions of individuals

missing civil documents, which can hinder access to humanitarian and legal assistance, as well as access to

livelihoods and public services.

The large majority across all camps reported that they do not intend to move permanently from the camp

within the next three months (91%), apart from in Diyala where 61% did not know their intentions. In

addition, 27% of residents in Missan reported that they intended to move within three months. Comparatively, in

October 2014, the majority of residents in assessed camps reported that they did not know whether or not they

wanted to move. This shift may reflect the initial response to recent displacement, with IDPs struggling to come to

grips with their current situation, and unsure of their immediate options. The finding that most households intend

to remain in camps for the foreseeable future demonstrates the lack of visible durable solutions for IDPs in

Iraq.

4%

5%

9%

5%

4%

21%

2%

4%

6%

8%

4%

4%

21%

2%

0 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 11

12 to 14

15 to 17

18 to 59

Over 60

Females Males


10

Figure 2: Reported household intentions to leave the camp permanently, by governorate

Moreover, on a daily basis across Iraq 14% of IDPs residing in camps reported that their movement entering and

exiting the camp was somehow restricted (such as curfews, handover of documentation etc.). Missan contained

the highest proportion of IDPs reporting this (27%) of restrictions on freedom of movement, followed by Erbil (21%).

Almost a fifth (18%) of the IDP camp population across Iraq is in need of special assistance. Camps in

Sulaymaniyah host the highest proportion of separated children (2% of individuals), while the other governorates

saw less than 1%. The proportion of IDPs with a disability was similar, varying little between governorates from

2% to 3%. While the proportion of individuals with a chronic illness was less than 10% across all governorates, this

was reported by a higher proportion of individuals in camps in Erbil (9%). These individuals are potentially at risk

of medical complications, as 40% of households hosting disable, chronically ill and/or pregnant or lactating

women, reported limited access to consistent medical supplies. Only 11% of IDP camp households hosting

individuals with specific needs in Diyala reported consistent access to medical care, with low proportions also

reported in camps in Dahuk (26%) and Sulaymaniyah (36%).

Figure 3: Proportion of total IDP camp population (individuals) in need of special assistance

In particular, medical supplies for obstetric care are a primary need across all camps: 4% of IDP individuals

living in camps across Iraq are either pregnant or lactating. Camps in Sulaymaniyah host the largest proportion

(40%) of households with a pregnant or lactating woman, while the proportion ranged between 19% (Missan) and

26% (Dahuk) of households in other governorates. A particularly concerning proportion of pregnant or lactating

women in Diyala were reportedly not accessing any obstetric care (13%), as well as 10% in Baghdad and 6% in

Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah respectively.

Across the accessible camps of Iraq, 22% of IDP camp households reported a member who suffered from

a health issue in the 30 days preceding assessment. Minimal variation in the presence of diarrhea amongst

children was found across governorates, between 3% in Missan and 12% in Sulaymaniyah. Amongst all household

members, Erbil saw the highest proportion of individuals with diarrhea (5%). The presence of other illnesses

reported also varied little, between 1% and 2% in most governorates, apart from higher rates of skin disease (3%)

and diarrhea (4%) in Diyala.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bagdhad Dahuk Diyala Erbil Missan Ninewa Sulaymaniyah

No Don't know Yes - In less than a week Yes - Within less than three months Yes - Within a month

0.4%

1%

3%

3%

5%

6%

Separated child

Pregnant

Lactating

Disability (mental or physical)

Civil documents missing

Chronic illness


11

Food Security

Despite overall acceptable Food Consumption Scores (FCS)14 for the majority of governorates,

consumption patterns were especially concerning in camps in Sulaymaniyah and Diyala. This assessment

found that the average FCS for most governorates ranged between 72 and 86, but was comparatively low in Diyala

(56) and Sulaymaniyah (58). Subsequently, high proportions of households in Sulaymaniyah (15%) and Diyala

(14%) had poor or borderline scores compared to between 0% and 1% in all the other governorates. In comparison,

a REACH Rapid Food Security Assessment15 of IDPs, including in camps, across the KRI conducted in partnership

with the World Food Programme (WFP) and Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in

April 2016, found that 97% of IDP households across camps in the KRI presented an acceptable score, with

minimal variation across camps including Sulaymaniyah and Diyala. This indicates that food security inside camps

in the latter two governorates has declined between April and September. Although no direct correlation was found

in the data, it should be noted that access to Public Distribution System (PDS)16 rations in the month preceding

assessment was lower in Diyala (45%) compared to other governorates, as well as Erbil (4%). Other reasons for

poor FCS scores in Sulaymaniyah and Diyala may include the lower access to livelihoods compared to other

governorates as detailed below, with many households unable to afford their basic food needs.

Figure 4: Food-based coping strategies employed by IDP camp households at least one day in the week preceding assessment, by governorate

Borrowed food

Ate cheaper food

Ate fewer meals

Ate smaller meals

Adults ate less

Sent children to beg Scavenged

Baghdad 43% 45% 7% 5% 11% 0% 0%

Dahuk 25% 58% 15% 10% 2% 0% 0%

Diyala 15% 97% 35% 29% 5% 0% 0%

Erbil 4% 52% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0%

Missan 16% 89% 22% 57% 0% 0% 0%

Ninewa 16% 61% 6% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Sulaymaniyah 64% 87% 30% 20% 10% 1% 7%

Despite high FCS scores, a high rate of engagement in negative food-based coping strategies across all

governorates indicates that most IDP households living in camps across Iraq are struggling to meet their

basic food needs. The main coping strategies that were used across all governorates were to eat cheaper food

than they would usually eat, used by 61% of all households, and to borrow food (27% of all households) at least

one day a week. Highlighting the higher reported levels of food insecurity in Sulaymaniyah and Diyala,

households in these camps were adopting more extreme coping strategies, with 30% and 35% skipping

meals at least one day a week, and 20% and 29% eating smaller meals respectively. Cases of scavenging were

even reported in Sulaymaniyah (7%).

Based on the relationship between access to livelihoods and FCS as detailed above, coupled with the finding that

the overwhelming majority of households had access to markets (between 86% in Baghdad, the lowest level of

access among all governorates, and 100% in Missan), it is likely that most households are adopting these

coping strategies because they cannot afford to sustain the dietary habits they had prior to displacement.

14The FCS is a World Food Programme (WFP) composite score based on current dietary diversity, food frequency and the relative nutritional importance of

different food groups. For the MENA region, including Iraq and Syria, WFP interprets a score of 28 or under to indicate a poor food consumption profile; a

score from 28.1 through 42 to be borderline; and a score above 42 to indicate an acceptable food consumption profile of food security. 15 REACH Initiative, WFP and FAO, ‘Rapid Food Security Assessment of IDPs and Host Communities’, The Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Assessment Report, July 2015 16 The Public Distribution System (PDS) is the monthly food ration for every Iraqi citizen provided under the PDS which was introduced by the central government in 1991.

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_wfp_fao_rfsa_kurdistan_region_of_iraq_08_11_2015.pdf


12

Should high rates of unemployment continue, household food consumption patterns are very likely to deteriorate

without additional assistance.

Livelihoods

With 39% of IDP households in camps across Iraq reporting that no household members were earning an income,

many are struggling to meet their most basic needs, such as food, due to limited access to livelihoods.

In Baghdad camps as well as in certain camps across the KRI and neighbouring governorates, more than

half of households reported that no household members were earning an income in the week preceding

assessment. Limited access to livelihoods was found to be closely linked to specific IDP camps: more than half of

IDP households reported that none of their household members were earning an income Garmawa (75%) and

Tazade (67%) camps, with high proportions in Berseve 2 (45%), Aiden (49%) and Shariya (43%). However,

compared to the camps assessed in October 2014, the proportion of households with one member working has

increased slightly across all camps – with the biggest change seen in Ankawa 2 from 20% to 83%, and smallest in

Arbat IDP from 30% to 50%.

Figure 5: Proportion of IDP camp households reporting at least one household member to be working in the 30 days preceding assessment, by governorate

When asked about their primary source of income in the month preceding the assessment (including both

households with and without breadwinners in the previous week), livelihoods were mostly found to be based

on temporary forms of income that provide little financial stability for families: unskilled labour was the most

common form of livelihood (23%), followed by low-skilled service and public sector jobs (6% respectively). In

addition, a high proportion of both households with and without breadwinners are reliant on inactive income and/or

dependent on assistance, rendering them vulnerable to external fluctuations in policy and supply. For example,

many households in Diyala were dependent on pensions (12%), while reliance on gifts was more common in

Ninewa (14%), and camps in Diyala (63%), Baghdad (35%) and Sulaymaniyah (35%) reported higher reliance on

humanitarian aid.

Female headed households were found to be particularly likely to have no income. In all governorates apart

from Dahuk and Erbil, a larger proportion of the female headed households compared to male headed households

had no livelihood. These relative proportions were particularly high in Ninewa (56% of female headed-households

without livelihoods compared to 25% of male-headed households) and Sulaymaniyah (25% female compared to

12% male). It should also be noted that camps in Baghdad had a large proportion of households (41%) with a least

one disabled member who have no livelihood, and are therefore especially vulnerable.

Due to limited access to livelihoods, the majority of IDP households living in camps across Iraq are engaging

in negative coping strategies in order to afford their basic needs, as seen in figure 4. These coping strategies

are often exhaustive in the long term, as is the case for the common coping strategies of spending savings (49%

of households across Iraq), selling assets (34%), and accumulating debt (41% reported buying food on credit or

borrowing money to buy food). As such, faced with protracted displacement, households are likely to become

65%

34%49%

33% 40% 47%

35%

66%51%

67%

95%

60% 53%

Baghdad Dahuk Diyala Erbil Missan Ninewa Sulaymaniyah

No Yes


13

increasingly less capable of affording their basic needs. In particular, households who have sold household

items (27%) or productive assets (7%) will have limited ability to re-establish livelihoods in the future.

Figure 6: Livelihoods-based coping strategies adopted by IDP camp households in the month preceding assessment, by governorate

Spent savings

Bought food on credit or borrowed money to buy food

Spent less money on other needs

Sold household assets

Sold productive assets

Taken jobs that are high risk or socially degrading

Sent adult household members to bed

Sent children household members to beg

Baghdad 29% 8% 40% 23% 5% 1% 0% 0%

Dahuk 47% 43% 28% 27% 6% 2% 0% 0%

Diyala 79% 32% 53% 16% 5% 2% 0% 0%

Erbil 75% 32% 20% 32% 13% 0% 0% 0%

Missan 95% 19% 68% 68% 51% 0% 0% 0%

Ninewa 55% 42% 25% 26% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Sulaymaniyah 28% 61% 54% 39% 18% 2% 1% 0%

If adopted in the longer term these coping strategies will be exhausted, and an increasing number of

households will be in critical need of first-line assistance including food, shelter, medicine and water. A

clear indication of this dynamic is the relation between livelihoods and access to food: the majority of households

with a poor food consumption score (57%) lacked any livelihood, as did 28% of those with a borderline score. In

contrast, 89% of those with an acceptable score did report an income. Indeed, in comparison to October 2014, the

proportion of households spending savings has increased across all assessed camps apart from Bajet Kandala.

The largest increases were found in Baharka, where the spending of savings increased by 65% and Ankawa 2 by

56%. This indicates that over time and growing number of households are unable to afford their needs based on

their current income. In some governorates, a larger proportion of female headed households were found to engage

in more severe coping strategies. In particular 62% of female headed households compared to 28% of male headed

households in Erbil had sold their household assets. Similarly, in Ninewa 65% of female headed households

compared to 54% of male headed households were engaged in debt.

Shelter/NFI and winterization

Flooding and vector control were key issues across most governorates - leaving households exposed to

an increased risk of the spread of disease, and placing shelters at risk of permanent damage. Across all

governorates, more than half (62%) of the shelters were observed to have gaps between the wall and the ground.

The proportions were found to be particularly high in certain camps in Baghdad - Nabi Sheet (92%), Al Jamea’a

(84%), Nabi Younis (80%) - as well as Eyes of Missan (81%). This indicates exposure to vectors and flooding

across most shelters. Indeed, when households were asked if they had experienced vectors inside their shelters,

sizeable proportions of households living in IDP camps confirmed their presence - in Erbil households reported the

lowest proportion of vectors within the shelter (44%), while the highest were reported in Missan (100%), Diyala

(98%) and Sulaymaniyah (97%).

Most camps used predominantly one type of shelter for residents, and this assessment found the shelter types

implemented in camps also largely differ at the governorate level. In general, caravans are most common in

Missan (100%) and Erbil (67%), while tents with a cement base are the primary shelter type in Dahuk (78%) and

Ninewa (100%). In Sulaymaniyah the majority (73%) have a tent on the ground, similarly in Diyala (55%) and

Baghdad (70%).

Only 44% of tents across all governorates, with the lowest proportions in Erbil (31%) and Baghdad (36%), were

observed to have second fly sheets, which provide additional protection against the passage of rainwater,


14

particularly during winter. Across many governorates, roughly half of IDP households are not equipped with

enough household NFIs in order to cope with the winter, with a particular shortage of stoves. Baghdad

(53%) and Erbil (50%) - particularly in Baharka (61%) and Ainkawa 2 (47%) – had more households without a

stove, which was also reported by a large proportion in Arbat IDP camp (49%). A lack of stoves limits the ability of

households to heat their shelter, as well as cook meals or treat water by boiling; this in turn makes the household

more vulnerable to poor health and disease. High proportions of households residing in IDP camps in

Sulaymaniyah (60%), Baghdad (46%), and Diyala (46%) had less than one blanket per person. Diyala had the

highest proportion of households without any carpets (88%) while this was also commonly reported in Ninewa

(81%) and to a slightly lesser extent in Dahuk (54%).

Figure 7: Proportion of IDP camp households without winterisation NFI items (blankets, carpets and stoves), by governorate

No blankets No carpets No stoves

Baghdad 46% 33% 54%

Dahuk 11% 54% 12%

Diyala 47% 88% 17%

Erbil 30% 52% 50%

Missan 0% 14% 8%

Ninewa 24% 81% 25%

Sulaymaniyah 60% 40% 41%

Water and Sanitation

Frequent water shortages were reported across many camps, raising health concerns for adequate intake

of drinking water or use of unsafe alternative sources, as well as limited capacity to uphold hygienic

household practices. Across Iraq, only 71% of IDP households residing in camps reported access to water supply

every day of the week. There were significant variations across governorates however, with 30% of households in

Dahuk, 17% in Diyala and 6% in Ninewa reporting between two and four days of access to water a week. Camps

of particular concern, where households reported only accessing water between two and four days a week, include

Latifiya 3 (30%) in Baghdad, Berseve 1 (33%) and 2 (22%) and Karbato 1 (100%) and Karbato 2 (99%) in Dahuk,

and Al Wand 1 (29%) in Diyala. Additionally, 80% in Sulaymaniyah reported between 5 and 7 days water access

a week.

IDP households living in Sulaymaniyah and Diyala, and to a lesser extent in Baghdad, are particularly

exposed to hygiene and protection concerns due to a higher lack of access to latrines and lack of privacy.

The overwhelming majority (99%) of households across all governorates reported access to functional latrines.

However, high proportions of households reporting no access to latrines were reported in Arbat (18%) in

93%

64%89% 84%

73%92%

24%

7%

1% 9% 27% 2%

70%

7%30%

9% 8% 6% 6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


7 days 5 to 6 days 2 to 4 days

Figure 8: Number of days access to water supply


15

Sulaymaniyah, Ankawa 2 (16%) in Erbil, as well as the Scout (7%) and Shooting (9%) camps in Baghdad. Of those

with access to functional latrines, in most governorates the large majority (91%) had locks on doors and were fitted

with lights, providing some privacy. The lowest proportions of latrines with locks and lights were found in

Sulaymaniyah (56%) and Diyala (63%). A large majority (95%) across all governorates had access to functional

showers. Again, lower rates of showers with locks and lights were reported in Diyala (53%) and Sulaymaniyah

(53%). When looking at findings from October 2014, access to showers has improved in Bajet Kandala and

Garmawa, from 58% and 46% to 98% respectively.

Figure 9: Access to latrines, including access to latrine privacy (locks and lights), as reported by IDP camps households, by governorate

Waste disposal was found to be particularly poor in certain camps in Baghdad and Diyala, raising concerns

for the spread of disease. For example 12% and 9% of households in Baghdad and Diyala respectively reported

throwing waste in the street. This was especially common in Shooting camp in Baghdad (79%) and Al Wand (23%)

in Diyala. 19% of households in Diyala also reported disposing of waste in an open rubbish pit – these rates were

particularly concerning in the camps of Tazade (25)%, Aiden (21%) and Al Wand1 (19%).

Figure 10: Primary method of waste disposal by IDP camp households, by governorate

Collected Communal Bin Rubbish Pit Discard in Streets Burning

Baghdad 45% 41% 2% 12% 0%

Dahuk 88% 10% 1% 1% 0%

Diyala 54% 17% 19% 9% 1%

Erbil 81% 13% 0% 6% 0%

Missan 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Ninewa 99% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Sulaymaniyah 98% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Camp Management

Across the governorates, significant proportions of households raised concerns that their needs were not

represented in their camp. Compared to other governorates (86% across Iraq), lower proportions of households

in Sulaymaniyah (64%), Diyala (70%) and Erbil (70%) perceived that camp committees were representative of their

needs. Moreover, respondents reported similar levels of awareness of complaints mechanisms (processes and

systems where residents can file complaints about conditions in the camps, such as suggestion boxes or through

representation in camp committee meetings) across governorates - between 64% in Sulaymaniyah and 79% in

Dahuk, with a slightly lower proportion in Baghdad (57%). However, there was large variation in the proportions

of IDPs that felt their complaints are raised and acted upon – between 13% of the whole camp population

in camps in Missan, and 71% in Dahuk.

80%96%

64%84%

100% 99%

56%

18%4%

37%10%

1%

32%

2% 6% 12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Access to latrine privacy Access to latrines without privacy No access to latrines


16

Figure 11: Proportion of households who reported that their complaints are raised and acted upon, by governorate

The availability of information about legal support and humanitarian assistance (including distributions

and access to services provided by humanitarian actors within camps) was more limited than information

about registration. 78% of households across all governorates felt they had received enough information about

registration, but only 40% felt they had received sufficient legal information while there was a larger variation among

the governorates of households who felt they had received enough information on assistance – between 52% of

households in Sulaymaniyah and 100% in Missan. Notably, compared to findings from the previous assessment

October 2014, the proportion of households who reported having received sufficient information about assistance

has in fact decreased slightly in all assessed camps apart from Ainkawa 2 (from 45% to 80%) and Arbat IDP camp

(from 18% to 52%).

In terms of security, Baghdad (19%) and Sulaymaniyah (63%) had the lowest reports of policing available for law

enforcement or dispute resolution in the camp, compared to between 83% (Erbil) and 100% (Missan) in the other

governorates.

Conclusion The purpose of this assessment was to provide updated information on developments, needs and gaps in all

accessible IDP camps across Iraq, in particular to highlight household priority needs in order to inform the planning

of a more effective humanitarian response. As this assessment found that the overwhelming majority of IDP

households living in camps across Iraq do not intend to move within less than three months, recommendations

take into account both critical short-term needs, as well as medium to longer-term needs.

Priority short-term needs for the general IDP population residing in camps were identified as cash; shelter

winterization assistance; NFIs; improvements to water access, including frequency of water supply; and

improved privacy around WASH facilities. In Sulaymaniyah and Diyala, clear programmatic gaps existed for

improved food assistance. In terms of specific vulnerabilities, the large proportion (18%) of IDP households in

camps that host vulnerable members in need of special assistance, should be taken into particular consideration.

This relates particularly to the need for additional medical supplies, as well as healthcare for pregnant or lactating

women and chronically ill individuals.

With high levels of unemployment and most households struggling to afford their most basic needs, cash

assistance could be considered to help households living in IDP camps cope with limited access to

livelihoods. More targeted interventions could be directed at female headed households, households without

livelihoods, and those hosting members with disabilities, particularly in Baghdad governorate. Clear short-term

programmatic needs were also identified for WASH and food assistance. With 29% of households reporting not to

have access to water every day of the week, there is a clear need for WASH improvements across all IDP camps

in Iraq. With 30% of households in Dahuk as well as 17% in Diyala and 6% in Ninewa reporting between two and

four days of access to water a week, there is a clear programmatic WASH gap in terms of facilitating regular,

consistent access to water as well as improving storage capacities for households to cope better with

irregular supply.

49%

71%59%

37%

14%

61% 57%51%

29%41%

63%

87%

39% 43%


Yes No


17

Moreover, building and maintenance of latrines for continued sanitation, as well as equipping facilities with locks

on doors and lighting in order to improve the level of associated protection risks associated, need to be addressed

in Sulaymaniyah and Diyala in particular, and to a lesser extent in Baghdad. Camps in Diyala and Baghdad also

need support to remove waste more regularly and efficiently, as well as to conduct awareness campaigns

around the health-related risks of throwing rubbish in the streets or rubbish pits. Last of all, higher proportions of

households with poor or borderline FCS, and those using more extreme food-based coping strategies were

reported in camps in Sulaymaniyah (15%) and Diyala (14%). As such, these camps require urgent food

assistance either through in-kind and voucher programmes, or conditional cash assistance to facilitate

purchasing power. A rapid thematic assessment examining the causes of poor food consumption in this area

would facilitate improved targeting of vulnerable households in the medium to longer-term.

In the medium to long-term, the core priority need for IDPs living in camps in Iraq is access to livelihoods:

more than half of the population was unemployed in all camps in Baghdad (65%) and certain Northern

camps. As a result, many IDP households living in camps across Iraq are engaging in negative livelihoods and

food-based coping strategies in order to afford their basic needs; such as spending savings (49%) or borrowing

money to buy food (41%). Female headed households had less access to livelihoods and were often resorting to

more extreme coping mechanisms. If adopted in the longer term, these strategies will be exhausted, and an

increasing number of households will be in critical need of first-line assistance including food, shelter,

medicine and water. Facilitating movement for residents in and out of camps, and assistance to provide missing

civil documentation, would help to improve access to livelihoods outside of the camp. Moreover, livelihoods and

social cohesion programming; such as small scale grants and loans to support start-up business, as well as legal

advice on regulatory barriers and requirements should be considered. This will strengthen the independent

capacity of households to meet their daily needs in the likely situation of protracted displacement, and to absorb

future shocks.

Finally, taking into consideration that the large majority of IDP households residing in camps are not intending to

move from the camp in the foreseeable future, representative community participation in camp management

has been flagged as key concern for the mid- to long-term welfare of IDPs residing in camps. Although 86%

of IDP camp households across Iraq perceived camp committees to be representative of their needs, there was

large variation in those that felt their complaints are raised and acted upon – between 13% of the whole camp

population in Missan, and 71% in Dahuk. Particularly in the face of shrinking funding for humanitarian assistance

and handover to government-run or sponsored institutions, the availability of information, the development of IDP

community representation, as well as camp management response to IDP feedback need to be improved.


18

Annex I – Sampling Framework and Individual Camp Profiles

Governorate Camp name Household Population Sample Size Camp Profile

Dahuk

Bajet Kandala 2,118 92

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_bajedkandala_idp_camp_profile_september2015_2.pdf

Bersive 1 1,874 92

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_bersive1_idp_camp_profile_september2015_2.pdf

Bersive 2 1,567 91


Chamishku 4,234 94

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_chamisku_idp_camp_profile_september2015_3.pdf

Dawadia 700 85

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_dawudiya_idp_camp_profile_september2015_2.pdf

Kabarto 1 2,320 93

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_kabarto1_idp_camp_profile_september2015_3.pdf

Kabarto 2 2,305 93

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_kabarto_2_idp_camp_profile_september2015_1.pdf

Khanke 3,028 94

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_khanke_idp_camp_profile_september2015_2.pdf

Rwanga Community 2,554 93

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_rwanga_community_idp_camp_profile_september2015_3.pdf

Shariya 3,338 96

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_shariya_idp_camp_profile_september2015_3.pdf

Erbil

Ankawa 2 431 79

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_ankawa_2_idp_camp_profile_september2015_1.pdf

Baharka 622 84

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_baharka_idp_camp_profile_september2015_4.pdf

Harshm 239 69

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_harshm_idp_camp_profile_september2015_1.pdf

Ninewa Bardarash 1,815 92

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KBfUR0x1awEjEzd5WlFC1ctAGLGdusSoEkCn3vcTIKo/edit?pli=1#gid=0

Essian 2,554 93

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_essian_idp_camp_profile_september2015_2.pdf

Garmawa 552 83

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_garmawa_idp_camp_profile_september2015_0.pdf

Mamilian 2,119 92

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_mamilian_idp_camp_profile_september2015_3.pdf

Sheikhan 923 88

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_sheikhan_idp_camp_profile_september2015_2.pdf

Sulaymaniyah

Arbat IDP 1,858 92

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_idpcampprofiles_arbatidp_september2015.pdf


























































19

Ashti IDP 943 87

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_ashti_idp_camp_profile_september2015_1.pdf

Diyala

Aiden (New Alyawa) 1,316 90

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_alyawanew_idp_camp_profile_september2015_2.pdf

Al-Wand 1 774 86

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_alwand_idp_camp_profile_september2015.pdf

Tazade 382 78 None

Qoratu 347 76

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_qoratu_idp_camp_profile_september2015_0.pdf

Baghdad Al Amal Manshood

(Dora) 94 48

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_alamalalmanshood_dora_idp_camp_profile_october2015_1.pdf

Al Amal (Shooting) 390 78

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_alamalshootingcamp_idp_camp_profile_october2015_1.pdf

Al Jamea'a 115 51

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_al_jameaa_idp_camp_profile_october2015_1.pdf

Al Nabi Younis (1 & 2)

617 (299 & 326)

148 (73 & 75)

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_al_nabi_younis_idp_camp_profile_september2015_0.pdf

Al Salam 1,000 88

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_al_salam_idp_camp_profile_october2015_2.pdf

Kadhra 154 60

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_kadhra_idp_camp_profile_october2015_2.pdf

Latifiya 3 43 27 None

Nabi Sheit 101 50

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_nabi_sheit_idp_camp_profile_october2015_1.pdf

Scout 250 70

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_irq_factsheet_scout_idp_camp_profile_october2015_1.pdf

Missan Eyes of Missan 57 37 None






































20

Annex II – Questionnaire

GPS location N E Governorate Name of Camp

Date

GENERAL - Basic Information

Type of shelter? How many shelters does your household occupy?

Including yourself, what is the number of persons in the household?

0-2 y 3-5 y

6-11 y

12-14 y

15-17 y 18-59 y

60 and over

Male

Female

What is the sex of the head of household? Male Female

What is the age of the head of household?

How many of the household’s members with you in the current location fall into the following categories?

Unaccompanied/ Separated child Disability (mental/physical)

Suffer from a chronic illness Civil Documents missing

Is anyone in your household pregnant or lactating? Number pregnant

Number lactating

How many members of the household who are currently with you are registered with MODM or DDM?

Shelter Characteristics

Did you receive any shelter assistance in the past three months? Yes No

Do you feel your accommodation is of adequate quality?

Was there any presence of vectors in your accommodation in the past month? Yes No

EDUCATION

Do you know where your children will attend school once the school year starts? Yes No

How many children between the ages of 6-17 will attend the formal education? Yes No

Yes Ages 6-11

Male Ages 6-11 Female

Ages 12-14 Male

Ages 12-14 Female

Ages 15-17 Male

Ages 15- 17

Female

How many children (6-17) in your household are currently attending formal education inside the camp?

How many children (6-17) in your household are currently attending formal education outside the camp?

FOOD SECURITY

Did your household have access to any WFP food assistance or other NGO/UN food aid including both vouchers and in-kind assistance in the past month?

Yes No

Did your household have access to PDS(public distribution assistance) in the past month? Yes No

Over the last 7 days, how many days did you consume the following foods?

CEREALS OR TUBERS (bread, pasta, wheat flour, rice, bulgur; potato, sweet potato)

MILK & DAIRY PRODUCTS (milk, cheese, etc)

PULSES, NUTS & SEEDS (beans, chickpeas, lentils, etc) EGGS

VEGETABLES (tomatoes, lettuce, cabbage) OIL & FATS


21

FRUITS (apples, oranges, bananas, etc) SWEETS (Sugar, honey, jam, cakes, candy, etc)

MEAT OR FISH (red meat and chicken - including the internal organs; fish, seafood)

SPICES & CONDIMENTS

During the last 7 days, on how many days did your household do any of the following in order to cope with lack of food

Eat cheaper food that is not as good as normal

Men eat less so women and small children can eat

Borrowed food or received help from friends or relatives

Sent household members to eat elsewhere

Eaten less meals a day than normal Sent adult household members to beg

Eaten smaller amounts of food than normal at meals

Sent children household members to beg

Adults eat less so younger children can eat

Household members gathered food that was thrown away

Women eat less so men and small children can eat

Other:

Do you have access to markets inside the camp or within walking distance?

How many of the lactating women in your household are only breastfeeding? Yes No

What priority would you give for your household for the following needs?

Education Food Health

NFI Shelter Social Cohesion

WASH

Has your household received Non Food Items assistance in the last three months? Yes No

How many of the following do you have in your household?

Carpets Blankets

Mattresses Stoves/heaters

WASH

Currently, what is your household’s primary source of drinking water?

Connection inside the home to

collective water storage

Water tap outside the

shelter (communal)

Open well

Other:

Connection inside the

home to private water storage

Purchased from shop

River or spring

What source of water do you use for household purposes (cooking, washing, toilet, etc.?)

Connection inside the home to

collective water storage

Water tap outside the

shelter (communal)

Open well

Other:

Connection inside the

home to private water storage

Purchased from shop

River or spring

Over the last 30 days, how many days (24 hours in turn) did you spend without access to water?

What is the main method of waste disposal for your household?

Collected by municipality Rubbish Pit Throw in street / open space

Communal garbage bin Burning Other:

Does this household have access to functional latrines? Yes No

Yes If yes, then are they separated by gender? Yes No

Do the latrines ensure privacy and safety (locks and lights) for women and girls Yes No

Does this household have access to functional showers? Yes No

Yes If yes, then are they separated by gender? Yes No

Do the showers ensure privacy and safety (locks and lights) for women and girls Yes No


22

HEALTH

Do pregnant or lactating women visit obstetric or antenatal care? Yes No

For pregnant, lactating, chronically ill, or disabled members, do they have access to consistent supply of essential medicine?

Yes No

How many children aged under 18 years have had diarrhea in last two weeks?

Have any members of your household suffered from health issues such as fever and physical injuries over the last 2 weeks?

Yes No

Yes

If yes, how many suffered from the following issues Yes No

Psychological Trauma Respiratory tract infection

Minor Physical Injuries Skin disease

Serious Physical Injuries Diarrhea

Malnutrition / Poor Diet Swollen feet

Other health issues

Livelihoods

Are any household members earning an income?

How many members of your household worked during the last 7 days?

What was your household's primary

livelihood source over the last 30 days? (Select

a maximum of three)

Economically inactive Subsistence agriculture/livestock

Self-employed (commercial business owner)

Commercial agriculture (large-scale production)

Unskilled agricultural labour Public sector/civil servant (teacher, postal service, public administration)

Smallholder agriculture/livestock

Casual unskilled labour (construction)

Public security official (military, police, etc.)

Low skilled service industry (no formal education required; eg. Driver, cleaner)

Skilled service industry (apprenticeship required i.e trade skills, e.g. plumber, etc.)

Highly skilled service industry (degree required, eg. Doctor, nurse, engineer, finance, etc.)

Gifts/in-kind assistance from household/friends

Pension from government Governmental aid

Humanitarian aid Other (specify)

Which of the following did you use to supplement your income for last 30 days?

Spent savings Sold household assets

(jewelry, phone, furniture, etc)

Sent adult household

members to beg

Bought food on credit or borrowed money to buy food

Sold productive goods/assets (sewing

machine, tools/machinery, car,

livestock, etc)

Sent children household

members to beg

Spent less money on other needs (eg. education/health)

Taken jobs that are high risk, illegal and/or socially degrading

Other:

Community Organisation

Do you know if an IDP committee exists in the camp? Yes No

Yes If yes, do you know if they have been elected by the camp population? Yes No

If they are not elected, have they been appointed by the government? Yes No

If yes, do you feel it is representative of the camp population? Yes No

Is there a women's representation group that can influence camp management? Yes No

Have you received sufficient information about the following?

Registration/documentation procedures?

Legal Rights? Available Assistance?

Is there a complaints mechanism for you to raise issues about your conditions or assistance? Yes No

What form does this mechanism take?

Personal contact with camp authorities

Personal contact with external body

Anonymous reporting Other


23

If there is a complaints mechanism, do you feel issues raised are acted upon? Yes No

Are any of these law enforcement or dispute resolution mechanisms available to you?

Established dispute resolution mechanism

External legal referral

No Other

Do you intend to move to a different location in the next 3 months? Yes No

Are you expecting any family members to join you in the camp in the next three months? Yes No

Do children aged (3-17) have access to CFS in the camp? Yes No

Has anyone in your household, including yourself, experienced restrictions on the freedom to entry and exit the camp within the past month?

Yes No

Observation (do not ask these questions)

Is there any secondary cover for the roof? Yes No

Flooring meets external wall to avoid vectors to come into the shelter (for vector control) Yes No