thinking differently about the poor findings from … poc… · 8 external macro conditions or...

5

THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE POOR

Findings from Poverty Pockets Survey in Jordan

(Based on Household Expenditure and Income Survey 2010)

6

Copyright © 2012 reserverd for United Nations United Nations Development Programme,

Department of Statistics, and Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation – Jordan.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system or

transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise without prior permission for United Nations Development Programme, Department of

Statistics, and Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation - Jordan.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE POOR “Findings from Poverty Pockets Survey in

Jordan”

Prepared by United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Ministry of Planning and

International Cooperation

The Deposit Number at the National Library (41016/11/2012)

Author assumes full legal responsibility for the content of his work and did not reflect this

workbook for the opinion of the Department of the National Library

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent

those of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the report is the work of an

independent team of authors sponsored by UNDP.

7

Foreword

Jordan has done remarkably well in the fight against poverty especially given its limited

resources and income as well as the economic shocks that it had to endure due to regional and

global political as well as economic upheavals. By the 1980s, poverty had been reduced to

discrete pockets, and the first national report on pockets of poverty was published in 1989.

However, studies of poverty have so far measured poverty in terms of a money-metric caloric-

intake based poverty line. Non-monetary poverty indicators, i.e. social aspects of poverty that

include attitudes, perceptions, concern about living conditions and quality of life, social

interaction, access to quality health and education and efficient and equitable social safety nets

protection did not receive as much attention. To redress this situation, the National Agenda 2006-

2015, in its Social Welfare Theme, highlighted the need to “Develop a clear understanding of the

root causes and characteristics of poverty”. In 2011, Ministry of Planning and International

Cooperation (MOPIC) and Department of Statistics (DOS) with technical support of UNDP and

other stakeholders launched a social data pilot survey to measure vulnerability risk and social

exclusion.

This report documents the findings of the social data pilot survey. On the macro level, it analyses

the shifts of pockets above/ below the poverty threshold and determinants of change in poverty

incidence during 2006-2008. It confirms the relationship between change in poverty incidence

and four determinants at the local (governorate) level: inflation in food prices, change in

unemployment rates, change in the ratio of transfer income to total income, and growth of

livestock holdings. On the micro level, the study compares the behavior of households in and

outside poverty pockets with respect to food security and living standards; labor market

dynamics; Income Status, income shocks and precautionary savings; access to transportation;

access to health and care for the disabled; access to quality education for children; social

exclusion and time-use of households; and formal and informal cash transfers.

The results of this study will be helpful in developing regular surveys on the social indicators of

poverty. It is also the first step towards identifying observable permanent/temporary macro or

micro shocks that caused negative shifts, or in the case of positive shifts, identifying favorable

8

external macro conditions or replicating good practices. This will contribute significantly to the

formulation of social policy and a new poverty reduction strategy.

Minister of Planning and International Cooperation

Dr. Jaffar Abed Hassan

9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Dr. Sajjad Akhtar, UNDP consultant for his remarkable efforts in

analyzing the data of social data pilot survey and in drafting this report. Special thanks to the

team of MOPIC and DOS in providing the consultant the needed information and data and their

valuable contribution in revising and editing this report. Namely, from MOPIC: Dr. Mukhallad

Omari, Director of Policies and Strategies Directorate, and Zein Soufan, Head of Social Studies

Division. From Department of Statistics (DOS), Mr. Kamal Alsaleh, technical assistant to the

director general, Abdel-Fatah Jaradat, Head of Poverty Division, Maha Dawas, Senior

Statistician, and Dr. Ahmed Abu Haidar, Social and Poverty issues onsultant for general director.

From UNDP Jordan, we would like to thank Ms. Majida Alassaf, Program Manager, Mohammad

AlBatayneh, Project Manager of “Support to poverty analysis and monitoring” project, Yara

Mubaidin and Nour Maria, Poverty Programme Associate those contribute in drafting this report,

provide their remarkable notes and supervising the whole process of producing this report.

Funded by:

10

Table of Contents

THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE POOR .................................................................................................. 5

Findings from Poverty Pockets Survey in Jordan .......................................................................................... 5

Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 9

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 10

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 16

A Macro View .............................................................................................................................................. 17

A Micro View: Poverty Vs Non-Poverty Pockets ......................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 19

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 19

1.1 Background to the Study ................................................................................................................... 19

1.2 Sampling and Description of Social Data Pilot Survey ...................................................................... 21

1.2.1 A methodological caveat ............................................................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 24

UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF POVERTY POCKETS: ........................................................................ 24

A MACRO VIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 24

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 24

2.2 Profiling of Poverty Pockets during the Decade 2000-2010 ............................................................. 25

2.3 Modeling the Change in Poverty Incidence between 2006-08: Results from an Exploratory and

Stylistic Exercise ...................................................................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 33

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVING STANDARDS .................................................................................................. 33

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 33

11

3.2 Hunger and Living Standard Indicators ............................................................................................. 33

3.3 Poverty Vs Non-Poverty Pockets: A Comparative View of Food Security ........................................ 34

3.3.1 Inter-district variations among poverty pockets ....................................................................... 35

3.4 Communication Network and Food Security .................................................................................... 35


3.5 Comparative View of Living Standards ............................................................................................. 37


3.6 Perceptions about Adverse Situations .............................................................................................. 40

3.6.1 Inter-district variations .................................................................................................................. 42

3.7 Correlation Analysis of food security and living standards Indicators .............................................. 43

CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 46

Labour Market Dynamics ............................................................................................................................ 46

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 46

4.2 Employment Status and Decent Job Indicators ................................................................................ 47

4.3 Job-Search Strategy........................................................................................................................... 49

4.4 Reasons for Refusing to Work ........................................................................................................... 50

4.5 Inter-District Profile of Poverty Pockets ........................................................................................... 50

4.6 Correlations between labour indicators ........................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 53

INCOME STATUS, INCOME SHOCKS AND PRECAUTIONARY SAVINGS ........................................................ 53

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 53

5.2 Main Source of Income and its Regularity ........................................................................................ 53

5.3 Inter-District Profile of Poverty Pockets ........................................................................................... 56

5.4 Correlations between income status indicators and income shocks and precautionary savings .... 57

CHAPTER 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 59

12

ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................... 59

6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 59

6.2 Access to and Availability of Public Transportation: A Comparative View ....................................... 59

6.3 Inter-District Variations ..................................................................................................................... 61

6.4 Correlations of Public Transportation Indicators .............................................................................. 62

CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................................................. 63

ACCESS TO HEALTH AND EXTENT, CARE OF THE DISABLED ........................................................................ 63

7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 63

7.2 Access to Health Services: A Comparative View ............................................................................... 63

7.3. Inter-District Highlights .................................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER 8 .................................................................................................................................................. 68

ACCESS TO CHILDREN’S QUALITY EDUCATION ........................................................................................... 68

8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 68

8.2 Access to Quality Education: A Comparative View ........................................................................... 68

8.3 Inter-District Profile .......................................................................................................................... 71

8.4 Correlations betweem enrollment and education obstacles ........................................................... 72

CHAPTER 9 .................................................................................................................................................. 74

SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND TIME-USE PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................. 74

9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 74

9.2 Time Use Profile of Households: Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Pockets ................................................. 74

9.3 Social Cohesion ................................................................................................................................. 75

CHAPTER 10 ................................................................................................................................................ 81

FORMAL AND INFORMAL UNCONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS .................................................................. 81

10.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 81

10.2 Households in Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Pockets: A Comparison ................................................... 81

13

10.3 Pocket-wise Profile of Access to Social Safety Net ......................................................................... 85

CHAPTER 11 ................................................................................................................................................ 87

POLICY RELEVANCE AND WAY FORWARD .................................................................................................. 87

11.1 Two Caveats for Policy Implications ............................................................................................... 87

11.2 Policy Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 88

11.3 Prioritizing Policy and Program Interventions ................................................................................ 90

11.4 The Way Forward: Some Suggestions ............................................................................................. 91

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 94

ANNEX 1: MODELING DATA FROM PILOT SOCIAL POVERTY POCKET SURVEY ........................................... 95

ANNEX 2: Pocket-Wise Profile of Social Indicators ..................................................................................... 99

14

List of Tables

Table 1: Distribution of Households by Districts/Governorates ................................................................. 23

Table 2: Profile of Poverty Trends ............................................................................................................... 26

Table 3: Pockets in the Range of 20-30% Poverty Incidence ...................................................................... 28

Table 4: New Entrants: Poverty Status in 2006 and 2008 .......................................................................... 29

Table 5: Regression Results ......................................................................................................................... 32

Table 6: Affordability and Quality of Food (Percentage) ............................................................................ 34

Table 7: Travel Time to Food Stores (Percentage) ...................................................................................... 36

Table 8: Living Standards Indicators (Percentage) ...................................................................................... 38

Table 9: Districts with Percentage of Households that can rarely or Never Afford these Services............ 39

Table 10: Perceptions about Adverse Situations (Percentage) .................................................................. 41

Table 11: Perception on Socio-Economic Conditions of the Community (Percentage) ............................. 42

Table 12: Comparison of Households' Living Standards with Others (Percentage) ................................... 42

Table 13: Correlations among Indicators .................................................................................................... 44

Table 14: Correlations among Indicators .................................................................................................... 45

Table 15: Employment Status and Decent Work (Percentage) .................................................................. 47

Table 16: Job-Search Methods and Constraints to Employment (Percentage) .......................................... 49

Table 17: Correlations ................................................................................................................................. 52


Table 19: Income Status (Percentage) ........................................................................................................ 54

Table 20: Income Type, Likelihood of Income Shock, Adequacy of Precautionary Savong (Percentage) .. 57


Table 22: Access, Use, Mode to/of Public Transportation, and Travel Time to Stops (Percentage) .......... 61


Table 24: Access to Health Facilities (Percentage) ..................................................................................... 64

15

Table 25: Disability and Access to Health (Percentage) .............................................................................. 66

Table 26: Access to Quality Education (Percentage) .................................................................................. 69

Table 27: Identification of Sub-Districts ...................................................................................................... 72


Table 29: Profile of Quality Time Spent by the Father (Percentage) .......................................................... 76

Table 30: Frequency of Invitation to Family by Head of Household (Percentage) ..................................... 77

Table 31: Frequency of Invitation to Friends by Head of Household (Percentage) .................................... 78

Table 32: Frequency of Social Visits by Purpose (Percentage) ................................................................... 79

Table 33: Socio-Economic Background/Status of Friends (Percentage) ..................................................... 80

Table 34: Formal and Informal Safety Nets and Cash Transfers (Percentage) ........................................... 82

Table 35: District-Wise Summary Matrix of Indicators in Social Dimensions ............................................. 93

Table 36: Table 1.A, Regression Results ...................................................................................................... 96

Table 37: Table 1B, Regression Results ....................................................................................................... 97

Table 38: Table 1C, Regression Results ....................................................................................................... 98

16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Poverty Report based on Jordan’s Household Expenditure and Income Survey of 2008

indicated that at the national level poverty headcount measured by poverty line of JD 680 per

capita per year went up marginally from 13.0 in 2006 to 13.3 percent in 2008. However, a more

worrisome finding was that number of poverty pockets (defined as districts/sub-districts with

25% population or more below the national poverty line) increased from 22 poverty pockets in

2006 to 32 poverty pockets in 2008.

Poverty assessment and measurement based on money-metric caloric-intake based poverty line is

in vogue at the national level since 1973. The first Report on Poverty Pockets was published in

19891. However, documentation of non-monetary poverty indicators, social aspects of poverty

that include attitudes, perceptions, concern about living conditions and quality, social interaction,

access to quality health, education and efficient and equitable social safety nets protection has

lagged behind the surveys on monetary measures of poverty. Among the many initiatives the

Social Welfare Theme of National Agenda 2006-2015 advocated for implementation to reduce

poverty, it highlighted the need to “Develop a clear understanding of the poverty root causes and

characteristics”. Thus a focus on social aspects through mapping “Unmet Basic Needs” will

complement economic aspects of poverty captured via poverty profiling.

Incorporating social dimensions of poverty into assessment of poverty and designing

interventions, can only be undertaken once ‘social risks’ are captured and documented at the

household level. Thus MOPIC and DOS with technical support of UNDP and other stakeholders

launched a supplementary social data pilot module survey in the first half of 2011 to measure

vulnerability risk and social exclusion. The main objective of this report is to document the

findings from the social data pilot module survey and contribute to formulation of social policy

and new poverty reduction strategy.

The pilot survey was conducted in 15 districts/sub-districts spread over 6 governorates of the

Kingdom. Based on HEIS 2008, out of these sub-districts, 8 are classified as persistent poverty

pockets, and 5 are classified as fluctuating. As control group for comparison, 2 persistently Non-

poverty districts are chosen for the pilot survey. For the purpose of analysis in this bench-mark

1 Al Sqour et al, 1989, Pockets of Poverty in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Social Development

17

report, out of these 15 sub-districts, 12 are classified as poverty pockets and 3 as Non-poverty

pockets. The numbers of households covered in the pilot survey are 1123, of which 37 percent

are from non-poverty pockets

A Macro View

Macro analysis of entry-exit behavior of pockets into/from the poverty threshold and

determinants of change in poverty incidence during 2006-2008 is undertaken with 36 pockets as

the benchmark. In line with the observation that majority of poor population is clustered around

the poverty line of JD 680 per person per year, the poverty pockets with the poor population in

the range 20-30% (5% above and below the officially set threshold of 25%) are identified for the

year 2002, 2006 and 2008. They are the most likely candidates for entry into and exit from the

threshold in the short-term, or being stuck within this range for a long time. The poverty pockets

in this range increased from 8 in 2002, 10 in 2006 to 14 in 2008. New entrants are possible as in

the period 2006-2008 when 14 new sub-districts entered the threshold due to macro and/or micro

shocks facing the economy. During 2006 and 2008, Jafer, Athruh, Dliel, and Arjan moved

around this range while the rest of districts were new entrants in 2002, 2006 and/or 2008. Seven

pockets, i.e. Arhab, Mafraq, Taiba, Ein Basha, Areed, Sahab and Muwaqqar experienced an

increase of more than 5 percentage points in incidence in a period of two years, with poverty

incidence ranging from a minimum of 8.4 to a maximum of 28.6%. These need to be studied

more closely for any observable permanent/temporary macro or micro shocks. Two districts, i.e.

Qasr fell from 22.4 to 0% and Arjan experienced a decline from 29.7 to 20.8%. These two

districts are candidates for identifying for any favorable external macro conditions or for

replicating good practices for poverty reduction.

In analyzing and comparing the poverty incidence of 14 poverty pockets that entered the

threshold in 2008 in relation to their status in 2006, the findings are as follows: Only 3 out of the

14 pockets were just below the poverty threshold in 2006. Two of these 3 moved just above the

threshold in 2008, while one experienced a dramatic increase, i.e., Shouneh Janoobiieh as its’

poverty incidence increased from 22.3% in 2006 to 40.2% in 2008. In 2006 all the other pockets

were between half and third the limits of the 25% threshold and 7 of these districts came just

above the threshold in 2008. They must have experienced mild economic and/or non-economic

18

shock. Five of the remaining must have experienced severe shock as the post-2008 incidence was

much higher than the threshold.

Using a limited set of data available at the governorate and pocket level, a simple modeling

exercise is undertaken to understand the determinants and quantify their impact on the changing

poverty incidence during 2006-08. More than 60 percent of the variation in the change in poverty

incidence of 36 poverty pockets is explained by 4 determinants: i) food inflation rate during

2006-2008 at the governorate level, ii) change in unemployment rate during 2006-08 at the

governorate level, iii) change in ratio of transfer income to total income at the pocket level from

2006-08, iv) growth rate of livestock holdings, i.e., cattle and goats during the 2 year period.

The findings further confirmed the casual empiricism and a priori hypothesis with respect to a)

inflation, poverty pockets that experienced higher inflation also had higher poverty incidence in

2008, b) the higher the unemployment rate at the governorate level the higher the poverty

incidence at the pocket level, c) the lower the ratio of transfer to total income the higher the

poverty incidence, and d) higher the growth of livestock holdings during the period the higher

the poverty incidence. This last result is contrary to the priori results as livestock represents

growth in wealth as well as more investment.

A Micro View: Poverty Vs Non-Poverty Pockets

Food Security and Living Standards

Regarding affordability of 3 meals a day and quality of food, the percentages of households in

poverty was higher than in non-poverty pockets. In both poverty and non-poverty pockets around

34 and 46 percent of households respectively are food insecure as they cannot always afford 3

meals a day for their families. Moreover households in poverty pockets performed worse in

travel time to food outlets (a proxy for access). Similarly the households in poverty pockets

performed worse in terms of percentages in 8 out of 9 indicators for ranking the concerns related

to living conditions (proxies for vulnerability) including environment and crime.

Labour Market Dynamics

The percentage of all households and by number of employed in poverty pockets was higher for

decent job indicators such as health insurance and social security. However the percentage of

19

households with one or more job-seeker was higher in poverty pockets than in non-poverty

pockets. Majority of households in poverty pockets relied on social networking and application

to ministries rather than media or other official specialized institutions for job search. The three

main reasons for households in poverty pockets to refuse work, irrespective of type of household

(w/o, with job seeker, w/o disabled) was distance, mismatch of qualifications and

sickness/disability.

Income Status, Income Shocks and Precautionary savings

As expected the proportion of households in poverty pockets with salary and wages as the main

source of income is marginally lower than for households in non-poverty pockets.

Correspondingly the percentage for former pockets is higher for retirement and National Aid

Fund. The percentage of households earning from private activity in poverty pockets is half that

of households from non-poverty pockets. In contrast to a priori expectations, the results indicate

that income source is irregular and less stable for a lower percentage of households in poverty

pockets. In addition a higher percentage of households in poverty pockets consider an income

shock in the next 6 months to be unlikely, as compared to households in non-poverty pockets.

However a much higher percentage of households have no savings irrespective of number of

earners in poverty than in non-poverty pockets.

Access to Puplic Transportation

The access is measured by frequency of availability of public transport, frequency of use of

transport and mode of transport. In terms of availability, and time to nearest bus stop on foot

higher percentage of households in non-poverty pockets have access, and the use is more

frequent. Public transport as the main mean of transport is used by a fewer percentage of

households in poverty pockets than in non-poverty pockets. Incidentally the private cars and

taxi/mini-bus is used by a greater number of households in poverty rather than in non-poverty

pockets.

Access to Health and Care of Disabled

Households in poverty pockets have better access to health centers, while households in non-

poverty pockets have better access to government hospitals. In line with the use of private car as

20

a more popular mode of transportation by the households in poverty pockets, a higher percentage

use it to travel to health services. Contrary to a priori expectations, lack of health insurance as a

constraint to access is only faced by 5% of households in poverty pockets as compared to 22

percent by their counterparts in non-poverty pockets. Even distances and appointment delay are

mentioned more frequently by households in non-poverty rather than poverty pockets. The

complaint of poor services is equally mentioned by both types of pockets.

Smaller percentage of households in poverty as compared to the non-poverty pockets report the

presence of disabled person under 18 years old in the household (1.9% and 4.8% respectvley).

The percentage profile of various persons providing care to the disabled is very similar except in

case of mother/father. A much higher percentage of households in non-poverty pockets have

identified mother/father as the primary care giver. More households in poverty pockets with

disabled face access constraints to public institutions while more households in non-poverty

pockets face constraints related to the education of the disabled.

Access to Children’s Quality Education

Around 50% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets identified the following

obstacles as slightly and very severe in the education of their children: Bad Public Utilities, Bad

Quality of Education, Lack of Discipline, and Discrimination between Students. In all the above

indicators, the percentage of households in poverty pockets was slightly lower than households

in non-poverty pockets. In addition about 50% of households in non-poverty pockets identified

the following obstacles as slightly and very severe in the education of their children: smoking in

school, crime and violence in school, crowded classrooms, peer pressure and crime around

school. In comparing the quality of education in his/her residential areas with other areas, a

higher percentage of households in poverty as compared to non-poverty pockets were satisfied

and regarded the quality as identical.

Social Exclusion and time-use of Households

Various indicators on time spent by the head of household/father with various types of social

groups, i.e., family, near and distant relatives, neighbors, friends and acquaintances, the

invitations extended to family vs friends and visits to these social groups for various types of

21

occasions unambiguously revealed a high degree of social inter-action and non-exclusion among

the households in poverty pockets as compared to households in non-poverty pockets. Moreover

the percentage of households in poverty pockets were nearly double than the percentage of

households in non-poverty pockets whose friends had disabilities. Thus households in poverty

pockets gave more social opportunities to the disabled to live a more socially inclusive lifestyle

in the society.

Formal and Informal Unconditional Cash Transfers

The percentages of households in both types of poverty pockets are similar with respect to

reliance on various social groups for care in times of health shock, cash loan and financing for

unexpected expenditures. These percentages range between 50-85 percent. The proportion of

households in poverty and non-poverty pockets that rely on institutions (religious, state and

private) range from a low of 0.2 percent for care in health emergency to a high of 17.4 percent in

case of obtaining a cash loan. Nearly 75% and 85% of households in poverty and non-poverty

pockets respectively either don’t need aid and/or not eligible for aid. The percentage of

households in poverty pockets availing NAF facilities is 3 times of proportion of households in

non-poverty pockets (17.8% vs 6.3%). The proportion of households with irregular income

seeking aid and those who consider the loss of income as strong possibility seeking aid is

consistent with each other and between 20 and 26 percent in poverty pockets. The percentage of

households in poverty pockets benefiting from institutions involved in providing elderly and

children care, vocational training and business counseling are in single digits and similar to the

proportions of households in non-poverty pockets.

If one further summarizes the above findings, in general, households in poverty pockets are

better-off in terms of food security, provision of health insurance, social security, more regular or

stable income (as a higher percentage of households in poverty pockets have their main source of

income from NAF and pension), more positive or less pessimistic outlook about expected

income shock, higher access to public transportation (but less frequent use), better access to

health centers (not to government hospitals), and access to quality health services. Though more

than 50% of households in both pockets identified Bad Public Utilities, Bad Quality of

22

Education, Lack of Discipline, Discrimination between Students as obstacles to quality education

of their children, the percentages of households in poverty pockets was lower. As indicated by

various indicators of social inclusion and interaction, i.e., invitations, visits and time spent with

family, social support for seeking employment and dependence on informal social safety nets for

various emergency needs, again the households in poverty pockets scored better than their

counterparts in non-poverty pockets.

Indicators where households in poverty pockets performed worse than in non-poverty pockets

are: access to food outlets in the market, perception on concerns about quality of living

conditions and unemployment, as percentage of households with number of job-seekers is

higher. Higher percentage of households in poverty pockets refused work because of distance,

sickness/disability and mismatch of qualifications. They are worse-off in terms of build-up of

financial capital as the percentage of households in poverty with zero and inadequate savings to

meet a months’ expenditure is twice of households in non-poverty pockets. The extent of zero

and/or inadequate saver households remains below the percentage of households in non-poverty

pockets irrespective of number of earners and regularity/irregularity of incomes. A marginally

lower percentage of households in poverty pockets apply for aid as nearly 18% of them are

already receiving support under NAF.

In summary one characteristic from the above findings that distinguishes households in poverty

from households in non-poverty pockets is that households in poverty pockets perform better on

many of non-economic (perceptions about shocks/quality/access) factors and social aspects of

deprivation, while continuing to perform poorly in traditional economic indicators, e.g.,

employment, financial savings and concerns about the quality of living conditions. These

tentative findings in the former case are partly a function of an effective formal social safety net

work including health insurance, social security, pensions and NAF that is already in place since

last many years and an informal social network established for centuries in isolated villages in

far flung areas of the desert regions as well in low income localities in larger cities/towns.

Findings in the latter case are related to their limited capacity to earn adequate incomes and

thereby reduce their vulnerability into slipping into poor living conditions.

19

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

The Poverty Report based on Jordan’s Household Expenditure and Income Survey of 2008

indicated that at the national level poverty headcount measured by poverty line of JD680 per

capita per year went up marginally from 13.0 in 2006 to 13.3 percent in 2008. However, a more

worrisome finding was that number of poverty pockets (defined as districts/sub-districts with

25% population or more below the national poverty line) increased from 22 in 2006 to 32 in

2008. In line with the share in total population, Amman governorate (39.5%) is home to 24.6%

of the total poor population, though only 8.3% of its population is below the poverty line.

Together Amman, Irbid and Zarqa, the three most densely populated governorates in Jordan have

around 57% of persons living under the poverty line. Given the intensity of push and pull factors

in historical rural-to-urban migration in Jordan, the increase in poverty pockets remain a

possibility in the future.

Poverty assessment and measurement based on money-metric caloric-intake based poverty line is

in vogue at the national level since 1973. The first Report on Poverty Pockets was published in

19892. However, the need for information on “social aspects of poverty relative to deprivation

and in order to better target areas and groups with high deprivation when making policy and

programmatic decisions….” was explicitly recognized in the National Strategy formulated in

20023. The emphasis in social aspects including risks, vulnerability and social exclusion was

further reinforced in the Social Welfare theme of National Agenda 2006-2015. Among the many

initiatives it advocated for implementation to reduce poverty, it highlighted the need to “Develop

a clear understanding of the poverty root causes and characteristics”. Thus a focus on social

aspects through mapping “Unmet Basic Needs” will complement economic aspects of poverty

captured via poverty profiling.

2 Al Sqour et al, 1989, Pockets of Poverty in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Social Development

3 Poverty Alleviation for a Stronger Jordan (may 2002), MOSD

20

While a holistic view adopted by Amartya Sen regards poverty as “Severe Capability

Deprivation and Entitlement Failure”, in an operational and narrow sense poverty can be

regarded as a basic needs deprivation. The capability of a person to acquire income enhances his

chances of acquiring basic needs. In turn, the capability to earn income is enhanced by access to

health services, access to educational services and access to credit. Apart from fulfillment of

material needs, the poor have also expressed desire for a) Cultural Identity, b) Social belonging

c) Organizational capacity, d) Respect and dignity, e) Political participation and accountability of

governmental structures and f) emotional integrity, i.e., freedom from fear and anxiety.

Another dimension of the poverty profile of Jordan is that the majority of poor are clustered just

above and below the poverty line with only a small proportion of the poor significantly and

chronically below it. Thus the policy makers have to think differently about the poor. Depending

on the type and level of risks experienced by the vulnerable (near poor) and marginally poor (just

below the poverty line) population, a different policy mix will have to be evaluated and adopted,

that is in line with policy mixes` applied in other middle income countries. Correspondingly a

different policy mix is called for to address the multiple needs of the chronically poor and those

at risk of social exclusion.

Incorporating social dimensions of poverty into assessment of poverty and designing

interventions, can only be undertaken once ‘social risks’ are captured and documented at the

household level. Thus MOPIC with technical support of UNDP and other stakeholders launched

a supplementary social data pilot module survey of 15 pockets in the first half of 2011 to

measure vulnerability risk and social exclusion. The main objective of this report is to document

the findings from the social data pilot module survey and contribute to formulation of social

policy and new poverty reduction strategy in the following ways:

a) In conjunction with HEIS 2010 data, the 15 pilot survey districts will provide a broad set

of statistical descriptors for the identification of common characteristics shared by

poverty pockets which distinguish them from non-poor or non-persistent districts.

b) Add relevant indicators to complement the Living Standards Index (LSI)

c) Support a shift from the current money-metric caloric-intake based poverty line to a more

differentiated poverty line or lines that are more compatible with LSI.

21

d) Support MOPIC’s Social and Economic Productivity Unit in the comparative analysis of

multi-factor poverty risk and vulnerability.

e) As pointed out by Executive Development Program 2011-13, this report will modestly

and partially meet the challenge of “Poverty is not being addressed in a multi-

dimensional and comprehensive manner”.

1.2 Sampling and Description of Social Data Pilot Survey

The Pilot Survey provides a module compatible with the sampling frame of the Household

Expenditure and Income Survey 2010 (HEIS 2010) in selected districts and sub-districts. It is

designed to produce analytical social data which will deepen the understanding of poverty across

and within these districts and sub-districts, both as a stand-alone and in conjunction with the data

produced by HEIS 2010. The pilot survey is divided into several modules related to labour

market indicators including decent work, access to health, access to education and availability of

social and public goods, social connections, social welfare services, cash transfers and time use.

It has also been designed for stand-alone use to expedite the analysis of the data in order to

design policy interventions, programs and projects for the poor.

The pilot survey was conducted in 15 districts/sub-districts spread over 6 governorates of the

Kingdom during the first half of 2011. Based on HEIS 2008, out of these sub-districts, 8 are

classified as persistent poverty pockets, and 5 are classified as fluctuating. As control group for

comparison, 2 persistently Non-poverty districts are chosen for the pilot survey. For the purpose

of analysis in this bench-mark report, out of these 15 sub-districts, 12 are classified as poverty

pockets and 3 as Non-poverty pockets4. The poor population in these 12 poverty pockets

constituted 8 percent of total poor population in the Kingdom in 2008. Moreover, majority of

sampled sub-districts can be classified as small towns/villages as the total population of each

sub-district ranged from 5675 (Al-Rweished) to 23472 (Ghoue Esafi). A detailed time profile

4 Three out of the 4 pockets chosen as fluctuating were poverty pockets in 2 out of the three periods, i.e., 2002, 2006

and 2008 and also above the 25% dividing line in 2008, thus the 3 are grouped as poverty pockets. Hashemiya was

non-poverty pocket in 2 out of 3 periods and also non-poverty pocket in 2008, thus it is included as non-poverty

pocket. Since this survey is the first of its kind in Jordan, the 4 fluctuating poverty pockets are bench-marked into

poverty/non-poverty and fluctuations in terms of ‘social risks and exclusions’ and other characteristics can only be

traced in subsequent surveys.

22

and analysis of these pockets as part of 22 pockets in 2006 and 32 pockets in 2008 is presented in

the next chapter. The numbers of households covered in the pilot survey are 1123, of which 37

percent are from non-poverty pockets. The proportion of non-poverty pockets is 20% (3 out of

15).

The primary sampling unit of the pilot survey is the household and consists of households who

are already participating, or have participated (depending on the date that the pilot survey was

conducted), in HEIS 2010. Since HEIS 2010 takes the household as its main unit of analysis, the

household characteristics are at the core of the pilot survey. The sampling method follows the

HEIS 2010 sampling frame in selecting the households and interviews one person from the

participating households which are identified by their unique IDs in the HEIS 2010. Since the

survey is a pilot survey conducted in only selected districts and sub-districts, the sample size is

not nationally representative. Because the sampling frame follows HEIS 2010, the pilot survey is

representative at the district level.

Table 1 gives the distribution of households across districts and their classification as poverty

and non-poverty pockets.

1.2.1 A methodological caveat

It is to be noted that 15 poverty pockets for the pilot social survey were selected on the poverty

incidence in 2008. The primary sampling unit i.e., households for this pilot survey (conducted in

2011) are part of the just completed national level HEIS 2010 and filtered specifically for this

pilot survey5. This raises three sampling and methodological issues: a) whether the poverty or

non-poverty pockets chosen on the basis of 2008 HEIS still retain the same status in HEIS 2010

as in 2008. Even if they still have the same status, the poverty incidence may have improved/

deteriorated or remained unchanged within those poverty pockets6, b) the proportion of poor and

non-poor households within these two types of poverty pockets in the pilot survey will remain

unknown till the finalization of results of HEIS 2010 and up-dating of the poverty line for 2010,

c) the poverty status of individual households may have also changed between HEIS 2010 and

when the pilot survey was conducted i.e. 2011.

5 Selecting and tracing the households on the basis of HEIS 2008 is difficult operationally, and even then there is no

guarantee that individual households retained the same poverty status in 2011 as in 2008. 6 This particular issue will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

23

Table 1: Distribution of Households Sample by Districts/Governorates

Districts No. of Households Poverty/Non-Poverty Governorate

Al-Azraq 54 Poor Zarqa

Salhiyyeh 62 Poor Mafraq

Dair El-Kahf 57 Poor Mafraq

Hoasha 64 Poor Mafraq

Al-Rweished 59 Poor Mafraq

Borma 62 Poor Jarash

Ghour Essafi 56 Poor Karak

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 53 Poor Karak

Mraighah 60 Poor Ma’an

Husseiniyyeh 60 Poor Ma’an

Wadi Arabah 58 Poor Aqaba

Quaira 63 Poor Aqaba

Total Poverty Pockets 708 (63%)

Russeifa 301 Non-Poor Zarqa

Hashemiyyeh 56 Non-Poor Zarqa

Qasr 58 Non-Poor Karak

Total Non-Poverty Pockets 415 (37%)

Total 1123

24

CHAPTER 2

UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF POVERTY POCKETS:

A MACRO VIEW

2.1 Introduction

Many middle income countries that have relatively low incidence of poverty at the national level

as in the case of Jordan, still have poverty pockets, i.e. spatial/geographical enclaves either in the

form of villages, desert oasis, large low income localities within metropolitan cities or in the

suburbs, whose poverty incidence is much higher than nationally or adjoining contiguous areas.

In-depth study of these poverty pockets from various socio-economic angles, including inter-

temporal profiling and continuous monitoring, and devising specific interventions can yield huge

pay-offs in terms of reducing overall poverty incidence in the country, sense of deprivation

among the poorest of the poor and strengthening social and political cohesion and thereby sense

of well-being in the country.

Poverty analysts, project and program interventionists face the following kind of challenges in

dealing with the poverty pockets in the country: How do you identify a poverty pocket? Should it

be based on a quantitative number of incidences? What should be the cutoff for that incidence to

be classified as a poverty pocket? Twenty-five or thirty-five percent of the respective population

to be below the poverty line as a cut-off point? Can this benchmark be changed as the poverty

incidence changes nationally or even within the poverty pockets? Should one identify a poverty

pocket by a combination of quantitative incidence plus other living standards measures such as

environmental and social exclusion indicators? Overtime the exit and entry of poverty pockets

into a quantitative even subjective threshold also poses challenges for the researchers. What

economic and non-economic factors determine their entry or exit or even a re-entry over time?

What determines the changes in poverty incidence within a poverty pocket in the short, medium

and long-run? In absence of detailed macro data at the pocket level and only household data to

rely on, the search for determinants of changing poverty incidence is even more challenging. As

empirical based evidence on the dynamics of poverty pockets is still evolving and vary by the

region, many of the above theoretical and empirical challenges are being gradually addressed.

25

2.2 Profiling of Poverty Pockets during the Decade 2000-2010

Table 2 gives the poverty incidence of pockets that are classified as poverty pockets in 2002,

2006 and 2008. For the year 2008 it includes 4 that exited the list in 2008 (they were in the list in

2006 and/or in 2002) and 10 more that entered the benchmark incidence of more than 25%

population below the poverty line in 2008. Moreover, it also includes the incidence profile of 3

pockets chosen as a control group for the social survey of non-poverty pockets.

26

Table 2: Profile of Poverty Trends 2002, 2006, 2008

Governorates Sub-Districts % Sub-Districts % Sub-Districts % STATUS

2002

2006

2008

Mafraq Al-Rweished 73.3 Al-Rweished 73.7 Al-Rweished 65.0 PP/Pilot

Khalidia 36.1 Khalidia 39.4 PP

Salhiyyeh 48.2 Salhiyyeh 42.8 Salhiyyeh 38.1 PP/Pilot

Dair El-Kahf 35.2 Dair El-Kahf 34.5 Dair El-Kahf 35.3 PP/Pilot

Badia Shamalia Gharibia 28.3 Badia Shamalia Gharibia 33.6 PP

Hoasha 31.6 Hoasha 36.1 Hoasha 32.8 PP/Pilot

Balama 31.5 Balama 28.5 PP

Um Jmal 34.6 Um Jmal 15 Um Jmal 46.5 PP/Fluc

Um Quttein 12.7 Um Quttein 39.6 PP/Fluc

Arhab 16 Arhab 27.9 PP/Fluc

Mafraq 8.4 Mafraq 27.0 PP/Fluc

Sama Al Serhan 28.1

Ma’an Mraighah 41.3 Mraighah 27.1 Mraighah 48.4 PP/Pilot

Jafr 46.0 Jafer 26.6 Jafer 25.7 PP

Husseiniyyeh 46.9 Husseiniyyeh 10.3 Husseiniyyeh 37.0 PP/Pilot/Fluc

Athruh 23.1 Athruh 27.7 PP/Fluc

Aqaba Wadi Arabah 53.5 Wadi Arabah 62.5 Wadi Arabah 69.3 PP/Pilot

Deisa 44.4 Deisa 41.0 PP

Quaira 36.0 Quaira 46.6 Quaira 37.6 PP/Pilot

Karak Ghour El-Mazra’ah 26.7 Ghour El-Mazra’ah 45.4 Ghour El-Mazra’ah 44.1 PP/Pilot/Fluc

Ghour Essafi 34.3 Ghour Essafi 52.8 Ghour Essafi 40.8 PP/Pilot

Qatraneh 35.6 Qatraneh 33.2 PP

Mujeb 44.5 Mujeb 9.5 NPP/Fluc

Qasr 17.9 Qasr 22.4 Qasr 0 NPP

Jarash

Borma 29.1 Borma 32.2 PP/Pilot

Tafileh

Basira 31.9 Basira 31.4 PP

Irbid

Shouneh Shamalia 31.4 Shouneh Shamalia 28.6 PP

Taiba 9 Taiba 25.7 PP/Fluc

Mazar Shamali 25.4

Zarqa Al-Azraq 40.3 Al-Azraq 13.4 Al-Azraq 42.3 PP/Pilot/Fluc

Beerain 42.3

Dliel 52.2 Dliel 23.4 Dliel 25.9 PP/Fluc

Hashemiyyeh 29.0 Hashemiyyeh 13.1 Hashemiyyeh 14 NPP/Fluc

Russeifa 22.6 Russeifa 19.2 Russeifa 8.4 NPP

PP=Poverty Pocket in 2008, NPP=Non-poverty pocket in 2008, Pilot=Included in Pilot Poverty Pocket Survey, Fluc=Fluctuating

27

Table 2.2 (cont’d) Profile of Poverty Trends 2002, 2006, 2008

Balqa Shouneh

Janooubieh 27.1

Shouneh

Janoubieh 22.3

Shouneh

Janoubieh 40.2 PP/Fluc

Ein Basha 17.5 Ein Basha 25.2 PP/Fluc

Dair Alla 27.6

Madaba

Areed 18.3 Areed 26 PP/Fluc

Ajloun

Arjan 29.7 Arjan 20.8 NPP/Fluc

Kufranja 36.9 Kufranja 15.2 NPP/Fluc

Amman

Sahab 14.2 Sahab 28.6 PP/Fluc

Muwaqqar 16.6 Muwaqqar 26.1 PP/Fluc

Um Rasas 26.6 Um Alrasas 26.2 Um Alrasas 24.8 NPP/Fluc

AL Jiza 32

PP=Poverty Pocket in 2008, NPP=Non-poverty pocket in 2008, Pilot=Included in Pilot Poverty Pocket Survey, Fluc=Fluctuating

As mentioned earlier, one of the characteristics of poverty in Jordan is that large majority of the

poor are clustered around the poverty line of JD 680 per capita annualy. In this majority many

could be ‘transitorily poor’ or ‘transitorily vulnerable’ as they may be sensitive to the fluctuating

macro conditions (income/employment/agriculture/livestock positive and negative shocks) in the

economy. Thus these households constantly keep moving up or below the poverty line and are

documented as such in accordance with the timing of the HEIS. A small percentage of the poor

are chronically poor and call for a different set of interventions spread over longer time frame to

raise them permanently above the poverty line.

Following a similar line of reasoning, we identify the poverty pockets whose 20-30 percent of

the population is below the poverty line (Table 2)7. The purpose is two folds: They are the most

likely candidates to slip into poverty or rise above the poverty threshold in the coming years. The

results of HEIS 2010 will provide an empirical evidence of this transitory phenomenon among

the poverty pockets. Secondly, to identify whether the pockets have entered into this narrow

range by a small or dramatic (negative or positive) change in poverty incidence from the

previous period? In case it is a dramatic negative change it presents a formidable challenge for

policy interventions. In case it is a dramatic positive change in poverty incidence of the identified

7 5% above or below the 25% threshold defined for the existence of a poverty pocket.

28

poverty pocket, it is a case study for identifying good practices (meso, micro and macro) that

reduce poverty.

Table 3: Pockets in the Range of 20-30% Poverty Incidence

Year 2002 2006 2008

Number 8 10 14

Districts/Sub-

Districts

Sama Al Serhan(28.1%),Ghour

El-Mazara’ah (26.4%) Mazar

Shamali (25.4%), Hashemiyyeh

(29.0%), Russeifa (22.6%)

Shouneh Janooubieh (27.1%)

Dair Alla (27.1%) Um Rasas

(26.6%)

Shamalia Gharibia (28.3%),

Mraighah (27.1%), Jafer

(26.6%) Athruh (23.1%), Qasr

(22.4%), Borma (29.1%),Dliel

(23.4%), Shouneh Janooubieh

(22.3%), Arjan (29.7%), Um

Rasas (26.2%)

Balama (28.5%),Arhab (27.9%), Mafraq

(27.0%), Jafer (25.7%).Athruh

(27.7%),Shouneh Shamalia (28.6%),

Taiba (25.7%), Dliel (25.9%), Ein Basha

(25.2%), Areed (26.0%), Arjan (20.8%),

Sahab (28.6%), Muwaqqar (26.1%), Um

Rasas (24.8%)

The number of poverty pockets in the range of 20-30% of population has gradually increased

from 8 in 2002, 10 in 2006 to 14 in 2008. The historical entry and exits pattern of these poverty

pockets alongwith magnitude of change is as follows: i) Only Um Rasas has been moving in this

narrow range during all the 3 periods, ii) In addition, during 2006 and 2008, Jafer, Athruh, Dliel,

and Arjan have been moving around this range while the rest of districts have been new entrants

in 2002, 2006 and/or 2008. The incidence of poverty in these 4 sub-districts moved in the narrow

range of 20.8-29.7%, iii) Seven pockets, i.e. Arhab, Mafraq, Taiba, Ein Basha, Areed, Sahab and

Muwaqqar experienced an increase of more than 5 percentage points in incidence in a period of

two years, with poverty incidence ranging from a minimum of 8.4 to a maximum of 28.6%.

These need to be studied more closely for any observable permanent/temporary macro or micro

shocks, v) Borma increased its poverty incidence from 29.2% in 2006 to 32.2% in 2008, v) only

two districts, i.e. Qasr fell from 22.4 to 0%, Arjan (29.7% to 20.8%), and Kufranja (36.9% to

15.2) experienced a decline in its poverty rates. These districts need to be studied for any

favorable external macro conditions or identification of good practices for poverty reduction.

Another interesting inquiry is that how far the poverty pockets that entered into the poverty

threshold in 2008 were away from it in 2006? In all there were 14 entrants with 4 exits. Thus the

net addition of 10 poverty pockets in 2008. Table 4 compares the poverty status of 14 entrants in

2006 and 2008.

29

Only 3 out of the 14 pockets were very just below poverty threshold in 2006. Two moved just

above the threshold in 2008, while one experienced a dramatic increase, i.e., Shouneh Janoobiieh

and its’ poverty incidence increased from 22.3% in 2006 to 40.2% in 2008. In 2006 all the other

pockets were between half and one third the limits of the 25% threshold and 7 of the districts

came just above the threshold in 2008. They must have experienced mild economic and/or non-

economic shock. Four of the remaining must have experienced severe shock as the post-2008

incidence was much higher than the threshold.

Table 4: New Entrants: Poverty Status in 2006 and 2008 (%)

District/Sub-District 2006 2008

Um Jaml 15.0 46.5

Al-Azraq 13.4 42.3

Shouneh Janooubieh 22.3 40.2

Um Quttein 12.7 39.6

Husseiniyyeh 10.3 37.0

Sahab 14.2 28.6

Arhab 16.0 27.9

Athruh 23.1 27.7

Mafraq 8.4 27.0

Muwaqqar 16.6 26.1

Areed 18.3 26.0

Dliel 23.4 25.9

Taiba 9.0 25.7

Ein Basha 17.5 25.7

DOS, Report on Poverty Status in Jordan 2008

The above pattern of trends in the incidence of poverty within these pockets and easy entry and

exit of pockets from poverty line threshold, as well entry of new pockets, renders the task of

speculating the number of new entrants or exits in 2010 quite challenging. However out of 12

poverty pockets chosen for the sample survey, 8 have been consistently poverty pockets (with

more than 30% of the population below the poverty line). Thus they can be expected to remain

30

with this status even in 2010/2011. Only, Al-Azraq, Husseiniyyeh and Mraighah have shown

wide swings during the last two periods8. Given that overwhelming of districts in the pilot social

survey consistently appear as poverty pockets and their incidence is far above the 30% threshold,

the chances of being a non-poverty pocket in 2010 are fairly slim. However wide swings by the

remaining 3 poverty pockets (if they move out in 2010) can slightly bias the results for the poor

households. This observation should serve as a caveat for reaching some unambiguous findings

from both types of households.

2.3 Modeling the Change in Poverty Incidence between 2006-08: Results from

an Exploratory and Stylistic Exercise

This exploratory exercise is largely circumscribed by the available data at the governorate and

individual pocket level. The sample chosen for modeling is 36 poverty districts that include 32

identified in 2008 and 4 exits in 2008. Three non-poverty districts used in the pilot social survey

are excluded from the modeling exercise. The objective is to identify and quantify the impact of

selected macro determinants of changes in the poverty incidence of pockets during 2006-2008,

based on the available data. The change in poverty incidence during 2006-08 (DIFFPVT) for

these 36 pockets is explained by the following 4 determinants: 1) Inflation rate during 2006-08 at

the Governorate level. Two variants of the inflation rate was experimented, CPI and food

inflation (INFLFD), 2) Change in the unemployment rate at the Governorate level between 2006

and 2008. Three variants were experimented, male, female and total unemployment rates

(DIFFTTUNT), 3) Difference in 2006 and 2008 ratios of average transfers to average total

income at the pocket level obtained from HEIS 2010 (DIFRATIO), and 4) Aggregate growth rate

of cattle and goat livestock between 2006 and 2008 (GRTHCATLE+GRTHGOAT).

A priori, the higher the food inflation at the governorate level in 2008, the greater the chances of

poverty pocket in its jurisdiction to slip to a higher poverty incidence. The higher the

unemployment in a governorate in 2008 as compared to 2006, the more the chance that pocket

will have higher poverty incidence in 2008. If the difference between the two ratios of transfer

incomes is negative, i.e. the ratio is higher in 2008 compared to 2006 the smaller the incidence of

poverty in 2008. In case of livestock holdings the short and medium term relationship between

8 Borma another sample survey pocket increased its incidence slightly from 29.1 in 2006 to 32.2 percent in 2008.

The chances of it experiencing wide positive swings between 2008-10 remain weak.

31

changes in poverty incidence and growth rates of livestock holdings is far more complex and

guided by extent of past investment, sale, purchase, birth and household consumption of the

livestock. A priori it is difficult to hypothesize the direction of the relationship.

Using a simple single equation regression technique to model the above relationship we obtain

the results in Table 5 the results of estimating the simple and stylistic model are mostly

consistent with the a priori hypothesis. The variation in two year differences in poverty rates of

pockets explained by these 4 determinants is 63.4 percent. Other statistics such as Durbin

Watson and F-statistics indicate a reliable model and estimates. A) The model indicates that a

one percentage point increase in food inflation increases the poverty rates of the pockets by 1.77

percentage points and this determinant is statistically significant at the 90 percent level.

Experimenting with overall inflation rate as a determinant gave overall weak statistics and

consequently was dropped. B) A one percentage point drop in the total unemployment rate at the

governorate level between the two periods lowered the poverty rate by 2.3 percentage points. In-

directly it indicates a substantial scope for initiating employment generation programs to reduce

poverty. In an experimental version, reducing female unemployment also reduced poverty

significantly; however its impact magnitude was 2/3rd

of the final version. C) The 2 year

difference in the ratio of transfer income to total income has the correct sign, and is statistically

significant. At the aggregate level, the HEIS 2010 indicated that this ratio was almost stagnant at

21 percent in both the periods. However in governorates where the ratio in 2008 was higher than

in 2006, the model predicts that poverty incidence in 2008 in those sub-districts should be lower.

D) The growth in the livestock holdings of households had a significant impact on the changes in

poverty status of the districts between the two periods. If the growth of livestock holdings was

positive between the two periods it increased poverty incidence in 2008 relative to 2006.

Following transmission is plausible: Livestock holdings are an indicator of past investment as

well current wealth, but in order to maintain that wealth, they require continued investment in

form of supply of water, fodder and grazing land. Lower capacity to continually invest due to

rising prices or other natural causes can ultimately reduce this stock of livestock accumulated

from the past and increase poverty subsequently. It is also to be noted that poverty incidence is

based on consumption levels. The above results find support in the following findings of World

Food Program (2008) Report, “Lack of liquidity, fodder prices and lack of suitable place were

32

the most reported hindering factors by animal breeders…….Areas most affected are Mraigha,

Moujib, Wadi Arabah, Al-Rweished, Khalidya and Deisi….Almost 88% of the households who

changed their consumption pattern said they reduced overall quantity of food”.

Table 5: Regression Results

Dependent Variable: PVTDIFF

Method: Least Squares

Sample (adjusted): 4 36

Included observations: 33 after adjustments

Convergence achieved after 43 iterations

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 35.7 29.1 1.23 0.233

INFLNFD -1.77 0.972 -1.82 0.0829

DIFFTTUNT 2.36 0.848 2.78 0.0109

DIFRATIO -0.718 0.201 -3.57 0.00171

GRTHCATLE+GRTHGOAT -0.0604 0.012 -5.05 4.69E-05

DUM822 26.8 4.69 5.7 9.74E-06

AR(1) -0.869 0.256 -3.4 0.0026

AR(3) 0.628 0.199 3.16 0.00454

AR(2) 0.138 0.303 0.455 0.654

MA(1) 1.3 0.347 3.73 0.00116

MA(2) 0.337 0.349 0.966 0.344

Adjusted R-squared 0.634 Mean dependent var -4.76

S.E. of regression 8.71 F-statistic 6.55

Durbin-Watson stat 1.97 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000122

DUM822=Dummy Variable for 2 extreme values, AR(1), AR(2)=Autoregressive terms, MA=Moving Avg

33

CHAPTER 3

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVING STANDARDS

3.1 Introduction

The Kingdom has made remarkable progress in reducing hunger among its population in the last

two decades. Since 1992 the proportion of population below extreme poverty line (food poverty)

has fallen from 6.6 percent to 0.25 percent in 20089. In terms of current prices the food poverty

line stands at JD 1664.4 per year for an average household size of 5.7 members. In terms of

absolute numbers, only 15,000 persons or 1.9 percent of the total poor in the Kingdom were

facing some level of hunger in 2008, as compared to 32,000 persons (or 4.5% of total poor) in

2006.

3.2 Hunger and Living Standard Indicators

Though quantitatively, the progress achieved by the Kingdom needs to be emulated by many

countries in the middle income range, yet it may hide considerable variations across governorates

and sub-districts within the kingdom10

. Moreover the incidence of hunger may vary between

poverty and non-poverty pockets within governorates. Food security embodying the 3

components, i.e., Food Availability, Food Access and Food Absorption is a well recognized

indicator of food security in a country. Among the above 3 elements of food security, the social

survey made attempts to qualitatively capture the food access element by asking the household

respondent about the frequency of providing a) three meals a day, b) meat, chicken, fish twice

weekly and c) vegetables and fruit twice weekly. Moreover it also asked questions on other

living standard indicators such as household’s affordability to provide school supplies to

children, undergo dental checkups of children, provision of medical supplies and travel for get-

togethers and invitations to friends and families. These same set of indicators are also collected

for households whose members (one or more) are seeking jobs in the market, thus indirectly

assessing the risks to food security and living standards in households with unemployed persons.

Table 6 and 7 summarizes the percentages for each indicator by poverty and non-poverty

classification for both types of households.

9 It is also called ‘Abject poverty’ in some of the government documents.

10 It ranges from 0 percent in Madaba, Zarqa, Ajloun, Tafileh to 2.3 percent in Jarash

34

Table 6: Affordability and Quality of Food (Percentage)

3.3 Poverty Vs Non-Poverty Pockets: A Comparative View of Food Security

We highlight the main findings from Table 6 as follows:

a) Between 55-64% or more of sampled households in poverty and 48-54% in non-poverty

pockets are able to provide their families always with 3 meals a day as well as vegetables

and fruits twice a week11

.

b) Between 34-45% of households are always able to provide protein food to their families

at least twice a week, as compared to 0.5-0.6% of households who are never able to

provide with this frequency.

c) A higher percentage of households in poverty pockets (all households) as compared to

households in non-poverty pockets are always able to provide 3 meals per day (63.7% vs.

53.9%), protein diet (45.2% vs. 34.2%) and vegetable and fruits (54.7% vs. 47.9%). In

case of households with unemployed members, households in non-poverty pockets are

11

If we equate food availability, a component of food security with 3 meals a day the pilot social survey shows that nearly 36 % of households in poverty pockets are food insecure.

Indicators All Household Household members

seeking jobs

Poverty Non-Poverty Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Afford three meals a day

i. Always 63.7 53.9 49.1 54.8

ii. Rarely 4.7 3.3 6.3 6.6

iii. Never 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0

b. Provision of meat, chicken, fish at least twice a week

i. Always 45.2 34.2 40.1 31.0

ii. Rarely 14.2 8.2 13.1 14.0

iii. Never 0.6 0.5 1.4 1.5

c. Vegetables and fruits at least twice a week

i. Always 54.7 47.9 48.7 45.3

ii. Rarely 8.8 6.7 8.6 9.9

iii. Never 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0

35

better in ensuring 3 meals as compared to households in poverty pockets, although the

percentages of all three indicators are lower as compared to all households. Income

support or subsistence level farming may be one of the many reasons for less food

deprivation among poverty households.

d) The percentages of households in non-poverty pockets that rarely provide 3 meals,

protein diet or vegetables/fruit are lower or almost equal as compared to households in

poverty pockets.

3.3.1 Inter-district variations among poverty pockets

i) In terms of affordability and provision of food, Quaira district has the highest percentage of

all households that ensure 3 meals a day (88.1%), meat diet (76.0%) and fruit and vegetables

twice a week (79.9%). Ghour Essafi (33.0%), Wadi Arabahh (19.4%) and Al-Rweished

(24.5%) have the lowest percentage of households that are food secure in terms of access to 3

meals a day, access to meat protein and vegetables and fruits respectively12

. The above

findings also suggest that there is considerable variation in terms of affordability/access to

food among the poverty pockets.

ii) In case of households with members seeking jobs, the percentage of households in Quaira

district, who can afford 3 meals a day, meat diet, fruit and vegetables twice a week is even

higher than all households. The lowest percentage for corresponding indicators is recorded in

Wadi Arabahh (14.2%) and Al-Rweished (12.7%).

3.4 Communication Network and Food Security

One indicator of access to food apart from affordability is how near or far the food supply is to

the location of the households. The survey captures the time taken for the member of household

to travel to nearest milk, vegetable/fruit and tea/coffee shop. The time taken also depends on

mode of transportation used and type and availability of road net work. Poor usually rely on

public transport and in rural areas/desert the road network may be dilapidated or non-existent,

thus increasing the travel time. Table 7 shows the percentage of households with various time

slots for visit to these 3 types of food outlet.

12

Detailed inter-district tables A.1.-A.9 for this chapter are given in the Annex

36

As expected a higher percentage of households in non-poverty pockets have faster access to

these food outlets than households in poverty pockets, either because of faster mode of

transportation, better road network or they are living in urban areas/cities, where the distances

are smaller due to large number of shops. Between 14-18% of households in poverty pockets as

compared to 1-2% of households in non-poverty pockets have to spend more than 30 minutes to

reach these outlets. Thus households in poverty pockets are less food secure.

Table 7: Travel Time to Food Stores (Percentage)

Indicators

All Households

Poverty Non-

Poverty

a. Time taken to reach nearest milk shop i. ≤ 15 min. 55.0 75.7

ii.16-20 min. 16.7 9.5

iii. 20-30 min. 14.6 13.7

iv. > 30 min. 13.7 1.0

b. Time taken to reach nearest vegetable and fruit shop i. ≤ 15 min. 44.3 70.6

ii.16-20 min. 17.9 12.1

iii. 20-30 min. 19.0 15.2

iv. > 30 min. 18.0 1.1

c. Time taken to reach coffee/tea shop i. ≤ 15 min. 53.7 73.0

ii.16-20 min. 15.1 10.0

iii. 20-30 min. 14.8 15.0

iv. > 30 min. 16.3 2.0


Among the 12 poverty pockets largest percentage of households in Quaira spend more than 30

minutes of travel time to milk shop (43.1%), fruits and Vegetables shop (53.4%) and coffee and

tea (53.3%). In contrast they are more food secure (in terms of affordability) than any of the

other districts. The presumption is that due to peculiar geographical location along with

subsistence agriculture this district is more self-reliant and less connected and dependent on the

market goods. The other districts with large percentage of households spending more than 30

minutes to food outlets are: Dair El-Kahf (28.4%), Al-Rweished (24.5%) and Husseiniyyeh

37

(21.8%). Among these 3 districts, Al-Rweished’s low food security can be linked to poor

accessibility in terms of distance.

3.5 Comparative View of Living Standards

We highlight the main findings from Table 8 as follows:

a) Percentage of households in poverty as compared to non-poverty pockets that can

always afford to pay for clothes, shoes (28.4 vs. 18.2%), keeping home warm (45.3 vs.

40.5%), paying bills regularly (50.6% vs. 34.6%), conduct children’s dental check-up

(20 vs. 15.2%), purchase needed medicine (51.3 vs. 36.7%), buy school supplies (38.2

vs. 24.4%), even travel for family get-togethers (15.0 vs. 9.3%) and invite them over

for meals (18.8% vs. 9.1%).

38

Table 8: Living Standards Indicators (Percentage)

All Household

Household members

seeking jobs

Poverty Non-Poverty Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Buying needed clothes and shoes i. Always 28.4 18.2 21.9 14.4

ii. Sometimes 44.7 53.1 42.6 48.6

iii. Rarely 26.0 28.2 33.6 35.5

iv. Never 0.8 0.5 1.8 1.5

b. Keeping home warm i. Always 45.31 40.5 32.72 38.2

ii. Sometimes 28.6 40.6 29.4 39.9

iii. Rarely 7.8 18.2 8.7 20.7

iv. Never 1.2 0.5 1.2 0.0

c. Paying bills regularly i. Always 50.6 34.6 40.7 25.6

ii. Sometimes 30.4 41.2 32.8 48.4

iii. Rarely 18.4 22.9 26.5 22.8

iv. Never 0.4 1.2 0.0 3.2

d. Children's dental check-up3 i. Always 20.0 15.2 21.0 10.6

ii. Sometimes 17.8 20.5 16.5 15.6

iii. Rarely 17.4 18.1 23.1 23.1

iv. Never 10.6 8.1 8.3 7.7

e. Purchase of medical devices4 i. Always 3.5 6.4 2.1 5.7

ii. Sometimes 4.8 10.3 6.7 14.5

iii. Rarely 8.3 5.2 11.1 4.4

iv. Never 9.5 11.2 14.2 14.2

f. Purchase of needed medicines i. Always 51.3 36.7 51.8 40.2

ii. Sometimes 37.2 49.7 33.7 46.7

iii. Rarely 10.5 12.1 12.3 10.2

iv. Never 0.6 0.9 0.9 3.0

g. Purchase of school supplies5 i. Always 38.2 24.4 40.0 20.8

ii. Sometimes 20.1 20.2 18.7 18.4

iii. Rarely 5.5 16.1 6.2 15.5

iv. Never 0.3 0.7 0.0 3.0

h. Travel for family get-together i. Always 15.0 9.3 12.4 13.9

ii. Sometimes 20.7 23.6 14.0 20.9

iii. Rarely 30.2 30.6 39.1 32.2

iv. Never 17.52 31.3 12.0 28.7

i. Friend/family invited once a month i. Always 18.8 9.1 16.5 9.9

ii. Sometimes 33.6 35.7 31.8 31.0

iii. Rarely 36.1 34.3 37.5 36.7

iv. Never 11.2 18.7 13.6 18.6

1. 17.1% non-response, 2. 28% non-response, 3. Non-response ratio: ranged from 31.1% to 43%,

4. Non-response ranged from 61.3 % to 74%, 5. Non-response ranged from 35% to 42.3%

39

b) Correspondingly the percentage for households in non-povertyr pockets that can afford

to pay sometimes or rarely for these goods and services is higher.

c) The percentage of households in non-poverty pockets who can afford to pay for

medical devices is higher than for households in poverty areas (6.4 vs. 3.5%).


Table 9 identifies the districts with highest percentage of households that cannot afford the goods

and services related to medium and long-term well-being of households. Households in poverty

pockets of Quaira, Husseiniyyeh, and Al-Rweished have the highest percentages in maximum 3

out of the 9 indicators listed in the Table 9.

Table 9: Districts with Percentage of Households that can rarely or Never Afford these

Services

indicator Sub-district %

a. Buying needed clothes and shoes Husseiniyyeh 48.3

Ghour Essafi 42.1

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 41.8

b. Keeping home warm Al-Rweished 33.0

c. Paying bills regularly Wadi Arabahh 48.4

Mraighah 33.7

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 33.1

d. Children's dental check-up Al-Rweished 50.4

Ghour Essafi 41.6

e. Purchase of medical devices Quaira 47.7

Al-Rweished 34.2

Husseiniyyeh 51.2

Quaira 47.7

f. Purchase of needed medicines Al-Rweished 34.2

g. Purchase of school supplies Borma 18.6

Wadi Arabahh 17.4

h. Attending family get-together Al-Rweished 70.9

Borma 67.9

Wadi Arabahh 59.6

i. Inviting friends over meals Borma 63.0

Quaira 55.0

Wadi Arabahh 53.5

40

3.6 Perceptions about Adverse Situations

The sense of overall well being, optimism and happiness occurs when the capabilities are

translated into material well-being and is also relative to the perceived well-being of others in the

communities/villages and towns. But the sense of well-being is to some extent influenced by the

state of mind. Even if a family is materially poor but if they are less prone to worrying about

expected or speculate less about adverse situations that are likely to happen to them or about

surroundings, or even may be less competitive they may be even happier than the non-poor.

However what determines this more optimistic frame of mind is far more complex than the few

indicators documented in the pilot social survey. Another aspect about well-being is expressing

concern (not equivalent to being worried) at least for sustainable issues like pollution and crime.

It indicates the households’ awareness about the issues affecting the well-being of communities

and may ultimately translate into more involvement for resolving them at the community level.

Table 10 gives the percentage of households by the degree of concern they have on various

material and non-material deprivations. The findings are as follows:

a) Between 23%-60% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets are very concerned

and concerned about the lack of sufficient incomes, hunger and unexpected spending on

health. In other words there is a high sense of insecurity whether they will be able to

cope with these adverse situations. The proportion of households in poverty pockets

expressing concern is slightly higher than the corresponding percentages for households

in the non-poverty pockets.

b) Between 1/4th

-1/3rd

of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets are very concerned

and concerned about a) diseases resulting from poor sanitation, crime, air and water

pollution.

Table 11 gives the respondent’s response to perception of the percentages of poor and rich

residing in his community. More than 60% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets

assess that 40-80% are poor in their communities. Correspondingly more than 50 percent of

households perceive that nearly 0-20 percent are rich residents.

41

When comparing their standard of living with others in the neighborhood and village, between

50-60% of households in both poverty and non-poverty pockets regard it similar, but when it

comes to comparing with the national living standards, between 78-85% regard it as worse.

Table 10: Perceptions about Adverse Situations (Percentage)

indicator

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Lack of sufficient income i. Very concerned 58.4 49.9

ii. Concerned 16.0 21.2

iii. Slightly concerned 8.8 13.6

iv. Not concerned 16.8 15.3

b. Hunger i. Very concerned 28.3 23.3




c. Unexpected spending on health i. Very concerned 35.0 32.5




d. Lack of housing i. Very concerned 15.0 19.1




e. Diseases resulting from poor sanitation i. Very concerned 12.8 11.6




f. Crime i. Very concerned 20.3 16.0




g. Air-pollution i. Very concerned 19.3 12.9




h. Water pollution i. Very concerned 27.7 15.9




i. Drought i. Very concerned 12.2 5.8




42

Table 11: Perception on Socio-Economic Conditions of the Community (Percentage)

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Proportion poor

0-20% 9.2 6.1

21-40% 12.8 15.2

41-60% 33.1 34.5

61-80% 29.8 38.3

81-100% 15.1 6.0

b. Proportion rich

0-20% 52.2 53.1

21-40% 23.0 29.4

41-60% 16.1 13.7

61-80% 5.9 3.7

81-100% 2.9 0.1

Table 12: Comparison of Households' Living Standards with Others (Percentage)

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Households in the neighborhood

i. Better 14.4 27.1

ii. Similar 61.5 54.5

iii. Worse 24.1 18.4

b. Households in the village

i. Better 10.4 16.9



c. Households in the country

i. Better 2.3 8.1



3.6.1 Inter-district variations

More than 70 percent of households in the poverty pockets of Al-Rweished, Ghour Essafi and

Borma are very concerned about lack of sufficient incomes. Slightly above 70% of households in

the poverty pocket of Al-Rweished are very concerned about unexpected spending on health. A

43

comparatively high percentage of households in Wadi Arabahh and Mraighah are very concerned

about air and water pollution and droughts/floods.

3.7 Correlation Analysis of food security and living standards Indicators

Inability to provide adequate food and/or a balanced diet to the family can be due to economic

and non-economic reasons. The main reason is low income, followed by access specifically for

far flung villages and towns, where the supply chains are weak and erratic. As information on

household’s income was not documented in this stand alone survey, the percentage of

households ranking (i.e., always, sometimes, rarely and never) the affordability of 3 meals is

linked with their degree of concern on hunger and lack of sufficient income. In other words, the

question we explore is: Is the percentage of households in poverty pockets low ranking on

frequency of meals/vegetables, fruits low correlated with the percentage of households that are

very concerned with lack of income, or hunger. For consumption of vegetables we also explore

the relationship with travel time to vegetable/fruit shop.

Investing money and time in children’s health and education is an investment in future and

reduces inter-generational poverty. The percentage of households in poverty pockets on

frequency of children’s dental check-up and provision of book supplies are correlated with

households ranking of constraints and obstacles for such an investment. Table 13 and 14 gives

the correlations among these indicators.

Correlations of frequency of affordability (in terms of sometimes plus rarely) of 3 meals and

vegetables/fruits with perception about hunger and lack of sufficient income is low and in most

cases statistically not significant. The statistically significant correlation of consumption of

vegetables and fruits with low income perception and hunger suggest that income elasticity of

expenditure on these items at least in far flung areas is high, most likely due to high prices in turn

due to high transportation costs, weak scale economies and erratic supplies. Moreover travel

time is not related to their low consumption.

Significant and high correlations of percentage of households who rarely have children’s dental

checkup with lack of treatment suggest absence of dental clinics in the poverty pockets. When

the percentages of 3 rankings are combined, it is the concern about lack of income and

44

unexpected spending on health that are significantly correlated with dental check-ups. In all

likelihood, degree of concern on unexpected expenditure on other ailments and chronic

conditions leads to low priority to children’s dental check-up.

The aggregate percentages of households reporting sometimes and rare provision of book

supplies for children is correlated again with perception of sufficient income and obstacles to

education. In this case, lack of sufficient income is the main reason for inadequate provision of

book supplies. In addition the concerns on use of drugs, smoking and crime and violence around

school are the main impediments for parents to invest in the quality education of their wards.

Table 13: Correlations between food security and living standards Indicators

Indicator Rarely

Sometimes

+ rarely

Sometimes

+ Rarely + Never

Affordability of 3 meals a day

Very Concerned about Hunger 0.27 0.444

Lack of sufficient Income 0.287 0.205

Vegetables & Fruits twice a week

Very Concerned about Hunger 0.336 0.556*

Lack of sufficient Income 0.364 0.462**

Travel time to Shop -0.245 0.085

Children's Dental Check-up

Lack of sufficient Income 0.061 0.169 0.531**

Unexpected Spending on Health 0.012 0.043 0.671***

No health Insurance -0.105 -0.152 -0.057

Far Distance 0.163 -0.148 -0.151

Absence of Specialist Doctor 0.031 -0.072 0.285

Absence of family Doctor -0.279 0.365 -0.195

Working hours in the health Center -0.246 -0.537** -0.267

Poor Services 0.045 -0.033 -0.088

Cost of Visiting a Doctor -0.018 -0.052 0.003

Delay in appointment 0.103 0.071 -0.052

Nobody to look after the house 0.032 0.559** 0.249

Cannot take leave from Work 0.415 0.162 -0.058

Do not know where to go

The Lack of Treatment -0.608*** -0.427 -0.222

*** Sig. at 95%, ** Sig. at 90%. * Sig. at 85%

45

Table 14: Correlations between Indicators

Provision of Book supplies to Children Concerned Very Concerned &

(Sometimes + Rarely)

Concerned

Lack of Sufficient Income 0.492** 0.631***

No Teachers Available -0.297 0.019

Bad quality of Education -0.116 -0.005

No Specialized Teachers -0.175 -0.005

Poor public Utilities -0.227 -0.051

Crime and violence in the school -0.312 -0.395

Drugs in the School -0.311 -0.631***

Smoking in the School -0.249 -0.505**

Lack of Discipline -0.142 -0.303

Peer Pressure -0.36 -0.352

Discrimination between Students -0.062 -0.289

Overcrowding in Classroom -0.361 -0.377

Access to schools -0.027 -0.268

Crime and violence around school -0.426 -0.619***


46

CHAPTER 4

Labour Market Dynamics

4.1 Introduction

From a planners and policy makers perspective, the complexity and working of labour markets

whether national, sub-regional or at local level has always posed a formidable challenge. On the

demand side are relevant investments to match the skill set of the population and selection

procedures and remuneration scales adopted by the public or private sector employers. The

quality of supply side is constrained by the type and level of education programs available,

methods adopted for job search, individual and household motivation to seek job and economic/

non-economic constraints faced by the job seekers. In spite of the complexity of the job market

and growing share of younger population, the Kingdom has done fairly well in generating

employment as compared to the other Middle Eastern economies. However lot more needs to be

done in order to make the labour markets flexible to changing demand and supply conditions in

the economy.

Total unemployment rate fell slowly from 17.1 percent in 1991 to 14.8 in 2005 and further fell

rapidly to 12.9 percent in 2009. Similarly female unemployment rate fell by 10 percentage points

in the last 2 decades from 34.1 to 24.1 percent. The decline in male unemployment was slower in

the same period and managed to fall from 14.5 to 10.3 percent. Disappointingly, youth (15-24

age brackets) unemployment rate more than doubled from 12.1 to 27.0 percent during the last 2

decades. Due to rapid increase in population, the employment to population ratio has remained

stagnant around 33-35 percent between 1991 to 2009.

The emphasis of the social pilot survey is to indirectly assess the coverage of ‘decent jobs’ i.e.,

extent of jobs that carry health insurance, social security and pension benefits. Moreover it

documents the various job search methods adopted by the households and qualitative constraints

47

faced by job seekers. The objective is to gain a better understanding of the job market from the

supply side for policy and program intervention.

4.2 Employment Status and Decent Job Indicators

Table 15 gives a summary view of percentages of households reporting on various qualitative

indicators.

Table 15: Employment Status and Decent Work (Percentage)

Indicator Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Percentage of job-seekers 25.6 14.9

b. Percentage of households with

i. No job-seeker 75.0 84.1

ii. 1 job seeker 18.7 12.2

iii. > 1 job-seeker 6.3 3.8

c. Percentage of employed covered by

Health insurance 75.6 38.4

Social security 75.7 42.1

d. Percentage of households covered by health insurance with

i. zero employed 45.6 57.9

ii. 1 employed 39.4 33.4

iii. > 1 employed 15.0 5.4

e. Percentage of households covered by social security with

i. zero employed 44.6 57.9

ii. 1 employed 41.2 35.7

iii. > 1 employed 15.2 6.4

f. Percentage of households receiving pension

i. No one 65.5 74.5

ii. One 33.6 24.7

iii. more than one 0.9 0.7

48

We note the following:

a) The percentage of job seekers in poverty pockets is twice the national unemployment rate

and is near to the female unemployment rate13

. A higher percentage of households in

poverty pockets have 1 or more job-seekers (25.0%) as compared to households in non-

poverty pockets (16.0%).

b) Nearly 75 percent of employed in households in poverty pockets are covered by health

insurance and social security as compared to the coverage of less than 40% for the non-

poverty pockets. One needs to look into the industry and occupational status of the

employed in these households to understand this strange finding. In a sense it is better

that although poverty pockets may have lower incomes, the safety net is stronger. This

pattern is reinforced once the households are classified by number of employed persons

with health/social security.

c) Again the percentage of households with one pensionable job is higher for households in

poverty than households in non-poverty pockets. Higher percentage of households with

non-pensionable jobs is related to the nature and type of occupation as well employment

status of employed persons.

13

Since none of the indicators in the survey are gender-specific, the possibility that this rate reflects predominantly

the female unemployment rate in poverty pockets cannot be entirely ruled out.

49

4.3 Job-Search Strategy

Table 16 gives the percentage of households adopting different strategies to search for a job

during month prior to the survey.

Table 16: Job-Search Methods and Constraints to Employment (Percentage)

Indicator Poverty Non-

Poverty

a. All households

i. Newspaper 18.6 44.6

ii. Use of internet 2.7 20.3

iii. Application to ministries 48.5 35.0

iv. Social support (family and relatives) 58.1 52.2

v. Application to the Ministry of Labor 7.6 22.5

vi. Application to the Civil Service Bureau 5.2 17.1

vii. Application to the private 39.1 55.1

b. Reasons for refusing work

Reasons for refusing job opportunity Households w/o

job-seekers

Households with

job-seekers

Households w/o

disabled

Poverty

Non-

Poverty Poverty

Non-

Poverty Poverty

Non-

Poverty

i. Distance 31.6 47.1 35.0 21.4 33.3 30.3

ii. Poor public transportation 13.5 0.0 - 0.0 - -

iii. Public transportation cost - - 0.0 44.6 - -

iv. Sickness/disability 40.1 0.0 - - 20.1 0.0

v. Disapproved by the family 19.6 0.0 - - 9.8 0.0

vi. Mismatch of qualification - - 49.3 24.9 24.6 16.3

vii. Cultural/traditional aspect 12.1 0.0 - - - -

viii. Car not available - - - - 6.8 0.0

ix. High oil price - - - - 0.0 29.3

The main findings are highlighted as follows:

a) Majority of households in poverty pockets rely on social networking (relatives, friends,

past employers) followed by applications to ministries to search for jobs. Households in

non-poverty pockets rely on direct applications to the private sector followed by social

networking and newspapers. The differences in educational level of 2 types of poverty

50

pockets may be one of the main reasons (not the only one) for these differences in job-

search process.

b) One should also note the huge difference in the use of internet and applications to labour

ministry between the proportions in poverty and non-poverty pockets.

4.4 Reasons for Refusing to Work

Reasons for refusing to work are complex. They can be social, economic or skills mismatch.

Household with no job-seekers may also contain job-seekers who have given up on seeking jobs

since they are disillusioned by the search process. There may be households with active job-

seekers but still refusing to work until they can get a job to their liking. Presence of disabled

family member may be one reason for refusing to work, especially by females. The lower half of

Table 17 gives the distribution of reasons for respondent or any household member to turn down

a job or not apply for a job. They are classified into 3 types of households: i) Households without

job-seekers, ii) households with job-seekers and iii) households without any disable member.

The main findings are as follows:

a) Households without active job seekers indicate sickness/disability (40.1%) followed by

distance as the main reason for refusing to work. Nearly 1/5 of employment age

individuals refuse to work because it is disapproved by the family (most likely it is the

females). Another 12% refuse to work because of cultural/traditional aspects.

b) Nearly 50% of active job seekers refuse to work because of mismatch of qualifications

with another 35% citing distance as a reason for refusing to work14

.

c) Once the disability factor is removed, then sickness/disability reason is quoted by only

20.1 percent of households (last column of table 16). Distance followed by mismatch of

qualifications appears as strong reasons for refusing to work.

4.5 Inter-District Profile of Poverty Pockets

The relevant tables in annex identify the following districts with extreme values on these

indicators15

:

14

One needs to be sure that whether these job seekers are unpaid family workers or not. 15

Inter-district indicators for this chapter are given in Annex as Tables B.1-B.9.

51

a) Husseiniyyeh and Ghour Essafi at 42.9% and 34.9% have the largest percentage of job-

seekers among the 12 districts.

b) Households in sub-Districts of Al-Rweished and Al-Azraq have the lowest numbers of

employed covered by Health Insurance and Social Security.

c) In job search methods households in Wadi Arabahh and Al-Rweished do not refer to

newspapers.

d) Only households in 3 districts, i.e., Mraighah, Al-Azraq and Hoasha out of 12 sampled

poor districts use Internet for job search.

e) Out of 12 poverty pockets, households in 6 districts (Wadi Arabahh, Al-Rweished,

Mraighah, Quaira, Husseiniyyeh and Ghour Essafi) have never filed job applications with

Ministry of Labor.

f) Households in 5 districts (Wadi Arabahh, Ghour El-Mazra'ah, Ghour Essafi, Salhiyyeh,

Quaira have never filed job applications with Civil Service Bureau.

g) Wadi Arabah (12.8%), Mraighah (7.1%), Salhiyyeh (13.6%) and Dair El-Kahf (0.0%)

have the lowest percentages of households filing job applications with private sector

institutions.

4.6 Correlations between labour indicators

Is the employment status or the quality of decent work reflects in increasing concern about the

lack of sufficient income? How is the various job-search methods adopted by job-seekers impact

on the magnitude of job-seekers in poverty pockets? Do the percentage of job-seeking

households in poverty pockets rise with the percentage of households refusing to work because

of distance or mismatch of qualifications? Correlations in Table 17 quantify the extent of bi-

variate relationship among these aspects of job market and income concerns. The correlations

are low as well statistically not significant in most cases. However in poverty pockets where

majority of households use friends and family contacts, apply directly to ministry of labour, or

civil service bureau, the percentage of job seekers tend to be low as the correlation magnitudes

are high and statistically significant. Thus suggesting that government institution along with

social networking reduces unemployment.

52

Table 17: Correlations between lack of sufficient income indicator (very concerned) and

labour indicators

Lack of sufficient income (very concerned)

One member is a job seeker + more than one member is a job seeker -0.077

No members are covered by health insurance 0.221

No members are covered by social security 0.243


Table 18: Correlations between methods for searching for jobs and labour indicators

Percentage of job seekers

Responding to the newspaper advertisements -0.233

Using the internet -0.125

Submitting employment application directly to the ministries -0.197

Family and friend help or the support of previous (or current) employer -0.524**

Submitting employment application directly to the Ministry of Labor offices -0.564**

Submitting employment application directly to the Civil Service Bureau -0.447*

Submitting employment application directly to the private institution 0.383

Distance -0.041

The job description does not match the applicant qualification -0.06

Presence of disabled persons under 18 + above 18 (all) -0.100


53

CHAPTER 5

INCOME STATUS, INCOME SHOCKS AND PRECAUTIONARY

SAVINGS

5.1 Introduction

Low and uncertain income stream is one of the main reasons for being chronically poor and also

slipping into poverty frequently. Low incomes in turn retard the capacity to save in

financial/physical assets as well invest in the education of children thus initiating a vicious cycle

of inter-generational poverty among the households.

Real GDP growth rate of the Kingdom during 1999-2003 ranged between 2-3.5%. It almost

doubled during the period 2004-08 between 5.1-6.3% before slowing down in 2009 and 2010 at

2.4 and 3.0 percent respectively. Average annual family incomes grew from JD 4732 (USD

6665) in 2000 to JD 6606 (USD 9304) in 2009, an increase of 39.6 percent. Discounting for

inflation rates during the period it gives an increase of 4.6% in the real incomes of households

during the period.

5.2 Main Source of Income and its Regularity

Some sources of income are more stable in level and timing. Thus one can plan expenditure and

savings. These are income from salary and wages, retirement income/pensions and to some

extent support from National Aid Fund. Income from self-employment, home-based work and

internal transfers (informal social safety net) are more uncertain in volume and timing. As many

of the poor are involved in informal sectors, their incomes are likely to be irregular in timing as

well fluctuating in levels. Table 19 gives the distribution profile of households by main source of

income (defined as source of income that has the biggest percentage share in the total household

income). It also gives the distribution of households by number of earners and frequency of

remuneration.


a) Income from salary and wages has the highest percentage share in the total income for

more than 50% households in both types of pockets. As expected the percentage of

54

households in poverty pockets is marginally less than in non-poverty pockets (55.5%).

Next in importance for households in poverty pockets is retirement income (26.8%),

followed by cash transfers from National Aid Fund as main source of income for 11.9%

households16

. Compared to households in poverty pockets, a higher proportion of

households in non-poverty pockets have private projects (12.4%) and a smaller

proportion with retirement income (19.2%) as the main source of income

b) Given that around 75% of households rely on salary and wage income and retirement

income, more than 75% of households have regular monthly income. This percentage is

even higher for households in poverty pockets than households in non-poverty pockets

and increases with the number of earners. Correspondingly the proportion of households

with irregular income declines with increase in number of earners. The trend in

proportion of households with other frequencies, i.e., daily, weekly, quarterly,

seasonal/annual shows an inverted U-shaped pattern with the number of earners. As the

number of earners increase, the timing frequency of income accruals vary, may be

because other members are employed in the informal sectors or have non-permanent

second job.

Table 19: Income Status (Percentage)

Indicators

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Income sources i. Salary and wages 50.3 55.5

ii. Private project 6.4 12.4

iii. Retirement income 26.8 19.2

iv. Internal transfers 4.1 6.5

v. National Aid Fund 11.9 3.8

b. Regularity of

income All Households Earner = 1 Earners > 1

Poverty Non-

Poverty Poverty

Non-

Poverty Poverty

Non-

Poverty

i. Monthly 89.8 76.3 89.7 73.9 94.8 83.3

ii. Irregular 3.6 5.0 2.7 4.6 1.9 2.2

iii. Other frequencies 6.5 18.7 7.6 21.5 3.3 14.4

16

It is not clear whether retirement income only includes pension income or it is aggregate of income earned from

assets built up during working life.

55

Table 20 gives the data on household’s perceptions of likelihood of an income shock in the next

six months. It also gives results of adequacy of precautionary savings, with the number of

earners and regularity of income.

The main findings are as follows:

a) Around 70 percent or more of households in both types of pockets think that an income

shock is not likely in the next 6 months. This is consistent with the regularity of income

and source of income percentages in the previous table. Here again the percentage of

households in poverty pockets with more confidence in their income stream is higher

than the percentage of households in non-poverty pockets. This surety in absence of

shock rises with the number of earners in both types of households. The percentage of

households who think that an income shock is very or somehow possible declines with

number of earners in both types of pockets.

b) Majority (around 70%) of households in poverty pockets have no savings. This

proportion falls slightly as number of earners increase. However around 1/3rd

of

households in non-poverty pockets report that they have no savings. Surprisingly this

proportion rises to 50 percent with more than 1 earner in case of households in non-

poverty pockets. Roughly 1/5th

and 1/3rd

of households in poverty and non-poverty

pockets have precautionary savings to meet their expenditure for less than a month. Here

again the proportion of such families is inversely related to number of earners.

c) The question whether the adequacy of savings/ is related to the regularity of incomes is

answered in the next set of numbers. The proportion of zero saver households is higher

for both types of pockets for irregular income earners, which also dramatically increases

for households in the non-poverty pockets from 37.5 to 70.5 percent. Correspondingly the

proportion of households with savings less than one month of expenditure is lower for

irregular than regular income recipients.

d) Whether the presence of a disable person in a household lowers its capacity to earn

regular income and does it vary by type of household and number of earners? This is

correlated in the next two set of questions in the table. For the households in poverty

pockets, the presence of disable person lowers its capacity to earn regular income

56

compared to households without disable person irrespective of number of earners.

Moreover for households in poverty pockets the daily, weekly, quarterly accrual of

earnings also increases with the presence of disable persons.

e) For households in non-poverty pockets the relationship between the presence of a disable

person, no of earners and regularity of income is not as unambiguous as in the case of

households in poverty pockets.

5.3 Inter-District Profile of Poverty Pockets

i) The lowest proportion of households receiving income from salary and wages belong to

districts of Al-Rweished (37.6%) and Quaira (35.4%). Husseiniyyeh (2.4%) and Hoasha (2.9%)

have the lowest proportion of households receiving income from private projects. Income from

retirement accrues to the highest percentage of households in Quaira (45.2%) and Hoasha

(47.9%)17

. Also highest proportions of households in Quaira (12.9%) among the 12 districts are

dependent on internal transfers. National Aid Fund recipient households are the highest in Al-

Rweished (46.2%) and Ghour Essafi (20.1%).

ii) Among the 12 poverty pockets, Ghour Essafi has the highest proportion of households with

irregular income. Households in Borma (17.7%), Al-Azraq (14.5%) and Al-Rweished (12.2%)

are dependent on mix of income accruals such as daily, weekly, every 3 months and seasonal.

iii) Nearly 28% and 15% households in Salhiyyeh and Ghour El-Mazra’ah respectively see a

high possibility of losing their income in the next 6 months.

iv) All the responding households in Al-Rweished, Husseiniyyeh and Dair El-Kahf do not have

any financial savings. Sixty-one percent of households in Wadi Arabahh have savings less than

one month of expenditure.

v) The relationship between adequacy of precautionary savings, irregular vs. regular income and

number of earners at the district level is the same as observed for all households in both types of

pockets.

17

Pocket-wise indicators for this chapter are given in Annex C.1-C.6.

57

Table 20: Income Type, Likelihood of Income Shock, Adequacy of Precautionary Savong

(Percentage)

All Households Earner = 1 Earners > 1

Poverty

Non-

Poverty Poverty

Non-

Poverty Poverty

Non-

Poverty

a. Income shock

i. Very possible 10.8 15.1 9.9 15.1 9.1 2.7

ii. Possible somehow 7.4 15.0 7.1 17.8 5.9 8.5

iii. Not possible 81.9 69.9 83.0 67.0 85.1 88.8

b. Adequacy of precautionary saving

i. Less than a month 20.4 38.7 22.4 36.4 19.6 28.1

ii. Greater than 1 month 5.4 25.0 2.5 27.1 10.7 21.0

iii. No saving 74.2 36.3 75.0 36.5 69.6 50.9

c. Adequacy of precautionary saving

Monthly Irregular

Poverty

Non-

Poverty Poverty Non-Poverty

i. Less than a month 19.6 26.7 12.9 10.2

ii. More than a month 5.2 35.7 5.0 19.1

iii. No savings 75.2 37.5 82.2 70.7

d1. Regularity of income (No. of earner = 1)

With disable persons w/o disable person

Poverty

Non-

Poverty Poverty Non-Poverty

i. Monthly 82.9 84.5 90.2 72.9

ii. Irregular 4.8 3.9 2.5 4.7

iii. Other frequencies 12.3 11.5 7.3 22.4

d2. Regularity of income (No. of earner > 1)

i. Monthly 92.3 89.1 95.0 82.6

ii. Irregular 0 10.9 2.0 1.2

iii. Other frequencies 7.7 0 2.9 16.2

5.4 Correlations between income status indicators and income shocks and

precautionary savings

To what extent the concern about lack of sufficient income is related to the type of income

accrual or its regularity is quantified in the correlations estimated and shown in Table 21. The

analysis indicates that the concerns about insufficiency of income among households in poverty

58

pockets largely stem from irregular incomes. The higher the proportion of households in poverty

pockets with irregular incomes, the greater the proportion reporting a higher degree of concern.

However lack of savings apparently is widespread among all the households in poverty pockets,

irrespective of timing of accrued income. Perception of insufficient income is only weakly

related with presence of disabled person, even after accounting for irregular income.

Table 21: Correlations between lack of sufficient income and its types with perception

(very concerned)

Lack of sufficient income (very concerned)

Income generated from wages and salary -0.405

Income generated from private project 0.351

Income from retirement -0.138

Income generated from internal transfers -0.099

Income received from National Aid Fund 0.410

Irregular income of households 0.486*

No savings (all households) 0.617**

No savings (income regularity – monthly) 0.549**

No savings (irregular income) 0.699**

Incapable persons’ regularity of income (earn=1) + irregular income 0.031


59

CHAPTER 6

ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION

6.1 Introduction

Transportation network of an economy is the vein that keeps the economic activity at an efficient

and effective speed. At a micro level, it links cities with towns and desert oasis. It links markets

to production centers and individual communities to jobs, and other social services. The poor in

the far flung areas may have poor access to public transportation and/or road network and thus

may be discouraged to produce for the market, access jobs, or avail government services to

improve health and education. Limited social travel may further isolate communities and reduce

knowledge sharing, leading to chronic impoverishment.

The kingdom has around 80,000 Sq. Km of paved roads and highways. Since 2002, the Ministry

of Public Works and Housing started implementation of its 25 year plan that aims to complete an

extensive road network around the kingdom. This includes building ring roads around major

cities and development areas such as Amman, Salt and Irbid. Investments on road improvement

and development are expected to reach more than USD 1.8 billion within the coming 25 years.

6.2 Access to and Availability of Public Transportation: A Comparative View

The pilot social survey included questions on the availability and use of public transportation as

well as the mode of travel used by the respondents. Table 22 compares these indicators

households in for poverty and non-poverty pockets.


a) More than 40 percent of households in poverty pockets report that public transportation is

available daily and 18% percent respond that at least it is available every hour. Thirty

percent of households in non-poverty pockets indicate that it is available daily and only

6.5% report that it is available at least every hour.

60

b) The pattern of use of public transport differs significantly between households in poverty

and non-poverty pockets. More than 50% of households in non-poverty pockets use it

daily, as compared to 1/5th

of households in poverty pockets. More than 1/4th

of

households in poverty pockets use it once/twice a week as compared to 1/5th

by the

households in non-poverty pockets. More than 1/5th

of households in poverty pockets use

it once or twice a month as compared to 8.9 percent of households in non-poverty

pockets.

c) Nearly 80% of households in non-poverty pockets can walk to the public transportation

in less than 15 minutes. The corresponding percentage for households in poverty pockets

is 66.5%. More than 6% of households in poverty pockets have to spend 31 minutes or

more walking to the stop as compared to only 1.8 percent of households in non-poverty

pockets. Thus access to public transportation is much easier for households in non-

poverty than in poverty pockets.

d) The use of private cars is more and public transport is less by the households in poverty

pockets than by the households in non-poverty pockets. Living in urban centers with

well maintained and subsidized public transport and high cost of living may reduce the

need for private transport as well its affordability by the non-poor population.

61

Table 22: Access, Use, Mode to/of Public Transportation, and Travel Time to Stops

(Percentage)

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Availability of public transport

i. Daily 41.1 29.5

ii. At least once every hour 18.0 6.5

iii. Irregular 6.7 0.1

b. No. of times public transport is used

i. Daily 21.3 56.0

ii. Once twice a week 26.7 19.2

iii. More than twice a week 10.5 5.0

iv. Once or twice a month 22.1 8.9

v. more than twice a month 3.0 4.1

vi. Once or twice a year 4.0 1.1

vii. Never 12.4 5.8

c. Time to the nearest public transport stop on foot

i. 15 minutes or less 66.5 79.9

ii. 16-20 minutes 13.2 9.4

iii. 21-30 minutes 13.8 8.8

iv. More than 30 minutes 6.5 1.8

d. Main means of transportation

i. On foot 3.9 2.6

ii. Private car 36.4 30.2

iii. Public transport 46.8 62.7

iv. Taxi/mini-bus owned by other 13.0 4.5

6.3 Inter-District Variations

a) Smallest proportion of households in sub-districts Al-Rweished (38.0%), Mraighah

(37.0%), Husseiniyyeh (42.4%) and Ghour El-Mazra’ah (44.3%) can reach public

transportation stop on foot in less than 15 minutes. Consequently it takes largest

percentage of households in these districts to reach the public transportation stop in 21-30

minutes18

.

b) Residents in Wadi Arabahh use the public transport least frequently, once or twice a

week (33.8%), once or twice a month (28.7%) and more than twice a month (18.1%).

18

Pocket-wise distribution of the indicators in this chapter is given in Annex Tables D.1-D.4.

62

Nearly half of households in Mraighah never or once or twice a year use public transport.

A total of 70 percent of households in Borma and 66 percent in Ghour Essafi use it daily

and weekly. Round 1/3rd

of households in Quaira and Al-Rweished use it only once or

twice monthly.

c) The use of private car is the lowest in Al-Azraq and Husseiniyyeh (25.3%) and Ghour

Essafi (12.7%). In Wadi Arabah 25% of households walk to reach destinations. Public

transport is least used by households in Mraighah (10.1%) and Wadi Arabah (17.5%).

6.4 Correlations of Public Transportation Indicators

A well-developed and accessible network of roads connecting villages to markets and urban

areas open up a host of opportunities for households in far flung areas. Thus households are

motivated to avail health, education services more frequently and job opportunities. It also

improves access to markets for daily consumption items bringing surplus agriculture and

livestock production. However the time taken to reach a destination is also influenced by the

mode of transportation adopted for travel to various destinations. In Table 23 correlations

between time taken to vegetable/fruit shop and mode of transport are estimated. The significant

negative correlation of traveling by foot and time taken to reach a vegetable/fruit shop indicate

that the two are inversely related. In other words the higher the percentage of households

reporting a walking mode, the lower the percentage of households reporting shorter time to the

food shop. Thus access to vegetable/fruit shop on foot is fairly time consuming, but by public

transport it can be reached within 21-30 minutes.

Table 23: Correlations between time needed for closest beverage outlet and mean of

transportaion

TRAVELtm2130 TRAVELtm3140 TRAVELtm4160 TRAVELtmGT60

ON FOOT -0.534** -0.596*** -0.504* -0.047

PRIVATE CAR -0.394 -0.021 0.11 0.067

PUBLIC TRANPRT 0.446* 0.375 0.227 0.103

TAXIMINIBUS 0.186 -0.195 -0.21 0.089


63

CHAPTER 7

ACCESS TO HEALTH AND EXTENT, CARE OF THE

DISABLED

7.1 Introduction

Healthy population remains a central pillar to the overall social well-being of a productive

society. Care of the young, old and disabled is a testimony to society’s superior consciousness

and responsibility. This is possible if all segments of the society have equitable, effective and

efficient access to health services in the country. The Kingdom has made tangible progress

during the last decades in ensuring access to health services for all sections of the society. Less

than 5 mortality rate fell from 39 (per 1000 births) to 28 in 2009. Proportion of 1 year old

immunized against measles increased from 85% in 1990 to 103% in 2009. In case of maternal

mortality, the rate per/100,000 live births has fallen from 48 in 1990 to 19 in 2009.

7.2 Access to Health Services: A Comparative View

While the above statistics are monitored on a regular basis from the various surveys, the

questions in social pilot survey for the first time addressed the accessibility and quality of health

services from the individual household perspective. It also contained a module of 4 questions on

services to the disabled (if any) in the household. Table 24 gives the percentage of households

responding to various indicators. We note the following:

a) In case of emergency more than 56% percent of households in poverty pockets visit

health center and 1/3rd

visit government hospitals. These percentages are reversed in case

of households in non-poverty pockets. Probably the coverage of health centers as

compared to government hospitals is larger in rural areas and far flung communities with

opposite being the case in urban towns and cities.

b) Around 2/3rd

of households in both type of pockets use private car and taxi, minibus to

reach health services. As expected use of ambulance by the households in poverty

pockets is more than its use by the households in non-poverty pockets. In far flung

villages, transportation costs to health services are likely to be high; therefore it makes

sense to avail of subsidized transport of the health facility. Conversely the use of public

64

transport is more in households in non-poverty than in the poverty pockets. This result

may be explained if non-poverty pockets are more urbanized and linked to a well-

developed public transport system.

c) Forty-percent of households in both poverty and non-poverty pockets regard poor health

services as a constraint in their use. Only 5% of households in poverty pockets regard

lack of health insurance as a constraint compared to 22% of households in non-poverty

pockets. Around 10% (11.1%) of households in poverty pockets regard ‘lack of

treatment’ as a major constraint. These differences between the poverty and non-poverty

pockets reflect most probably the location differences with poor mostly residing in rural

and desert towns/villages and high percentages of employed in poverty as compared to

non-poverty pockets covered by health and insurance and social security (see Table 24).

Table 24: Access to Health Facilities (Percentage)


a. Visiting in case of emergency health problem

i. Government hospital 36.1 51.2

ii. Private hospital 4.4 5.3

iii. Health center 56.0 35.9

iv. Doctor's clinic 3.0 7.4

v. Pharmacy 0.4 0.2

b. Mode of transportation to health services

i. On foot 6.1 13.2

ii. Private car 36.5 29.9

iii. Taxi, minibus 31.1 29.5

iv. Public transport 8.7 25.0

v. An ambulance 17.6 2.4

c. Constraints faced by households

i. No health insurance 5.0 22.1

ii. Far distance 17.4 21.2

iii. Absence of family doctor 4.0 1.3

iv. no specialized doctor 24 12.8

v. Working hour in the health center 3.4 2.5

vi. Poor services 40.8 40.3

vii. Cost of visiting a doctor 3.1 3.6

vii. Appointment delays 14.2 24.1

viii. Lack of treatment 11.1 0.6

65

Table 25 gives the household’s response to presence of disabled members in the family as well

the extent of care and access to social services and opportunities.

We note:

a) Less percentage of households in poverty pockets have under-18 years of age disabled

residents than households in non-poverty pockets. The proportion of both types of

households is similar for above-18 year disabled residents.

b) Majority of households (62.8%) in non-poverty pockets have indicated mother/father as

responsible, followed by respondent for provision of care to the disabled. In case of

households in poverty pockets, it is the highest also, followed by son/daughter but

comparative percentage is lower for mother/father.

c) Highest percentages of households in both types of pockets with resident disabled

members cite access to health services as the main constraint facing them. This is

followed by ‘access to public institutions’ for poverty and ‘job placement’ in non-poverty

pockets.

66

Table 25: Disability and Access to Health (Percentage)

Indicators Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Person of disabled person

i. Under 18 years of age 1.9 4.8

ii. Above 18 years of age 6.0 5.7

b. Provision of care to the disabled

i. Himself/herself 28.0 38.9

ii. Husband/wife 25.3 21.6

iii. Son/daughter 36.2 26.1

iv. Mother/father 38.6 62.8

v. Brother/sister 15.5 24.6

vi. Other relatives/friends 9.2 10.3

c. Constraints faced by family of the disabled

i. Job placement 40.2 46.6

ii. Access to health services 56.0 56.5

iii. Access to public institutions 52.8 26.3

iv. Obtaining social protection service 34.8 27.9

v. Education 25.3 38.8

d. Average no. of hours per day spent with the disabled 11.0 7.0

7.3. Inter-District Highlights

a) In case of emergency the smallest percentage of households visiting government hospitals

are in sub-districts: Wadi Arabahh (1.9%), Mraighah (1.8%), Salhiyyeh (1.8%) and Dair

El-Kahf (13.9%). Only 1/4th

of households use health center in Ghour Essafi, and Quaira19

.

b) Out of 12 poverty pockets, in 8 pockets the percentage of households that use ambulance

for emergency purposes ranges between 0 and 4.7%. These are Wadi Arabahh, Mraighah,

Al-Azraq, Salhiyyeh, Dair El-Kahf, Hoasha, Borma and Al-Rweished. Similarly, the

19

Inter-district indicators of this chapter are given in Annex Tables E.1-E.7.

67

percentage of households reporting use of public transport in 9 pockets (5 overlap the

above list) range from 0 to 9.0 percent. Nearly a fifth of households in Wadi Arabah report

walking to the health services.

c) Al-Azraq has the highest proportion of households (17.0%) reporting lack of health

insurance as a constraint to access health facilities. Complains of absence of specialist

doctors comes from more than fifty percent of households in sub-district Al-Rweished and

Mraighah. Between 30-55 percent of poor and non-poor households in all the 12 poverty

districts complain of poor services. In Ghour El-Mazra’ah 12.5% of households complain

of high cost of doctor. It is the highest percentage among the districts for this indicator.

d) Nearly 6 percent of households in Ghour El-Mazra’ah (the highest among districts) had

under-18 age disabled as residents. The percentage of poor households reporting above-18

age ranged from 7% in Al-Rweished to 18% in Ghour Essafi.

e) More than 75% of households in Wadi Arabahh, Mraighah, Al-Azraq and Salhiyyeh

reported job placement difficulties for disabled members. Percentage of households in four

sub-districts reporting difficulties in obtaining health services exceeded 55 percent. Only

the percentage of households in Ghour Essafi, Wadi Arabahh, Mraighah reporting

difficulties in accessing social protection services exceeded 60 percent. All Households in

the above latter two districts also faced constraints in education of the disabled.

f) Disabled person himself/herself and/or mother/father took care of the disabled in

Households (more than 50%) in Al-Azraq. Between 60-100% of households reported

Mother/Father taking care of the disabled in Al-Rweished, Mraighah, Husseiniyyeh and

Quaira. Husband/Wife and son/daughter took care of the disabled in more than 50% of

households in Salhiyyeh.

68

CHAPTER 8

ACCESS TO CHILDREN’S QUALITY EDUCATION

8.1 Introduction

Education of children is the main instrument to reduce inter-generational poverty among the

households. In absence of old-age pension and social security benefits, educated children at least

in some cultures and societies are in a better financial position to provide old-age support to their

retired parents. Jordan has made considerable progress in the last two decades in many of its

educational indicators. Net enrolment ratio in basic education (6-15 years) increased from 86.7

percent in 1990/91 to 97.6 percent in 2008-09. It has also achieved gender parity. Survival rates

to grade 5 of basic education have also improved from 92.2 percent in 1990-91 to 99 percent in

2007-08. Inter-Governorate NER of basic education in 2008-09 ranged from 98.2 in Mafraq to

99.5 percent in Madaba.

8.2 Access to Quality Education: A Comparative View

While improving access (Quantity) to education and achieving many of the relevant MDGs has

been accomplished by many countries including Jordan, improving the quality of education

remains a challenge. The kingdom however continues to make important strides in this

dimension of education. The pilot social survey therefore captured this aspect of education from

a household perspective and framed many questions (indicators) accordingly. Table 26 gives the

household response to 13 indicators related to various aspects of quality of education.

69

Table 26: Access to Quality Education (Percentage)

indicator

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Presence of children (5-18) i. With 65.8 61.9

ii. Without 34.2 38.1

b. Enrollment in school i. Enrolled children 95.8 98.1

ii. No enrolled children 4.2 1.9

c. Proportion of households where children are attending i. Combined classes 7.6 2.4

ii. Nutrition classes 73.3 3.6

iii. School supplies 27.1 3.1

d. Obstacles faced by children

i. Bad public utilities i. No problem 49.4 32.6

ii. Slightly severe 27.3 42.8

iii. Very severe 23.4 24.8

ii. No specialized teacher available i. No problem 70 68.3

ii. Severe 17 20.6

iii. Very severe 13 11.1

iii. Bad quality of education i. No problem 54.3 52.2



iv. No teachers available i. No problem 68.3 71.2

ii. Slightly severe 18.7 20

iii. Very severe 13 8.8

v. Lack of discipline i. No problem 52.3 43.1



vi. Smoking in school i. No problem 61.9 35.8



vii. Drugs inside and outside school i. No problem 91 66.5


iii. Very severe 4 10

viii. Crime and violence in school i. No problem 78.4 39



ix. Difficulty in reaching school i. No problem 74.7 70.1



70

x. Crowded classroom i. No problem 62.2 43.1



xi. Discrimination between students i. No problem 50.1 52.7



xii. Peer pressure i. No problem 62.9 49.1



xiii. Crime around school i. No problem 79.9 47.9



xiv. Quality of education in comparison to your area i. Worse 13.2 15.1

ii. Identical 67.8 60.1

iii. Better 19 24.7

xv. Quality of education in comparison to Jordan (nationally) i. Worse 71 64.2

ii. Identical 25.4 24.6

iii. Better 3.6 11.3

xvi. Socio-economic status of children's playmates i. With disabilities 6.6 4.4

ii. Richer 59.7 65.2

iii. Poorer 68.4 71.1

iv. Other Governorate 12.5 19.5

v. Other nationalities 14.4 12.8

The summary of findings is highlighted as follows:

a) More than 60 percent of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets have school

going children between the ages of 5 and 18. Among those that have school-going

children, about 95% of households have enrolled their children in school. This high

enrolment is consistent with the high NER observed at the national and governorate level.

b) Majority of households in poverty pockets send their kids to special classes such as

nutrition classes. Nearly 1/4th

also get their school supplies. The households in non-

poverty pockets reporting such classes for their children are in single digits. Most likely

such specialized classes are not held in non-poverty pockets.

c) Between 25% to 35% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets identified the

following obstacles as slightly and very severe in the education of their children: Bad

71

Public Utilities, Bad Quality of Education, Lack of Discipline, and Discrimination

between Students. In all the above indicators, the percentage of households in poverty

pockets was slightly lower than households in non-poverty pockets.

d) In addition more than 50% of households in non-poverty pockets identified the following

obstacles as slightly and very severe in the education of their children: smoking in school,

crime and violence in school, crowded classrooms, peer pressure and crime around

school. These latter obstacles are usually faced by public schools in low income

neighborhoods of urban areas, although the households fall in non-poverty pockets.

e) In response to comparing and evaluating the quality of education to other areas, 1/4th

to

1/5th

of households (both types) regarded it as better. Only around 15% regarded their

quality of education in their own area as worse. However when it came to comparing

their quality of education to national levels, more than 60% of households regarded

theirs’ as worse.

f) In response to the socio-economic status of children’s playmates, (it had multiple

answers) 60% or more said that the playmates were both poorer and richer then

themselves. Disabled children as playmates were 6.6% for households in poverty pockets

and 4.4% of households in non-poverty pockets.

8.3 Inter-District Profile

a) Among the poor sub-districts, Ghour El-Mazra’ah (93.7%), Hosha (93.5%) and

Husseiniyyeh (84.4%) have the lowest enrolment of children20

.

b) School Supplies in Al-Rweished, Al-Azraq, Salhiyyeh, Dair El-Kahf, Hoasha, and Borma

range from 0% to 10.4, nearly half of the average for households in poverty pockets.

c) With regard to the indicators where more than 50% of households in poverty pockets faced

obstacles in the education of their children, the following sub-districts are identified against

the relevant indicators:

20

Inter-district profile of the indicators in this chapter is given in Annex F.1-F.6.

72

Table 27: Identification of Sub-Districts

Indicators Sub-districts

Bad Public Utilities Al-Rweished, Mraighah, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, Salhiyyeh, Hoasha, Al-

Azraq

Bad Quality of Education Mraighah, Al-Azraq, Salhiyyeh, Borma

Lack of Discipline Mraighah, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, Al-Azraq, Ghour Essafi

Discrimination between students Mraighah, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, Ghour Essafi, Salhiyyeh, Hoasha

8.4 Correlations betweem enrollment and education obstacles

Although overall enrolment rate in both types of pockets is fairly high, an attempt is made to

capture its pocket-wise variation by correlating it with the ranking of obstacles perceived by the

respondents of the pilot survey. Most of perceived ranking of obstacles correlate weakly with

enrolment percentages of poverty pockets in Table 28. The last column in the table aggregates

the percentage of households with the ranking of perception of ‘very severe’ and ‘slightly

severe’. There is weak evidence that lower enrolment is correlated with slightly severe

perception of non-availability of teachers and violence and crime around the school. The latter

finding also corroborates with the high correlation of lack of motivation by parents to frequently

invest in book supplies and crime and violence around schools.

73

Table 28: Correlations betweem enrollment and education obstacles

Enrollment in school

1 Lack of sufficient income – very concerned -0.084

2 no teacher available – very dangerous 0.250 0.408

3 no teacher available – some extent dangerous 0.508**

4 Bad education quality – very dangerous 0.331 0.266

5 Bad education quality – some extent dangerous 0.018

6 No specialised teacher available – very dangerous 0.118 0.310

7 No specialised teacher available – some extent dangerous 0.447*

8 Bad public utilities – very dangerous 0.241 0.161

9 Bad public utilities – some extent dangerous -0.195

10 Crime & violence in school – very dangerous -0.128 -

0.243 11 Crime & violence in school – some extent dangerous -0.180

12 Drugs inside & outside school – very dangerous 0.203 0.150

13 Drugs inside & outside school – some extent dangerous 0.042

14 Smoking in school – very dangerous 0.251 0.118

15 Smoking in school – some extent dangerous -0.294

16 Lack of discipline in school – very dangerous 0.218 -

0.014 17 Lack of discipline in school – some extent dangerous -0.160

18 Peer pressure – very dangerous -0.210 -

0.183 19 Peer pressure – some extent dangerous -0.127

20 Discrimination between students – very dangerous -0.023 0.176

21 Discrimination between students – some extent dangerous 0.270

22 Large no. of students in classroom – very dangerous -0.176 -

0.067 23 Large no. of students in classroom – some extent

dangerous 0.032

24 Difficulty in reaching school – very dangerous 0.214 0.234

25 Difficulty in reaching school – some extent dangerous 0.154

26 Violence & crime around school _ very dangerous -0.073 -

0.365 27 Violence & crime around school – some extent dangerous -

0.518**


74

CHAPTER 9

SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND TIME-USE PROFILE OF

HOUSEHOLDS

9.1 Introduction

Apart from other economic deprivations (e.g., income, jobs) poorer households may also suffer

many types of social deprivations including less invitations from relatives, friends and

acquaintances. Similar their social interactions may be restricted as they may not be able to

afford to invite friends over a meal. Poor households working in low-income jobs may also have

to spend longer hours in their jobs in order to make ends meet and therefore may have less

quality time for their families and relatives. Thus for the first time the pilot social survey

addressed this issue in much more detail.

9.2 Time Use Profile of Households: Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Pockets

Table 29 gives the proportion of households frequency-wise the time spent with various types of

people. Largest proportion of households in both types of poverty pockets report spending time

on daily basis with their families. As the nature of relationships weaken (except neighbors), the

extent of time spent with others is less and is on weekly, monthly basis, few months in a year or

never. With neighbors more than 60.8% of households in poverty pockets spend time on daily

and weekly basis. However among non-poverty households, the neighborly interactions are

monthly or few times in a year. With acquaintances/work colleagues, about 43.6% of households

in poverty pockets never spend time while the corresponding response for households in non-

poverty pockets is 27.9%. For shorter frequency, i.e., daily, weekly, the percentage of

households in poverty pockets is higher for most groups of people compared to households in

non-poverty pockets and vice a versa for more lengthy frequencies, i.e., monthly and times in a

year each of these frequencies.

75

9.3 Social Cohesion

b) The frequency of invitations to family relatives for tea, feast on an occasion, a dinner, evening

get together or going out is inversely related to the cost attached to these invitations (Table 30).

More than 50% of households in poverty pockets invite family over a tea on a daily, weekly

basis, but only 1/3rd

of households in non-poverty pockets do it as frequently. Around 55% of

households in poverty pockets invite family over an evening get together few times a year or

never. The percentage of households in non-poverty pockets for these frequencies is even higher

at 67%. A priori one would have expected a lower percentage for households in non-poverty

pockets.

76

Table 29: Profile of Quality Time Spent by the Father (Percentage)

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Family

i. Daily 45.7 35.6

ii. Weekly 28.7 25.6

iii. Monthly 14.4 22.3

iv. Few times in a year 8.0 14.2

v. Never 3.1 2.3

b. Near Relatives

i. Daily 8.2 4.0



iv. Few months in a year 28.2 40.3

v. Never 13.0 10.6

c. Distant Relative

i. Daily 7.4 1.6

ii. Weekly 19.1 5.1



v. Never 7.4 12.7

d. Neighbors

i. Daily 30.0 7.7




v. Never 7.9 14.1

e. Friends

i. Daily 12.1 3.9

ii. Weekly 25.2 9.6



v. Never 15.8 15.0

f. Acquaintances

i. Daily 11.5 13.3

ii. Weekly 9.4 4.9



v. Never 43.6 27.9

77

Table 30: Frequency of Invitation to Family by Head of Household (Percentage)

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. For drinking tea

i. Daily 23.3 10.1



iv. Few times a year 11.3 27.8

v. Never 15.9 13.8

b. For a feast

i. Daily 1.9 1.0

ii. Weekly 13.4 8.4



v. Never 10.8 15.8

c. For a dinner

i. Daily 3.5 2.5

ii. Weekly 9.4 4.8



v. Never 31.1 19.7

d. Evening gathering

i. Daily 9.5 3.5

ii. Weekly 22.1 8.8



v. Never 31.8 27.8

e. For going out

i. Daily 0.0 0.0

ii. Weekly 0.9 1.0



v. Never 67.2 49.3

c) Invitations to friends (Table 31) for various types of get-togethers is even less frequent than

for families and even this case on the average it appears that households in poverty pockets are

more social than households in non-poverty pockets, However the pattern of distribution of

households across various frequency intervals as well across various types of get-togethers (cost

sensitive) remains the same as in the case of invitations to family and relatives.

78

Table 31: Frequency of Invitation to Friends by Head of Household (Percentage)


a. For drinking tea

i. Daily 6.8 1.9

ii. Weekly 24.9 6.5



v. Never 25.8 32.2

b. For a feast

i. Daily 0.1 0.0

ii. Weekly 2.6 0.4



v. Never 33.6 40.2

c. For a dinner

i. Daily 0.0 0.0

ii. Weekly 1.6 1.2



v. Never 52.5 45.6


i. Daily 1.7 0.4

ii. Weekly 14.4 2.5



v. Never 42.5 48.7

e. For going out

i. Daily 0.0 0.0

ii. Weekly 0.1 0.3



v. Never 76.0 61.6

d) The frequency of social visits by type of occasion by the respondents is the mirror image of

invitations (Table 32). Higher percentages of households get invited more frequently for tea,

evening get-togethers, and higher percentage of households get invited less frequently for feasts,

dinners, and special occasions. Apparently the social cohesion for taking joint trips with family,

relatives and others is much more stronger than for other type of gatherings, as the incidence of

cost is much less on each participating family.

79

Table 32: Frequency of Social Visits by Purpose (Percentage)


a. For drinking tea

i. Daily 27.6 8.3




v. Never 8.5 16.1

b. For a feast

i. Daily 1.2 0.2

ii. Weekly 9.7 3.3



v. Never 13.6 22.3

c. For a dinner

i. Daily 2.4 0.2

ii. Weekly 8.1 3.1



v. Never 34.5 28.1


i. Daily 11.0 0.7

ii. Weekly 24.2 8.0



v. Never 28.5 32.0

e. For special occasions

i. Daily 0.5 0.0

ii. Weekly 3.2 1.6



v. Never 13.7 19.7

f. For going out

i. Daily 1.6 1.3




v. Never 29.6 43.0

80

e) Regarding socio-economic and background status of friends of the respondents, the percentage

of households from poverty pockets who have disabled as friends is twice than of households

from non-poverty pockets (Table 33). The percentages of households that interact with friends

belonging to cross section of socio-economic and geographical strata is almost the same (except

in the case of people from other Governorates) for both types of poverty pockets.

Table 33: Socio-Economic Background/Status of Friends (Percentage)

Poverty Non-Poverty

With disabilities 9.5 4.3

Richer 73.8 76.2

Poorer 74.7 76.4

From other Governorates 52.1 36.0

From other city 22.1 24.4

Older or less than your age 56.1 53.4

Inter-district variations of percentage of households in poverty pockets in time use, frequency

of invitations by various type of occasions and frequency of visits for various types of occasions

are not large and do not reveal extreme values and as such are not analyzed in the main report21

.

They more or less follow the pattern of averages reflected for households in poverty pockets as

discussed above.

21

Pocket-wise profile of the indicators in this chapter is given in Annex Tables G.1-G.5.

81

CHAPTER 10

FORMAL AND INFORMAL UNCONDITIONAL CASH

TRANSFERS

10.1 Introduction

Before the social safety nets were formalized in shape of government institutions, for centuries

societies and households relied on informal social safety nets where they depended on families,

close and distant relatives, neighbors and friends to meet their material needs in times of

emergencies and old age expenses. In many developing countries formal social safety programs

and institutions are still at an evolutionary stage and majority of poor population residing in far

flung areas rely on informal social safety nets.

The National Aid Fund is considered the main social safety net program for the poor in Jordan.

The Fund has seen significant increases in its budget in the past years, doubling the number of

beneficiaries and raising the ceiling on aid, with a total annual budget of about (88) million JDs,

and its services benefiting approximately (80) thousand poor households.

Moreover, the Government had spearheaded many other initiatives to combat poverty. For

example, the government has sought to activate the law of the Zakat Fund as a means of

contributing to the fight against poverty. The Government additionally launched several

programs and projects to target the poor and poverty areas through governmental and non-

governmental institutions. These programs and projects are not limited to providing financial aid

as they include activities to encourage productive initiatives and the provision of social welfare

for the poor and marginalized such as orphans, the elderly and disabled individuals. A number of

royal initiatives are also implemented to provide adequate housing for the poor and destitute.

10.2 Households in Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Pockets: A Comparison

Table 34 gives a snap shot distribution of households relying on informal and formal social

safety nets in both types of pockets.

82

Table 34: Formal and Informal Safety Nets and Cash Transfers (Percentage)

Poverty Non-Poverty

a. Reliance for care in case of health emergency i. Family members 83.2 78.3

ii. Close relative 14.1 18.6

iii. Distant relative 13.2 6.9

iv. Neighbors 9.8 9.2

v. Friends 4.7 8.1

vi. Institutions (religious, state, private) 2.9 0.2

No one 7.2 12.2

b. Reliance for cash loan to met health emergency i. Family members 56.5 66.0




v. Institutions 20.7 10.6

vi. Other 17.4 14.9

vii. No one 12.5 12.5

c. Reliance to cover the costs of a wedding/funeral i. Family members 76.9 79.0

ii. Close relative 18.5 24..0



v. Friends 8.0 12.0

vi. Mayor + institutions 4.9 1.7

vii. No one 12.2 12.2

d. Lending source in case of unspecified problem i. Family members 84.8 81.4




v. Mayor 7.6 1.1

vi. Institutions 15.6 14.1

vii. No one 2.7 9.1

e. Trust in surrounding society i. Trust their society 46.3 46.2

ii. Do not trust their society 53.7 53.8

f. Reasons for not applying for aid i. Do not need aid 52.5 60.9

ii. Not eligible for aid 25.6 25.6

iii. Difficulty in filling application 1.0 0.0

iv. Do not know where help is provided 3.0 7.7

v. Already receive aid for NAF 17.8 6.3

g. Households requesting aid i. With job-seekers 8.9 13.5

ii. Without job-seekers 6.9 5.3

83

Table 34 (cont’d)

h. Income status and request for aid

i. Regular income Request for assistance 6.7 6

No request for assistance 93.3 94

ii. Irregular income Request for assistance 25.9 18.5

No request for assistance 74.1 81.5

i. Possibilities for losing main source of income

i. Very possible Request for assistance 19.3 13.1


ii. Slightly possible Request for assistance 7.9 10.2


iii. Not possible Request for assistance 5.8 4.6


j. Reason for refusal of aid application i. Application data incomplete 7.8 0

ii. Not met the conditions 56.0 85.3

k. Awareness of social service institutions for i. Elderly care 43.4 32.6

ii. Children 33.4 24.5

iii. Vocational training 31.1 22.1

iv. Business counseling 31.4 23.5

l. Benefited from social service institutions i. Elderly care 0 0.8

ii. Children 0.3 0.2

iii. Vocational training 1.2 4.2

iv. Business counseling 4.2 3.8

m. Source about knowledge of existing institutions i. Municipalities 3.9 1.6

ii. Newspaper/Radio 74.9 64.9

iii.

Neighbors/Friends/Relatives 45.6 65.9

iv. Organizations 12.7 16.8

a) Majority of households (between 75-85%) rely for care in times of health shock, and for

cash loan and financing for unexpected expenditures on family members (between 55%-

66%). Close and distant relatives are relied upon to finance these shocks by another 10-

25% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets. The proportion of households in

poverty and non-poverty pockets that rely on institutions (religious, state and private)

range from a low of 2.9 percent for care in health emergency to a high of 17.4 percent in

84

case of obtaining a cash loan. In addition around half of the households in poverty and

non-poverty pockets do not trust the surrounding society.

b) Nearly 75% and 85% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets either don’t need

aid and/or not eligible for aid. Around 18 percent of households in poverty pockets and

6.3 percent in non-poverty pockets are already receiving aid from National Aid Fund.

c) The percentage of households with job seekers seeking aid is slightly higher than the

percentage of households without job seekers. Moreover in the former case, the

percentage of households in non-poverty pockets is higher than households in poverty

pockets.

d) The proportion of households with irregular income seeking aid and those who consider

the loss of income as strong possibility seeking aid is consistent with each other and

between 20 and 25 percent in poverty pockets. Similar are the percentages for households

in non-poverty pockets. The percentages of households applying for aid in case of slight

and no possibility of loss of income is obviously smaller.

e) Around 25% of the households in poverty and non-poverty pockets respectively were

refused aid as they did not meet the criteria or conditions.

f) Awareness of presence of social institutions to serve the elderly, children, vocational

training and business counseling is a good indicator since over time the services offered

by these institutions will be used by the communities. Among the surveyed, nearly 1/5th

to ½ of all households in poverty and non-poverty pockets are aware of their existence.

Unfortunately the highest percentage of households, only 4.2% in poverty pockets

benefited from business counseling. Newspaper/radio followed by

neighbor/friends/relatives is the two most common mediums through which the

respondents know about the institutions.

85

10.3 Pocket-wise Profile of Access to Social Safety Net

Some highlights of the finding are22

:

i) Districts with lowest proportion of households receiving NAF are: Mraighah (2.2%),

Hoasha (1.9%) Wadi Arabahh (8.0%) and Borma (7.1%). Incidentally these same

districts have highest proportion of households that don’t need aid and/or are not

eligible for aid. Dair El-Kahf has the highest proportion of households in the poverty

pockets where they do not know the source for obtaining help.Seven percent of

residents in Al-Azraq do not know how to fill aid applications.

ii) Highest proportions of households with job seekers that seek aid are: Al-Rweished,

Ghour El-Mazra’ah and Hoasha. Highest proportions of households without job seekers

who seek aid are: Wadi Arabahh, Salhiyyeh and Dair El-Kahf.

iii) Ghour El-Mazra’ah (13.7%) and Salhiyyeh (12.1%) had the highest proportion of

regular income households who had applied for assistance. Ghour El-Mazra’ah

(40.3%), Husseiniyyeh (50.0%), Dair El-Kahf (100%) and Borma (48.2%) had the

highest proportion of irregular income households who applied for assistance.

iv) In the category of ‘very likely’ loss of income, Quaira (0%), Mraighah (55.9%),

Husseiniyyeh (59.4%) and Dair El-Kahf (56.8%) are among the lowest percentage of

households who did not apply for assistance, as they have a high percentage of

households that think that loss of income is very unlikely.

v) Wadi Arabahh has the smallest proportion of households that have knowledge about the

four types of institutions. In Al-Rweished, and Al-Azraq, the proportion of households

that have knowledge about elderly care and children range from 13.1-25.5 percent, the

lowest among the 12 poor districts. Ghour El-Mazra’ah and Ghour Essafi have the

smallest proportion of households with awareness about vocational training. Only 9.1

percent of households in Wadi Arabah are aware of business advisory organizations

22

Inter-district indicators discussed in this chapter are Annex Table H.1-H.13.

86

vi) Not meeting the aid criteria was the main reason for refusal for 100 percent of

households in Wadi Arabahh, Al-Rweished, Ghour Essafi, Quaira and Borma.

vii) No households in Wadi Arabahh, Mraighah, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, Al-Azraq, Ghour

Essafi, Al-Azraq and Quaira benefited from municipalities as a source of knowledge for

presence of these social safety net institutions. Newspaper/radio as medium for

knowledge for institutions is recognized by fewer than 50% of households in Ghour El-

Mazra’ah and Al-Azraq.

87

CHAPTER 11

POLICY RELEVANCE AND WAY FORWARD

11.1 Two Caveats for Policy Implications

Broad policy implications at the pocket level for poverty reduction from the above findings are

grounded in the following assumptions regarding the sample selection of poverty and non-

poverty pockets as well as the households in the pilot social survey. A) The poverty and non-

poverty pockets retained their poverty status in 2010 as in 2008, and only changed within, below

or above the threshold. B) Majority of households sampled within the poverty pockets are below

the updated poverty line (to be still established for HEIS 2010) and those sampled within the

non-poverty pockets are above the updated poverty line. C) Specifically if in both pockets, the

assumption in (B) above, of majority of sampled households by each type is not met, the

comparison of better or worse values on indicators at the pocket level cannot be unambiguously

interpreted as reflecting a structural difference between the poverty and non-poverty pockets.

Thus poverty incidence in sampled poverty versus non-poverty pockets, impact on the average

response of poor and non-poor households to various indicators23

.

Based on the well-researched cliché that poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, there are

three broad dimensions that contribute towards understanding poverty: i) individual’s or

households’ capacity to earn income and provide respectable quality of living. Capacity is

determined by education, gender, age, family size, occupation, employment status, net financial

and physical productive and unproductive assets, ii) access to social assets (usually provided by

the government) that enhance individual’s/household’s capacity and/or quality of living such as

education, health, security, effective utilities including environment quality, social safety nets,

support to vulnerable groups, job opportunities and communication network and iii) collective

household or individual attitudes, perceptions, motivations, constraints, social networking and

degree of concern and satisfaction of the households.

23

The percentages in chapter 10 indicate that 52.4% of the households in poverty pockets don’t need aid and another

25.6% do not fit into NAF criteria. If this is the case then the possibility that majority of households surveyed in

poverty pockets are below (and above for non-poverty pockets) the 2010 revised poverty threshold can only be

confirmed by accessing the income information of the corresponding households from 2010 HEIS.

88

As a stand-alone pilot social survey, a serious limitation of the current study in exploring the

causes of differential poverty incidence in poverty pockets is the absence of household and

pocket-wise information in dimension i) and community or pocket-wise information of

dimension ii) above. Once the information from this stand alone pilot survey is linked to

household information in HEIS 2010 data along with information on social assets and services

provided by the government in each of these pockets, only then a comprehensive picture as to the

root cause of high poverty in these pockets will emerge as well as which dimension among the

above three better explains poverty and to what extent. However elementary statistical exercise

to estimate few important bi-variate relationships is undertaken among the social and attitudinal

indicators and non-monetary measures of poverty24

.

11.2 Policy Relevance

As a stand-alone pilot social survey of selected pockets it answers the analytical question of

‘what’ ‘where’ and by ‘how much’. This analysis is very useful from a planning perspective and

has the following policy relevance:

a) The pilot social survey comprehensively captures for the first time the social and non-

monetary aspects of poverty, constraints, perceptions and concerns as well qualitative

assessment of access to various social services. These indicators can be analytically

grouped into 8 social dimensions or indices as shown in this report and used as

determinants to explain poverty along with socio-demographic-economic and community

variables.

b) It is a report card on the status of each of the 15 sample pockets with respect to rich set of

social indicators. This report can serve as a baseline for pro-type or modified full length

social surveys or survey modules to be undertaken on a regular basis in the future.

24

Information on dimension 1 variables is the cornerstone to understand the causes of poverty. Simple correlation

analysis indicated that household’s capacity to invest in quality of life in most cases is statistically correlated with

the awareness of lack of income rather than other social variables.

89

c) By presenting a report card it identifies and quantifies pocket-wise disparities in various

social indicators.

d) For the identified pocket-wise social indicators, this study can act as springboard for in-

depth focused and prioritized research before formulating a matrix of efficient and

effective policy instruments.

e) Alternate criteria or prioritization strategies based on fiscal space, management and

technical capacity, or depth of poverty can be devised for selecting pockets for policy

intervention.

The findings from stand-alone pilot social survey suggest the following major broad policy

interventions for the under preparation poverty reduction strategy:

a) The effectiveness and monitoring of various policy interventions (macro/micro) already

in place be increased at the local level to reduce the perceptions of adverse situations in

poverty pockets specifically about income, poor health and environment and crime.

b) Access to food outlets can be reduced by setting stores in the public sector that can

provide essential food items all the year round at market prices.

c) The proportion of members not working due to sickness/disability can be reduced by

providing access through arranging/subsidizing regular visits to specialized health

facilities located outside the pocket. Mismatch of qualifications can be reduced by

providing access to targeted education curriculum based on localized informed demand

and supply conditions. Dissemination of functions of Ministry of labour and vacant

positions in Civil Service Bureau can improve the targeting of jobs by the poor

households.

d) A major challenge that comes out from the findings of the survey is the lack and

adequacy of precautionary savings in households of poverty pockets. Low savings not

only impact on current poverty levels by reducing consumption, inability to finance

economic and non-economic shocks, increasing debt levels but also increase inter-

generational poverty. A detailed and frank household survey targeted at documenting the

wealth and debt profile of households would reveal the type, nature and extent of

90

different type of savings. Maybe the lack of financial savings is substituted by adequate

amount of savings in livestock, poultry, jewelry, human capital and physical capital.

Once this aspect is clearly understood there is need to strengthen saving habits through

saving cooperatives, advocacy and media in the far flung remote villages of the country.

e) Bad quality of utilities as a constraint to quality education can be rectified by prioritizing

and targeting education related capital expenditures in poverty pockets. To improve the

quality of education, a multi-pronged strategy that includes frequent refresher courses for

teachers and performance based monetary incentives for teachers and students need to be

implemented in poverty pockets.

f) A major impediment to investment in quality of education and sending their wards to

schools by the parents is there concern with drugs, smoking and crime and violence.

Policy interventions designed to effectively enforce school disciplinary laws and security

presence around schools can improve enrolment and students performance.

g) As a by-product of developing saving cooperatives in poverty pockets, reliance on

informal social safety nets and even public institutions will decline.

h) Low rate of awareness and use of social service public institutions in poverty pockets can

be overcome by effective investments in the educational and media dissemination

programs and strategies.

11.3 Prioritizing Policy and Program Interventions

The inter-district tables in the annex on various indicators of 8 social dimensions provide bench

mark social data from the sampled households of 15 pockets in the Kingdom. Based on the

findings of this data, this study therefore should be regarded as a report card and comparative

analysis on the social aspects of poverty in each of these 15 pockets. The district-wise indicators

reveal considerable variation in most of the indicators and therefore serve as an important tool

for intervention and planning of various government interventions to alleviate poverty in the 12

poverty pockets. The attached matrix (Table 35) highlights the indicators in social dimensions

that have extreme values/or ranked bottom among the last 5/3 among the various poverty

pockets. Policy and program interventions can be devised in several alternate ways:

91

a. Those sub-districts be selected that lag behind in the highest number of dimensions,

e.g., Wadi Arabah, Ghour Essafi, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, and Mraighah.

b. Prioritize intervention on the basis of any one or two indicator present in most of the

districts, e.g., Access to children’s quality education and/or access to service institutions.

c. If however the priority is to improve food security than the four sub-districts of Al-

Rweished, Wadi Arabah, Ghour Essafi and Husseiniyyeh be chosen for rapid

interventions.

d. If there is considerable fiscal space to reduce deprivation of all sort, various districts can

be identified from the annex on the basis of subjectively determined unacceptable values

to prepare, implement and monitor a detailed plan for policy and program interventions.

e. Prioritize interventions on the basis of available fiscal space or the ‘biggest bang for the

buck’ and select the poverty pockets accordingly.

f. On the basis of likelihood of easy entry or exit from the threshold, pick pockets from

Table 2 to plan policy interventions and program to reduce the overall number of poverty

pockets in the country.

This study can be used as a two stage planning document for devising poverty reduction strategy

in the poverty pockets in the country. In stage I poverty pockets be identified or prioritized

according to any one or multiple criteria (a)-(f) above, for policy and program interventions. In

stage II detailed in-depth surveys and/or focus group discussions involving various local stake

holders be conducted in the selected or prioritized poverty pockets to assess the ex-ante feedback

on a matrix of focused interventions and social indicators and generate community and political

ownership to fight poverty. Since poverty reduction is a time consuming and resource intensive

process, pilots can be initiated in a fiscally constrained environment to understand what works

and what doesn’t work for poverty alleviation in the medium run.

11.4 The Way Forward: Some Suggestions

a) With the first time collection of household data on social aspects of poverty, Jordan has

demonstrated the commitment to study poverty in a multi-dimensional setting. The data

92

collection on social aspects should be an on-going and regular process. Its sample size should be

expanded and made part of HEIS series.

b) In case its sample size is not expanded and it is conducted as a stand alone survey, the gender

aspects of deprivation, social exclusion will not be captured meaningfully unless some of the

questions are not framed with gender lens, e.g., employment, care of the disable, travel

constraints and time allocation.

c) The households’ location need to be specified explicitly, i.e., whether the responding household

is part of a poor neighborhood in a large town/city, a self-contained village or town and distance

from the nearest urban town/city. The location externalities and their impact on poverty,

deprivation, vulnerability, empowerment and social exclusion are better documented with the

location identifiers.

d) The rich data from social survey can be the basis for constructing 8 indices of social dimensions.

These indices can be incorporated in constructing Living Standards Index (LSI) as well overtime

monitoring of the eight social dimensions.

e) In the immediate future there is a need to develop a set of studies on the determinants of poverty

at the household level and at the pocket level. The information on these 1123 households from

HEIS 2010 need to be combined with the information from this social survey to analyze the

economic and non-economic causes and their contribution to the poverty status of individual

households in these pockets. Econometric techniques such as logit, probit, factor analysis are

used to identify the underlying causes of poverty in these poverty pockets.

93

Table 35: District-Wise Summary Matrix of Indicators in Social Dimensions

Sub-Districts (Poverty

Incidence in 2008, %)

Extreme Ranking in at least few indicators of Social Dimensions 1-8

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS; 1=Food Security and Quality of Living, 2= Labour Market Dynamics, 3=Income Status, Income Shock and Savings, 4=

Access to Transportation, 5= Access to Health Facilities, 6=Access to Children’s Quality Education, 7= Social Exclusion, 8= Formal and Informal

Safety Nets

Al-Azraq (42.3) 3, 5(lack of health Insurance, job displacement for disabled member), 6,8 ( access to service institutions)

Salhiyyeh (38.1) 2, 5(visit to Govt. Hospitals, Job placement for disabled member), 6,8 ( access to service institutions)

Dair El-Kahf (35.3) 1,2, 3 (No savings), 5(visit to Govt. Hospitals), 6 (school supplies), 8 ( access to service institutions)

Hoasha (32.8) 3 (income from Retirement), 6, 8( access to service institutions, NAF support)

Al-Rweished (65.0) 1 (Food Insecurity, Access, Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about lack of income, unexpected spending on health), 2 (Health

Insurance/Social security) 3 (zero Savings),4, 5(absence of specialist doctor),6, 8(access to service institutions

Borma (32.2) 1(Affordability of Goods and Services , concerned about lack of income), 5 (low use of ambulance), 6 (school supplies), 8(access to service

institutions, NAF support)

Ghour Essafi (40.8) 1(Food Insecurity, Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about lack of income), 2 (job-seekers), 3 (Dependency on NAF), 5 (low usage of

health centers, High disabled population over 18-years), 6, 8 (access to service institutions)

Ghour El-Mazra’ah

(44.1)

1 (Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about lack of income), 2 (possibility of losing income), 3 ,4, 5 (cost of doctor, under 18-years

disabled), 6 (enrolment of children), 8 (access to service institutions)

Mraighah (48.4) 1 (Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about lack of income, children dental check-up), 2 ,4,5 (visit to Govt. Hospitals, ambulance use,

absence of specialist doctor, job displacement for disabled, accessing social protection services), 6, 8(access to service institutions, NAF support)

Husseiniyyeh (37.0) 1 (access to food outlets), 2 (job-seekers), 3 (No savings),4, 6(enrolment of children), 8( access to institutions)

Wadi Arabahh (69.3)

1 ((Food Insecurity, Access, Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about air/water pollution and drought/floods), 2 (Ministry of labour/Civil

Service Bureau/private sector), 5 ((visit to Govt. Hospitals, ambulance for emergency, job placement for disabled), 8 (access to institutions, NAF

support)

Quaira (37.6) 2 (health insurance/Social Security, MOL/Civil Service Bureau, Dependency on retirement income), 5 (Health Centers), 8 ( access to service

institutions)

94

REFERENCES

1) Al Sqour et al, 1989, Pockets of Poverty in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,

Ministry of Social Development.

2) Department of Statistics, 2010, Report of Poverty Status in Jordan, July, Jordan

3) Ministry of Planning and Social Development, 2010, Executive Development

Program 2011-2013.

4) Ministry of Social Development, 2002, Poverty Alleviation for a Stronger Jordan.

95

ANNEX 1: MODELING DATA FROM PILOT SOCIAL

POVERTY POCKET SURVEY

This annex presents estimation results obtained by modeling the pocket-wise percentages

of selected indicators of 12 poverty pockets from the pilot survey to explain pocket-wise

poverty incidence. Similar to correlation exercise, the multi-variate modeling is

exploratory and is conducted to assess the usefulness of this approach in absence of

pocket-wise income, socio-demographic and community indicators. The results are

documented in annex as they are of limited use from a policy perspective due to

following limitations of data and estimation: a) Pocket-wise poverty incidence is for the

year 2008, while the survey indicators relate to year 2011. Thus any change in the

poverty incidence between the two periods at the household level may also change i)

poverty incidence at the pocket level and ii) introduce inconsistency as household’s

response to conditions in 2011 converted into pocket-wise percentages is used to explain

the pocket-wise poverty incidence of 2008, iii) Statistically given that there are only 12

data points you can use only a small fraction of indicators at a time to model poverty

incidence. Thus estimates may not be robust to infer an unambiguous policy impact and

therefore of limited policy relevance. Using multivariate regression technique, three

models are estimated.

a) Poverty incidence and labour market dynamics

In this model, we use decent work indicators such as a) percentage people covered by

health insurance (PCTHELTH), b) percentage people covered by social security

(PCTSS), c) percentage of households with one member receiving pension (PNSION)

and d) percent of job seekers (JOBSEEKR), to explain the variation in poverty incidence

of poverty pockets (PPICDNC08).

The results are given in Table 1.A. Although the percentage of variation explained by the

4 determinants is high, none of the variables are statistically significant. The findings

from the non-significant results are: A higher percentage of households reporting health

96

insurance for the employed in a pocket do not ensure a lower incidence of poverty in the

pocket. A higher coverage of social security and pensions in a pocket however helps to

reduce the poverty incidence in the pocket. Higher percentage of job seekers is also

positively related to incidence of poverty in a pocket, confirming the results of chapter 2.

Table 36.1.A, Regression Results

Dependent Variable: PPICDNC08




C 42.9 5.23 8.21 0.000437

PNSION -0.0627 0.0501 -1.25 0.267

PCTSS -0.15 0.196 -0.766 0.478

PCTHELTH 0.0195 0.188 0.103 0.922

JOBSEEKR 0.0647 0.0646 1 0.362

AR(1) 0.708 0.0649 10.9 0.000112

Adjusted R-squared 0.943 Mean dependent var 41.2



b) Poverty incidence and main source of income

In the next model we asses that those pockets that report higher proportion of households

reporting retirement income (RTIREINC), internal transfers (INTRNLTRF), National Aid

Fund (NAFINC), irregular income (IREGLRINC) as main source income, and zero

savings by those with irregular income also have a higher incidence of poverty. The

results in Table 1B indicate a two way causational relationship.

In case of retirement income, income from internal transfers and NAF support, the

positive relationship with poverty incidence suggests that pockets with higher proportion

of households reporting these as main sources of income also have higher poverty

incidence, rather than contributing to lower poverty incidence. A priori one would expect

that they would contribute to lower poverty incidence. Among these NAF support or

97

Internal transfers are also statistically significant. A more strange result is that pockets

with higher proportion of households reporting irregular income or zero savings have

lower incidence of poverty. A priori one would have expected the opposite. These

counter intuitive findings are a consequence of availability weak income metrics defined

as ‘main source’ rather than actual income magnitudes from each source.

Table 37.1B, Regression Results





C 30.6 3.26 9.39 0.000715

RTIREINC 0.0174 0.056 0.31 0.772

INTRNLTRF 0.222 0.0853 2.6 0.0598

NAFINC 0.211 0.0433 4.88 0.00817

IREGLRINC -0.0241 0.208 -0.116 0.913

ZEROSAV2 -0.006 0.0199 -0.301 0.778

AR(1) 0.69 0.0367 18.8 4.72E-05


S.E. of regression 1.16 F-statistic 105


c) Poverty Incidence, access to health, presence of disability

Numerous studies have documented a very close relationship of poverty incidence with

the health status of the household. In this model we relate, percentage of households in a

pocket reporting a) poor hospital services (PRHLTHSER), b) lack of treatment

(LKTRTMNT), c) presence of disabled person under 18 (DSABLD18) and above 18

(DSABLDGT18), hours spent with disabled person (HRSDSABLD) with pocket-wise

poverty incidence. The results are presented in Table 1C.

98

Table 38.1C, Regression Results




Variable Coefficie

nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 37.145 4.280 8.678 0.013

PRHLTHSER -0.197 0.100 -1.970 0.188

LKTRTMNT 0.124 0.101 1.234 0.343

DSABLD18 -0.695 0.529 -1.314 0.319

DSABLDGT18 0.211 0.111 1.904 0.197

HRSDSABLD -0.021 0.173 -0.120 0.915

AR(1) -0.095 0.166 -0.571 0.625

AR(2) 0.655 0.156 4.196 0.052




Only two indicators, i.e., poor health services and presence of disabled person older than

18 years are statistically significant at 80 percent level. As the remaining indicators are

statistically not significant it is risky to comment on whether the direction of causality is

in accordance with a priori expectations. In case of significant indicators, the positive

causality flowing from higher percentage of households reporting presence of disabled

person with higher incidence of poverty supports the a priori reasoning. The negative

relationship between higher percentage of households reporting poor health services and

poverty incidence reflects that pockets with lower poverty incidence do have more health

services in the pocket but may be providing poor access to quality health services.

99

ANNEX 2: Pocket-Wise Profile of Social Indicators

Table A.1: Relative Distribution of Households by sub-district, poverty status and the family's ability to provide services 2011

Sub-district

Services

Provide three meals a day The provision of meat, chicken and fish at least twice a week The provision of vegetables and fruits at least twice a week

always Some

times rarely never N/A total always

Some


Some

times rarely never N/A total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 41.0 51.4 7.6 0.0 0.0 01101 19.4 55.1 25.5 0.0 0.0 01101 42.6 43.1 14.3 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 45.9 47.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 01101 20.4 48.8 30.7 0.0 0.0 01101 24.5 49.6 25.9 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 76.4 23.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 34.8 49.6 15.6 0.0 0.0 01101 72.3 26.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 52.1 31.3 16.6 0.0 0.0 01101 42.9 39.1 13.9 4.1 0.0 01101 51.8 38.6 7.9 1.7 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 52.8 41.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 01101 29.3 51.2 19.6 0.0 0.0 01101 47.8 42.2 10.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 33.0 59.7 7.3 0.0 0.0 01101 40.5 44.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 01101 48.7 41.7 9.6 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 76.9 22.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 01101 39.6 44.7 15.7 0.0 0.0 01101 48.4 42.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 88.1 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 76.0 20.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 01101 79.9 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 59.3 37.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 01101 53.2 35.9 10.9 0.0 0.0 01101 61.8 33.1 5.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 79.3 18.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 01101 32.3 51.1 15.2 1.4 0.0 01101 37.7 50.4 11.9 0.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 80.2 13.8 4.3 1.8 0.0 01101 67.6 24.9 5.9 1.6 0.0 01101 70.2 21.3 8.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Borma 68.6 29.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 01101 42.9 40.7 16.5 0.0 0.0 01101 46.7 40.4 13.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 63.8 34.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 01101 43.8 44.5 11.7 0.0 0.0 01101 53.7 37.8 8.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 51.4 43.7 4.0 0.9 0.0 01101 31.7 59.9 7.8 0.6 0.0 01101 46.0 46.9 6.8 0.3 0.0 01101

Qasr 68.1 30.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 01101 51.3 45.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 01101 66.1 33.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

100

Table A.1.1: Relative Distribution of Households by sub-district, poverty status and the family's ability to provide services 2011

Sub-district

Services

Paying Bells regularly Keep home warm Buying clothes and shoes that household needs

always Some


Some


Some


Poor

Wadi Arabah 14.7 36.9 48.4 0.0 0.0 01101 46.5 37.7 15.8 0.0 0.0 01101 46.2 32.8 21.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 54.0 31.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 01101 24.5 42.5 28.4 4.6 0.0 01101 10.0 62.1 27.9 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 34.5 31.8 31.4 2.3 0.0 01101 78.3 16.0 3.3 2.3 0.0 01101 63.0 29.4 5.3 2.3 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 57.1 9.9 33.1 0.0 0.0 01101 17.7 9.7 0.0 3.5 69.1 01101 23.8 34.4 40.1 1.7 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 45.5 31.1 21.5 1.8 0.0 01101 46.5 36.9 12.9 3.7 0.0 01101 11.0 54.6 31.2 3.2 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 53.9 22.1 23.9 0.0 0.0 01101 6.9 7.2 6.1 0.0 79.9 01101 12.0 45.9 42.1 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 59.5 37.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 01101 53.2 35.1 11.7 0.0 0.0 01101 21.4 57.6 21.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 48.8 25.1 24.5 0.0 1.6 01101 78.9 19.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 01101 54.1 24.4 21.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 42.5 41.3 16.2 0.0 0.0 01101 64.5 26.5 7.2 1.8 0.0 01101 41.9 9.8 45.5 2.8 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 55.3 37.8 6.9 0.0 0.0 01101 37.9 53.8 8.2 0.0 0.0 01101 23.1 58.1 18.8 0.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 56.1 36.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 01101 56.4 36.6 5.6 1.3 0.0 01101 32.4 57.7 9.9 0.0 0.0 01101

Borma 53.1 37.1 8.3 1.4 0.0 01101 44.8 50.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 01101 22.0 58.7 17.9 1.3 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 43.1 31.4 25.4 0.0 0.0 01101 46.6 32.3 17.7 2.0 1.4 01101 24.5 48.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 31.6 43.5 23.5 1.4 0.0 01101 37.1 43.5 19.2 0.3 0.0 01101 16.9 53.8 28.7 0.6 0.0 01101

Qasr 68.3 28.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 01101 86.2 12.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 01101 23.6 55.5 21.0 0.0 0.0 01101

101


Sub-district

Services

Purchase of medicines needed by household Purchase of medical devices (diabetes devices,…) Take care of each child’s teeth regularly

always Some


Some


Some


Poor

Wadi Arabah 31.9 50.7 17.4 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 1.9 2.9 0.0 95.2 01101 7.8 16.5 21.1 12.0 42.7 01101

Al-Rweished 20.4 45.4 32.5 1.7 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.5 95.0 01101 3.3 21.9 5.6 44.8 24.4 01101

Mraighah 49.0 41.0 7.6 2.3 0.0 01101 29.9 7.2 40.8 6.7 15.4 01101 19.1 11.0 31.3 2.8 35.9 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 46.7 41.1 12.2 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 7.3 11.5 4.6 76.6 01101 32.5 13.7 18.4 12.4 23.1 01101

Al-Azraq 46.6 42.0 9.9 1.4 0.0 01101 4.8 12.9 9.6 13.9 58.9 01101 12.5 18.5 11.9 4.8 52.2 01101

Ghour Essafi 50.0 44.2 5.8 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 3.4 1.4 2.9 92.2 01101 13.9 24.0 31.3 10.2 20.6 01101

Salhiyyeh 41.4 48.2 10.4 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 1.7 2.3 4.3 91.6 01101 11.3 24.0 18.2 11.5 35.0 01101

Quaira 88.8 6.6 4.6 0.0 0.0 01101 2.2 12.4 17.4 30.3 37.8 01101 39.9 17.6 1.6 0.0 40.9 01101

Husseiniyyeh 72.5 12.0 12.3 3.2 0.0 01101 5.6 5.6 10.6 40.6 37.6 01101 45.7 22.5 13.1 1.3 17.3 01101

Dair El-Kahf 41.1 44.6 12.3 2.0 0.0 01101 1.5 0.0 7.1 1.8 89.6 01101 8.8 17.4 17.0 17.4 39.5 01101

Hoasha 59.3 34.7 3.2 0.0 2.9 01101 7.6 0.0 4.5 0.0 87.9 01101 28.1 12.2 12.7 12.8 34.3 01101

Borma 32.5 48.8 18.6 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.0 95.4 01101 1.4 8.0 27.3 12.6 50.6 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 45.4 45.2 7.4 0.0 2.0 01101 3.3 9.0 3.2 11.4 73.0 01101 14.8 18.1 24.6 4.1 38.4 01101

Russeifa 33.4 51.6 13.5 1.1 0.4 01101 7.3 11.0 5.7 11.8 64.3 01101 15.4 20.7 17.9 9.0 37.0 01101

Qasr 70.4 27.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 01101 1.4 1.8 1.4 0.0 95.3 01101 12.4 24.1 1.5 4.6 57.3 01101

102


Sub-district

Services

Purchase of schools supplies Address the family/friends at least a meal once a month

with the family

Travelling to attend family occasions (between

governorates)

always Some


Some


alway

s

Some


Poor

Wadi Arabah 20.8 24.7 13.4 0.0 41.0 01101 11.1 35.4 52.3 1.2 0.0 01101 11.1 27.4 56.4 3.2 1.9 01101

Al-Rweished 27.6 41.0 7.1 0.0 24.4 01101 3.1 28.8 28.6 39.5 0.0 01101 3.3 6.8 25.7 45.2 19.0 01101

Mraighah 49.7 11.9 2.5 0.0 35.9 01101 40.5 43.0 11.6 4.9 0.0 01101 34.5 27.2 30.9 7.4 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 55.7 14.7 1.7 0.0 27.9 01101 10.9 43.3 23.8 18.7 3.2 01101 8.3 26.7 20.1 12.3 32.7 01101

Al-Azraq 25.2 17.6 8.0 0.0 49.1 01101 10.6 37.8 32.0 19.5 0.0 01101 16.1 26.8 16.9 36.9 3.4 01101

Ghour Essafi 46.6 29.8 0.0 0.0 23.6 01101 12.8 38.1 33.2 15.9 0.0 01101 1.5 16.7 25.7 16.4 39.7 01101

Salhiyyeh 24.2 32.5 10.3 1.7 31.3 01101 13.4 46.6 34.7 5.2 0.0 01101 6.0 19.7 23.8 14.9 35.6 01101

Quaira 54.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 42.9 01101 39.6 5.4 53.4 1.6 0.0 01101 37.8 7.0 52.7 2.6 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 54.6 9.1 4.8 1.3 30.2 01101 34.8 34.2 29.2 1.9 0.0 01101 33.8 8.5 48.8 7.1 1.9 01101

Dair El-Kahf 27.2 21.2 8.4 0.0 43.2 01101 6.4 34.7 42.0 16.9 0.0 01101 3.6 32.8 8.7 28.5 26.4 01101

Hoasha 36.7 20.1 4.7 0.0 38.5 01101 23.3 35.7 34.1 6.9 0.0 01101 17.2 35.4 26.9 14.8 5.8 01101

Borma 18.8 15.8 14.8 0.0 50.6 01101 13.8 23.2 55.1 7.9 0.0 01101 11.8 18.9 37.3 30.6 1.4 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 27.3 24.5 7.9 0.0 40.3 01101 8.7 30.4 41.4 15.7 3.7 01101 8.6 20.6 32.3 29.3 9.1 01101

Russeifa 23.0 20.6 18.3 0.9 37.1 01101 8.7 36.5 33.7 19.1 1.9 01101 9.2 23.7 30.8 32.4 4.0 01101

Qasr 41.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.4 01101 16.4 37.2 21.9 19.9 4.7 01101 12.3 31.4 23.4 17.3 15.7 01101

103

Table A.2: Percentage Distribution of households with members who are seeking job according to sub-district, poverty status and the family's

ability to provide services

Sub-district

Services for households who have members seeking job

Provide three meals a day The provision of meat, chicken and fish at least twice a week The provision of vegetables and fruits at least twice a week

always Some

times rarely never

Not

A. total

alway

s

Some


Some

times rarely never

Not

A. total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 14.2 78.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 01101 14.2 55.9 30.0 0.0 0.0 01101 31.5 38.5 30.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 73.8 12.6 13.6 0.0 0.0 01101 12.7 55.2 32.1 0.0 0.0 01101 12.7 55.2 32.1 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 74.8 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 16.7 80.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 01101 65.3 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 29.0 46.8 24.2 0.0 0.0 01101 31.2 39.5 16.2 13.1 0.0 01101 36.9 50.0 7.7 5.5 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 31.8 61.5 6.7 0.0 0.0 01101 22.0 63.7 14.2 0.0 0.0 01101 31.4 61.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 29.0 67.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 01101 38.4 57.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 01101 45.6 54.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 73.5 26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 23.5 50.0 26.5 0.0 0.0 01101 23.5 50.7 25.8 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 90.2 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 81.9 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 81.9 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 36.2 55.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 01101 36.3 38.8 24.9 0.0 0.0 01101 44.5 46.4 9.1 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 59.3 30.2 10.4 0.0 0.0 01101 50.9 19.2 29.9 0.0 0.0 01101 50.9 27.6 21.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 53.1 40.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 01101 46.0 40.9 13.1 0.0 0.0 01101 67.4 26.6 6.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Borma 55.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 35.0 42.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 01101 35.7 30.5 33.8 0.0 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 48.1 51.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 18.3 66.4 15.3 0.0 0.0 01101 36.2 57.5 6.4 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 56.1 35.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 01101 33.6 50.0 14.4 2.1 0.0 01101 46.8 41.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Qasr 59.2 36.8 4.0 0.0 0.0 01101 38.5 53.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 01101 53.2 46.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

104

Table A.2.1: Percentage Distribution of households with members who are seeking job according to sub-district, poverty status and the

family's ability to provide services 2011

Sub-district

Services for households who have members seeking jobs

Paying Bells regularly Keep home warm Buying clothes and shoes that household needs

always Some


Some


Some


Poor

Wadi Arabah 8.3 28.4 63.3 0.0 0.0 01101 20.0 44.1 35.9 0.0 0.0 01101 25.7 30.5 43.9 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 62.8 23.7 13.6 0.0 0.0 01101 12.7 13.6 73.7 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 49.9 50.1 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 15.6 32.7 51.7 0.0 0.0 01101 74.8 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 66.1 26.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 34.8 18.4 46.8 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 16.5 0.0 11.2 72.4 01101 7.1 24.0 63.5 5.5 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 14.5 69.8 15.7 0.0 0.0 01101 22.8 77.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 7.0 77.3 9.0 6.7 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 61.7 19.7 18.7 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 9.9 3.3 0.0 86.8 01101 6.4 61.5 32.1 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 23.5 66.7 9.8 0.0 0.0 01101 40.9 36.4 22.7 0.0 0.0 01101 9.8 50.0 40.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 42.3 24.7 33.1 0.0 0.0 01101 78.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 52.0 23.4 24.6 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 28.0 44.3 27.7 0.0 0.0 01101 41.3 38.8 19.9 0.0 0.0 01101 21.2 11.8 63.0 4.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 50.9 49.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 50.9 40.7 8.4 0.0 0.0 01101 50.9 27.9 21.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 53.8 24.3 21.9 0.0 0.0 01101 60.9 33.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 01101 27.3 60.8 12.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Borma 35.0 42.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 01101 22.8 65.9 11.2 0.0 0.0 01101 12.4 42.6 35.3 9.7 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 36.9 28.6 34.5 0.0 0.0 01101 36.2 43.0 14.5 0.0 6.4 01101 15.3 50.2 34.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 19.8 54.3 21.4 4.5 0.0 01101 32.6 42.7 24.8 0.0 0.0 01101 14.2 47.1 36.5 2.2 0.0 01101

Qasr 44.2 46.1 9.7 0.0 0.0 01101 82.1 13.9 4.0 0.0 0.0 01101 13.4 55.9 30.7 0.0 0.0 01101

105



Sub-district


Purchase of medicines needed by household Purchase of medical devices (diabetes devices,…) Take care of each child’s teeth regularly

always Some


alway

s

Some


Some


Poor

Wadi Arabah 25.7 38.4 35.9 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 92.0 01101 14.2 16.3 30.2 19.5 19.8 01101

Al-Rweished 12.6 26.3 61.1 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101 0.0 12.7 12.6 48.2 26.6 01101

Mraighah 45.7 47.2 7.1 0.0 0.0 01101 15.6 2.7 77.1 0.0 4.6 01101 15.6 12.3 48.1 0.0 24.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 35.8 42.4 21.8 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 5.5 17.4 10.6 66.5 01101 17.9 5.2 28.6 30.0 18.3 01101

Al-Azraq 38.8 54.5 0.0 6.7 0.0 01101 14.5 18.1 0.0 21.7 45.7 01101 30.3 0.0 8.4 0.0 61.3 01101

Ghour Essafi 56.6 37.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 4.8 3.3 3.3 88.6 01101 13.2 17.0 34.8 3.8 31.2 01101

Salhiyyeh 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 01101 9.8 23.5 25.8 0.0 40.9 01101

Quaira 85.1 11.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 17.2 16.5 37.1 29.2 01101 38.9 24.7 0.0 0.0 36.4 01101

Husseiniyyeh 59.3 21.2 19.5 0.0 0.0 01101 3.7 3.7 15.8 45.0 31.8 01101 43.6 29.7 11.6 0.0 15.1 01101

Dair El-Kahf 37.1 11.0 40.1 11.8 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 10.4 11.0 78.5 01101 8.8 17.2 32.8 10.4 30.7 01101

Hoasha 61.7 25.6 0.0 0.0 12.8 01101 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 93.1 01101 21.4 14.8 24.1 13.8 26.0 01101

Borma 32.5 33.8 33.8 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 88.8 01101 0.0 12.9 30.5 11.2 45.4 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 51.4 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 8.9 0.0 17.9 73.2 01101 11.9 15.3 22.2 8.9 41.6 01101

Russeifa 31.3 50.0 14.5 4.2 0.0 01101 8.1 17.4 6.2 15.2 53.2 01101 10.2 16.7 26.1 6.7 40.4 01101

Qasr 80.6 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 94.9 01101 10.4 8.8 4.2 12.9 63.7 01101

106



Sub-district


Purchase of schools supplies Address the family/friends at least a meal once a month

with the family

Travelling to attend family occasions (between

governorates)

always Some


Some


Some


Poor

Wadi Arabah 31.5 24.2 24.4 0.0 19.8 01101 14.2 24.6 61.2 0.0 0.0 01101 14.2 16.7 61.2 0.0 8.0 01101

Al-Rweished 31.2 42.2 0.0 0.0 26.6 01101 0.0 12.7 26.2 61.1 0.0 01101 0.0 12.7 24.7 12.6 50.1 01101

Mraighah 68.8 0.0 7.1 0.0 24.0 01101 18.3 64.7 9.9 7.1 0.0 01101 15.6 39.3 45.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 41.8 28.7 5.5 0.0 24.0 01101 7.1 35.6 26.0 26.3 5.2 01101 5.6 12.8 34.9 5.5 41.3 01101

Al-Azraq 30.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 61.3 01101 21.2 41.0 14.7 23.2 0.0 01101 16.1 24.3 28.9 21.7 9.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 39.3 22.2 0.0 0.0 38.5 01101 8.1 44.2 29.5 18.2 0.0 01101 0.0 6.4 34.2 18.4 41.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 22.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 01101 0.0 26.5 73.5 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 13.6 36.4 0.0 50.0 01101

Quaira 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 01101 35.7 9.0 55.3 0.0 0.0 01101 29.9 11.0 59.1 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 45.7 7.9 7.9 0.0 38.5 01101 27.3 29.0 43.7 0.0 0.0 01101 31.2 6.9 62.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 19.6 17.2 21.5 0.0 41.7 01101 0.0 8.8 50.8 40.3 0.0 01101 0.0 8.8 8.8 52.2 30.2 01101

Hoasha 32.0 21.4 20.6 0.0 26.0 01101 25.1 36.4 38.5 0.0 0.0 01101 13.8 27.2 26.6 19.0 13.5 01101

Borma 9.7 24.1 20.9 0.0 45.4 01101 22.8 22.5 20.9 33.8 0.0 01101 22.1 12.9 20.9 33.8 10.4 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 20.9 11.9 25.6 0.0 41.6 01101 8.9 30.6 36.3 24.2 0.0 01101 0.0 12.7 37.5 49.8 0.0 01101

Russeifa 18.7 22.8 14.8 4.3 39.4 01101 9.2 30.5 39.1 16.4 4.9 01101 16.1 21.9 33.7 23.4 4.9 01101

Qasr 36.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.7 01101 17.1 34.9 20.9 22.9 4.2 01101 25.6 30.2 10.7 24.2 9.3 01101

107

Table A.3: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the time it takes to reach the nearest shop that sells

milk, 2011

Sub-district

15 minutes or less 16-20 minutes 21-30 minutes 31-40 minutes 41-60 minutes 61 minutes or more Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 62.8 33.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 01101

Al-Rweished 33.9 14.9 26.7 18.5 6.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 51.2 47.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 57.8 15.5 15.5 3.1 5.7 2.4 01101

Al-Azraq 82.2 11.2 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 77.1 11.7 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 55.3 25.0 10.4 6.0 1.4 1.8 01101

Quaira 37.5 13.3 6.1 23.1 16.8 3.2 01101

Husseiniyyeh 26.2 11.3 40.6 17.4 1.5 2.9 01101

Dair El-Kahf 27.9 14.4 23.2 10.1 15.6 8.7 01101

Hoasha 66.1 4.1 18.7 9.5 1.6 0.0 01101

Borma 48.5 21.9 21.1 3.2 3.3 1.9 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 58.6 17.7 21.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 78.8 7.6 12.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 01101

Qasr 73.2 19.8 4.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 01101

108

Table A.4: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the time it takes to reach the nearest shop selling

vegetables and fruits, 2011

Sub-district 15 minutes or less 16-20 minutes 21-30 minutes 31-40 minutes 41-60 minutes 61 minutes or more Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 58.5 33.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 01101

Al-Rweished 31.8 9.9 33.9 13.5 10.9 0.0 01101

Mraighah 43.1 45.1 10.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 48.2 19.0 18.9 5.8 5.7 2.4 01101

Al-Azraq 82.2 9.3 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 52.8 23.6 19.7 2.2 0.0 1.6 01101

Salhiyyeh 50.1 26.3 13.7 6.8 1.4 1.8 01101

Quaira 31.1 9.4 6.1 26.9 20.7 5.7 01101

Husseiniyyeh 18.0 8.6 43.0 18.8 8.7 2.9 01101

Dair El-Kahf 31.2 15.9 17.7 14.2 10.1 10.9 01101

Hoasha 37.5 6.1 28.7 14.1 4.9 8.7 01101

Borma 35.5 20.6 29.5 6.0 6.4 1.9 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 59.5 14.8 21.7 2.0 2.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 72.9 10.8 14.7 0.8 0.8 0.0 01101

Qasr 62.2 26.6 5.4 2.6 0.0 3.2 01101

109

TableA.5: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the time it takes to reach the nearest store selling coffee

and tea, 2011

Sub-district 15 minutes or less 16-20 minutes 21-30 minutes 31-40 minutes 41-60 minutes 61 minutes or more Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 64.2 33.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 38.3 8.2 29.1 11.4 11.3 1.8 01101

Mraighah 49.3 47.0 2.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 55.6 12.1 14.8 7.2 8.1 2.4 01101

Al-Azraq 83.6 9.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 72.8 17.4 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 61.0 21.2 11.5 3.2 1.4 1.8 01101

Quaira 31.1 9.4 6.1 26.9 20.7 5.7 01101

Husseiniyyeh 19.9 6.6 42.9 17.4 5.9 7.3 01101

Dair El-Kahf 42.9 9.4 19.4 8.7 12.4 7.3 01101

Hoasha 48.5 6.3 26.3 12.2 4.9 1.8 01101

Borma 57.5 17.7 13.2 3.2 6.4 1.9 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 65.6 12.7 17.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 74.6 8.8 15.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 01101

Qasr 66.3 23.7 7.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 01101

110

Table A.6.1: Relative Distribution of Households according to sub-district, poverty status and the degree of concern in cases experienced by

family 2011

Sub-district

Cases

Lack of sufficient income Hunger Unexpected spending on health Lack of housing

Very

concerne

d

concer

ned

Concern

to some

extent

Not

concer

ned

Very

concerne

d

concer

ned

Concern

to some

extent

Not

concerned

Very

concer

ned

concer

ned

Concern

to some

extent

Not

concerne

d

Very

concerne

d

concerne

d

Concern to

some

extent

Not

concern

ed

Poor

Wadi Arabah 17.6 46.3 19.5 16.6 25.7 41.8 8.6 23.9 12.5 46.7 13.1 27.7 23.2 32.0 12.8 31.9

Al-Rweished 75.8 13.0 5.5 5.8 42.5 20.5 15.7 21.3 71.6 11.5 9.0 7.9 11.1 3.6 4.3 81.0

Mraighah 24.0 39.1 0.0 36.9 33.2 23.2 4.1 39.4 10.4 40.6 9.5 39.4 27.5 25.0 2.3 45.1

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 68.5 12.0 4.1 15.3 32.2 29.8 12.5 25.6 48.5 37.6 4.8 9.1 33.0 11.9 5.7 49.4

Al-Azraq 50.6 28.7 4.9 15.7 13.5 23.2 21.4 41.9 32.9 36.2 17.9 13.0 17.0 12.8 4.8 65.3

Ghour Essafi 81.7 6.0 4.2 8.0 45.8 19.7 14.0 20.4 40.8 35.6 13.4 10.2 38.9 15.6 4.4 41.2

Salhiyyeh 64.3 10.6 8.7 16.4 28.8 14.4 12.3 44.5 46.2 12.2 18.7 23.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 92.5

Quaira 34.3 15.0 16.2 34.5 2.8 6.4 3.2 87.6 4.6 6.4 15.6 73.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 98.6

Husseiniyyeh 46.2 18.5 15.8 19.6 26.7 11.2 7.2 54.8 13.3 17.4 28.6 40.6 4.2 0.0 1.3 94.4

Dair El-Kahf 61.8 12.2 14.0 12.0 35.6 20.9 10.2 33.4 34.7 27.4 15.7 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Hoasha 62.1 12.3 11.4 14.2 28.1 13.4 12.1 46.4 38.7 18.2 15.2 27.9 1.4 0.0 2.1 96.5

Borma 75.2 12.1 5.0 7.7 32.4 22.3 18.3 26.9 56.4 21.0 8.1 14.5 4.7 3.4 1.6 90.3

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 45.2 18.3 7.4 29.0 16.5 24.7 13.4 45.4 25.5 26.2 22.1 26.3 15.4 8.3 13.1 63.3

Russeifa 49.9 21.7 15.1 13.2 24.1 20.3 18.3 37.2 32.7 27.4 19.9 20.1 19.0 11.3 14.2 55.5

Qasr 63.6 20.5 6.1 9.8 28.0 18.1 3.6 50.2 50.4 29.2 10.5 9.8 33.4 13.7 7.8 45.1

111


family 2011

Sub-district

Cases

Diseases resulting from poor sanitation Crimes (theft, murder,…) Air pollution

Very

concerned

concern

ed

Concern to

some

extent

Not

concerne

d

Very

concerned concerned

Concern

to some

extent

Not

concerne

d

Very

concerne

d

concerned

Concern

to some

extent

Not

concerne

d

Very

concerned

concern

ed

Concer

n to

some

extent

Poor

Wadi Arabah 36.8 29.4 3.3 30.5 01101 40.5 23.9 3.7 31.9 01101 78.7 9.2 0.0 12.1 01101

Al-Rweished 1.5 15.7 25.1 57.8 01101 13.6 9.1 22.6 54.7 01101 0.0 7.5 13.2 79.3 01101

Mraighah 52.6 0.0 2.3 45.1 01101 52.6 0.0 2.3 45.1 01101 68.3 0.0 0.0 31.7 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 20.7 19.5 8.9 50.9 01101 32.2 18.4 6.3 43.1 01101 33.1 32.3 13.7 20.9 01101

Al-Azraq 8.2 31.2 17.5 43.1 01101 19.0 25.8 9.4 45.8 01101 11.8 28.5 7.8 51.8 01101

Ghour Essafi 25.9 31.1 3.4 39.6 01101 45.9 14.2 5.7 34.2 01101 34.2 34.8 8.0 22.9 01101

Salhiyyeh 1.9 1.0 11.1 86.0 01101 10.5 8.7 5.7 75.1 01101 5.4 4.1 7.2 83.3 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 12.6 87.4 01101 1.6 3.2 22.6 72.5 01101 7.3 15.7 38.8 38.2 01101

Husseiniyyeh 14.5 9.8 15.8 59.9 01101 2.9 5.7 17.5 74.0 01101 11.5 15.2 14.8 58.5 01101

Dair El-Kahf 1.8 14.1 10.5 73.6 01101 13.6 12.3 12.3 61.7 01101 6.9 8.3 11.3 73.5 01101

Hoasha 6.2 8.4 12.4 73.0 01101 10.3 8.5 5.4 75.8 01101 12.6 7.4 10.2 69.8 01101

Borma 6.1 6.5 17.0 70.3 01101 11.3 4.8 7.4 76.4 01101 1.4 1.7 11.4 85.4 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 4.6 15.4 17.4 62.6 01101 7.3 20.1 20.2 52.4 01101 11.7 26.1 16.7 45.6 01101

Russeifa 12.0 22.9 29.3 35.7 01101 16.4 22.7 29.1 31.8 01101 12.6 17.5 39.1 30.8 01101

Qasr 25.1 19.4 9.7 45.8 01101 35.1 12.9 4.5 47.5 01101 22.7 39.0 6.5 31.9 01101

112


family 2011

Sub-district

Cases

water pollution Drought\flood

Very

concerned concerned

Concern to some

extent

Not

concerned Total

Very

concerned concerned

Concern to some

extent

Not

concerned Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 90.6 7.5 0.0 1.9 01101 86.8 7.5 0.0 5.7 01101

Al-Rweished 36.2 17.9 3.1 42.8 01101 0.0 0.0 8.4 91.6 01101

Mraighah 80.9 0.0 0.0 19.1 01101 79.4 0.0 0.0 20.6 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 40.5 37.6 5.9 16.0 01101 17.5 26.3 17.1 39.0 01101

Al-Azraq 11.8 29.9 13.8 44.4 01101 0.0 21.0 7.6 71.4 01101

Ghour Essafi 44.1 28.4 5.8 21.7 01101 12.1 38.6 13.7 35.5 01101

Salhiyyeh 7.7 4.7 3.1 84.5 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Quaira 14.5 19.0 20.1 46.5 01101 2.6 5.3 14.7 77.4 01101

Husseiniyyeh 29.3 8.1 9.9 52.7 01101 16.0 14.3 13.5 56.2 01101

Dair El-Kahf 5.5 8.7 1.8 84.0 01101 0.0 0.0 1.8 98.2 01101

Hoasha 13.7 12.9 8.9 64.4 01101 2.8 3.0 3.4 90.8 01101

Borma 15.8 19.1 3.7 61.3 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 7.1 28.6 15.9 48.4 01101 0.0 5.3 6.6 88.1 01101

Russeifa 15.9 22.0 36.2 25.9 01101 6.2 6.2 6.6 18.5 01101

Qasr 43.8 27.0 3.1 26.1 01101 16.0 16.0 32.2 11.3 01101

113

Table A.7: Relative Distribution of Households by the sub-district and the state of poverty and the proportion of poor people in the

community 2011

Sub-district Percentage of the poor categories (%)

1-01 00-01 00-01 00-01 00-011 Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 5.7 19.5 19.1 51.1 4.6 01101

Al-Rweished 3.5 1.7 7.0 47.8 40.1 01101

Mraighah 10.2 35.9 46.7 5.5 1.7 01101

Ghour El-

Mazra'ah 4.1 4.2 19.2 61.8 10.8 01101

Al-Azraq 0.0 14.5 38.4 30.9 16.3 01101

Ghour Essafi 3.8 6.3 38.5 22.8 28.7 01101

Salhiyyeh 21.4 9.1 36.1 18.3 15.0 01101

Quaira 10.9 15.6 32.0 34.5 7.1 01101

Husseiniyyeh 1.3 10.1 41.8 36.3 10.4 01101

Dair El-Kahf 5.6 13.3 36.3 35.7 9.2 01101

Hoasha 26.8 23.2 29.3 10.5 10.1 01101

Borma 2.7 11.2 40.1 28.5 17.6 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 1.7 23.4 42.3 27.5 5.1 01101

Russeifa 5.5 13.1 33.9 41.1 6.4 01101

Qasr 29.7 26.9 20.5 21.4 1.5 01101

114

Table A.8: Relative Distribution of Households by the sub-district and the state of poverty and the proportion of Rich in community 2011

Sub-district

Percentage of the rich categories (%)

1-01 00-01 00-01 00-01 00-011 Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 95.6 2.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 71.4 19.8 5.2 3.6 0.0 01101

Mraighah 79.3 18.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 54.2 34.5 5.1 0.0 6.2 01101

Al-Azraq 62.8 18.2 17.5 1.4 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 74.7 13.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 53.7 19.2 17.7 5.1 4.3 01101

Quaira 14.7 45.9 14.9 18.1 6.3 01101

Husseiniyyeh 56.6 13.4 26.9 1.8 1.3 01101

Dair El-Kahf 40.9 28.4 21.7 9.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 29.3 17.6 28.7 18.2 6.4 01101

Borma 42.1 28.4 24.4 2.0 3.1 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 51.8 31.6 9.7 6.8 0.0 01101

Russeifa 54.5 29.7 13.8 2.0 0.0 01101

Qasr 33.2 17.5 22.9 24.3 2.1 01101

115

Table A.9: Relative Distribution of Households by the sub-district and the state of poverty and the standard of living of the household

compared to the standard of living of the other households 2011

Sub-district

Neighborhood Village Country (Jordan)

Better Similar Worse Total Better Similar Worse Total Better Similar Worse Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 6.3 64.6 29.1 01101 4.7 56.2 39.2 01101 0.0 9.4 90.6 01101

Al-Rweished 13.9 62.0 24.1 01101 5.5 41.0 53.5 01101 0.0 1.7 98.3 01101

Mraighah 24.4 66.7 8.9 01101 9.0 86.1 4.9 01101 0.0 12.8 87.2 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 25.1 56.3 18.6 01101 25.8 54.1 20.2 01101 14.2 35.0 50.8 01101

Al-Azraq 14.8 60.1 25.2 01101 4.7 53.7 41.7 01101 3.1 10.7 86.1 01101

Ghour Essafi 18.0 59.9 22.2 01101 13.9 55.1 31.0 01101 1.4 5.7 92.9 01101

Salhiyyeh 11.4 62.9 25.7 01101 8.2 54.4 37.4 01101 0.0 10.1 89.9 01101

Quaira 18.8 52.9 28.3 01101 17.6 42.0 40.4 01101 0.0 8.3 91.7 01101

Husseiniyyeh 11.6 58.8 29.7 01101 9.0 51.9 39.0 01101 3.4 3.7 93.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 3.3 74.0 22.7 01101 3.3 60.9 35.8 01101 0.0 8.9 91.1 01101

Hoasha 8.7 67.7 23.6 01101 6.1 58.7 35.2 01101 3.6 25.0 71.4 01101

Borma 9.6 61.4 29.1 01101 4.9 37.8 57.4 01101 0.0 8.7 91.3 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 20.0 71.5 8.5 01101 17.2 68.0 14.8 01101 3.4 17.7 78.9 01101

Russeifa 28.8 51.4 19.7 01101 17.1 48.3 34.6 01101 9.2 12.3 78.5 01101

Qasr 18.1 58.3 23.6 01101 10.5 53.5 36.0 01101 3.5 25.8 70.7 01101

116

Table B.1: Distribution of households by sub district, employed members, and job seekers 2011

Sub- District Number of employed members Number of job seekers Percent of job seekers

Poor

Wadi Arabah 684 252 27.0

Al-Rweished 771 163 17.5

Mraighah 1377 329 19.3

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 2772 1155 29.4

Al-Azraq 1978 596 23.1

Ghour Essafi 3567 1913 34.9

Salhiyyeh 2868 412 12.6

Quaira 2504 1173 31.9

Husseiniyyeh 1259 946 42.9

Dair El-Kahf 1197 228 16.0

Hoasha 3314 818 19.8

Borma 1770 314 15.1

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

Qasr

12097

71216

3495

3030

10620

1560

20.0

13.0

30.9

117

Table B.2: Relative distribution of household by sub district, poverty status and members who are seeking a job

Sub-district No job seekers

in the family

One member is

a job seeker

More than one

member is

a job seeker

Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 76.0 18.9 5.1 01101

Al-Rweished 86.8 13.2 0.0 01101

Mraighah 78.5 17.6 3.9 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 69.0 16.0 15.0 01101

Al-Azraq 79.6 15.6 4.8 01101

Ghour Essafi 58.2 30.9 10.9 01101

Salhiyyeh 86.1 13.9 0.0 01101

Quaira 69.4 24.5 6.1 01101

Husseiniyyeh 63.6 18.7 17.7 01101

Dair El-Kahf 83.4 16.6 0.0 01101

Hoasha 77.4 16.9 5.7 01101

Borma 86.1 10.8 3.1 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

Qasr

77.2

86.3

64.3

18.0

10.3

27.4

4.8

3.3

8.3

01101

01101

01101

118

Table B.3: Percentages of household according to sub district, poverty status, and employed household members who are covered by health

insurance and social insurance 2011.

Sub district

Percentage of people

covered by

health insurance

Percentage people

covered by

social security

Poor

Wadi Arabah 84.5 84.5

Al-Rweished 49.4 49.4

Mraighah 80.4 80.9

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 82.5 85.2

Al-Azraq 59.0 57.8

Ghour Essafi 83.0 78.0

Salhiyyeh 75.7 77.2

Quaira 75.7 77.6


Dair El-Kahf 75.4 75.4

Hoasha 79.1 77.8

Borma 68.9 68.9

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 48.8 56.9

Russeifa 34.8 37.7

Qasr 77.1 80.5

119

Table B.4: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the number of members who receive pension salary 2011.

Sub- district

No member is

receiving

pension salary

One member is

receiving pension

salary

More than one

member receiving

pension salary

Total

poor

Wadi Arabah 73.2 24.9 1.9 01101

Al-Rweished 96.9 3.1 0.0 01101

Mraighah 52.5 42.6 4.9 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 66.0 32.7 1.3 01101

Al-Azraq 71.2 28.8 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 81.0 19.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 63.9 36.1 0.0 01101

Quaira 52.6 47.4 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 66.0 34.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 63.1 36.9 0.0 01101

Hoasha 40.1 56.9 3.0 01101

Borma 74.2 24.3 1.5 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

65.3

77.1

32.9

22.6

1.8

0.3

01101

01101

Qasr 55.8 38.1 6.1 01101

120

Table B.5: Percentage of households by Sub district, poverty status and job search methods 2011

Sub-district

Responding to

the newspaper

advertisements

Using the

internet

Submitting

employment

application

directly to the

Ministries

Family and friend

help or the support of

previous (or current)

employer

Submitting

employment

application directly

to the Ministry of

Labor Offices

Submitting

employment


to the Civil Service

Bureau

Submitting

employment


to the

private institution

poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 79.3 19.6 0.0 0.0 12.8

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 36.7 75.9 0.0 11.1 37.2

Mraighah 16.7 7.1 100.0 77.3 0.0 27.6 7.1

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 7.7 0.0 58.0 23.5 7.1 0.0 56.1

Al-Azraq 82.5 23.4 38.1 41.0 9.0 7.0 59.7

Ghour Essafi 3.5 0.0 36.5 53.9 0.0 0.0 69.3

Salhiyyeh 13.6 0.0 40.9 86.4 13.6 0.0 13.6

Quaira 15.0 0.0 56.9 59.8 0.0 0.0 26.1

Husseiniyyeh 17.5 0.0 38.8 60.9 0.0 6.5 24.9

Dair El-Kahf 42.1 0.0 59.3 100.0 40.7 8.8 0.0

Hoasha 27.5 6.9 28.1 74.0 28.9 12.8 26.3

Borma 31.7 0.0 77.2 67.1 22.1 22.1 32.5

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 35.0 14.5 15.3 50.7 27.2 20.9 64.6

Russeifa 52.9 24.2 34.0 55.9 22.3 15.0 57.8

Qasr 4.5 4.5 81.3 29.7 14.8 24.6 16.6

121

Table B.6 Percentage of households by sub district poverty status and reason of refusing to work 2011

Sub-district distance

Car

unavailability

Failure to

obtain

driving

license

High oil

prices

Poor

public

transportati

on

Public

transportatio

n cost

Sickness/

disability

Safety

concerns

Taking care of

disabled

member of the

family

Rejection

from the

family

The job

description

doesn’t match

the applicant

qualification

Cultural and

traditional

aspects

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mraighah 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Azraq 43.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.7

Ghour Essafi 35.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.1 64.9 0.0

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Quaira 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dair El-Kahf 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Borma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

100.0

20.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

19.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.2

0.0

0.0

Qasr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

122

Table B.7: Percentage of households which doesn’t include job seekers by sub district, poverty status and reason of refusing to work 2011

Reasons for job rejection in households that don’t include job seekers


Car

unavailabi

lity

Failure to

obtain

driving

license

High oil

prices

Poor

public

transporta

tion

Public

transportati

on cost

Sickness/

disability

Safety

concerns

Taking care

of disabled

member of

the family

Rejection

from the

family

The job

description

doesn’t match

the applicant

qualification

Cultural

and

traditional

aspects

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Azraq 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Ghour Essafi 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Borma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

Qasr

0.0

47.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

123

Table B.8: Percentage of households that include job seekers by sub district, poverty status and reason of refusing to work 2011

Reasons of job rejection in households that include job seekers


Car

unavailabi

lity

Failure to

obtain

driving

license

High oil

prices

Poor

public

transporta

tion

Public

transporta

tion cost

Sickness/

disability

Safety

concerns

Taking care

of disabled

member of

the family

Rejection

from the

family

The job

description

doesn’t

match the

applicant

qualification

Cultural and

traditional

aspects

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mraighah 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Azraq 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Quaira 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dair El-Kahf 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Borma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

Qasr

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

33.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

35.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

124

Table B.9: Percentage of households that doesn’t include disabled members by Sub district, poverty status and reason of job rejection 2011

Reasons of job rejection for households that don’t include disabled members

sub district

distance Car

unavailability

Failure to

obtain

driving

license

High oil

prices

Poor public

transportati

on

Public

transporta

tion cost

Sickness/

disability

Safety

concerns

Taking

care of

disabled

member of

the family

Rejection

from the

family

The job

description

doesn’t

match the

applicant

qualification

Cultural and

traditional

aspects

poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mraighah 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Azraq 43.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.7

Ghour Essafi 35.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.1 64.9 0.0

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Quaira 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dair El-Kahf 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Borma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

Qasr

100.0

20.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

19.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

125

Table C.1: Relative distribution of households that include disabled members by sub district, poverty status the main source of income 2011

Sub district

Income

generated

from salary

and wage

Income

generated

from private

project

Income

generated

from self-

production

Income from

retirement

Income

generated

from financial

assets

Income

generated

from internal

transfers

Income

generated from

external

transfers

Income

generated from

real state

Income

received

from

National Aid

Fund

Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 64.3 4.4 1.5 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 01101

Al-Rweished 37.6 9.6 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 46.2 01101

Mraighah 69.5 4.1 1.6 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 60.3 4.5 0.0 18.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 14.9 01101

Al-Azraq 46.2 10.7 0.0 21.0 1.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 16.4 01101

Ghour Essafi 56.2 4.2 0.0 15.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 20.1 01101

Salhiyyeh 50.8 5.1 0.0 30.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 11.8 01101

Quaira 35.4 5.3 0.0 45.2 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 01101

Husseiniyyeh 56.0 2.4 2.9 21.6 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 6.2 01101

Dair El-Kahf 51.1 5.1 0.0 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 01101

Hoasha 46.0 2.9 0.0 47.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 01101

Borma 44.1 20.8 0.0 24.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 1.6 6.2 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

Qasr

47.7

57.4

44.8

8.6

13.5

3.5

0.0

0.9

0.0

27.2

16.9

35.4

0.0

0.3

0.0

10.7

5.8

6.5

2.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.0

3.7

3.5

9.8

01101

01101

01101

126

Table C.2: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status the regularity of the main source of income 2011

Sub-district

The regularity of the main source of income in the family and the number of individual contributors to the household income =1

Daily Weekly Monthly Every three month Annual Irregular Total

poor

Wadi Arabah 1.7 2.0 96.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 8.3 0.0 82.5 0.0 3.5 5.6 01101

Mraighah 0.0 1.5 98.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 93.6 0.0 0.0 6.4 01101

Al-Azraq 10.4 6.9 78.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 2.4 86.3 2.1 2.4 6.8 01101

Salhiyyeh 4.5 2.1 91.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 01101

Quaira 3.2 0.0 96.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 6.0 0.0 94.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 2.3 91.4 1.7 2.3 2.3 01101

Hoasha 2.1 4.5 91.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 01101

Borma 9.5 2.3 78.7 0.0 7.8 1.7 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 3.3 11.0 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 14.8 8.4 71.5 0.0 0.0 5.3 01101

Qasr 3.8 0.0 90.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 01101

127

Table C.3.1: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the stability of the main source of income, and number of

the household members that contribute to the household income 2011

Sub-district

Daily Weekly Monthly Every three

month Annual Irregular Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 2.7 1.4 93.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 01101

Al-Rweished 9.1 0.0 82.7 0.0 3.1 5.0 01101

Mraighah 0.0 1.0 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 94.7 0.0 1.3 4.0 01101

Al-Azraq 9.4 5.1 79.7 0.0 0.0 5.9 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 1.5 86.9 1.4 1.6 8.6 01101

Salhiyyeh 4.9 1.7 92.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 01101

Quaira 2.8 0.0 97.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 4.2 0.0 90.1 0.0 0.0 5.8 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 1.8 90.9 1.4 4.1 1.8 01101

Hoasha 1.6 3.4 92.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 01101

Borma 7.9 1.9 79.5 0.0 7.9 2.8 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 5.8 8.5 80.6 0.0 0.0 5.0 01101

Russeifa 13.4 6.8 74.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 01101

Qasr 4.6 0.0 91.2 0.0 0.0 4.2 01101

128

Table C.3.2: Relative distribution of households by Sub district, poverty status the stability of the main source of income, and number of the

household members which contribute to the household income 2011

Sub-district

The regularity of the main source of income in the family as the number of individual contributors to the household income =2


Poor

Wadi Arabah 8.3 0.0 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 94.2 0.0 5.8 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 12.0 0.0 67.1 0.0 0.0 21.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 12.6 0.0 87.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 86.2 0.0 13.8 0.0 01101

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 93.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 86.6 0.0 13.4 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 9.0 0.0 91.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 11.3 4.9 81.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 01101

Qasr 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

129

Table C.3.3: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status the stability of the main source of income, and number of the

household members which contribute to the household income 2011

Sub-district

The regularity of the main source of income in the family as the number of individual contributors to the household income >2


Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 38.7 0.0 61.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 15.5 0.0 80.6 0.0 0.0 3.9 01101

Qasr 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

130

Table C.4.1: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the possibility of losing the household income 2011

Sub-district

Possibility of losing the household income

Very possible Possible some how Not possible Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 6.2 8.4 85.4 01101

Al-Rweished 13.1 7.9 79.0 01101

Mraighah 5.3 0.6 94.1 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 14.4 1.7 83.9 01101

Al-Azraq 12.7 16.7 70.7 01101

Ghour Essafi 13.8 19.9 66.3 01101

Salhiyyeh 27.5 5.6 66.9 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 7.1 1.8 91.1 01101

Dair El-Kahf 10.3 1.5 88.2 01101

Hoasha 4.5 6.0 89.5 01101

Borma 6.2 9.7 84.1 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 13.3 11.8 75.0 01101

01101 Russeifa 15.7 15.8 68.6

Qasr 11.6 10.4 78.0 01101

131

Table C.4.2: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the possibility of losing the household income and number

of family members who contribute to household income 2011

Possibility of losing the household income and number of income contributors =1

Sub-district Very possible Possible some how Not possible Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 4.4 95.6 01101

Al-Rweished 14.4 8.7 76.8 01101

Mraighah 6.5 0.0 93.5 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 15.5 0.0 84.5 01101

Al-Azraq 5.4 13.4 81.2 01101

Ghour Essafi 16.6 22.0 61.4 01101

Salhiyyeh 26.3 5.8 67.9 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 1.9 2.6 95.5 01101

Dair El-Kahf 10.0 2.0 88.0 01101

Hoasha 6.1 6.3 87.6 01101

Borma 4.1 11.8 84.1 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 9.9 16.8 73.3 01101

01101 Russeifa 15.8 18.5 65.7

Qasr 16.9 4.9 78.2 01101

132

Table C.4.3: relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the possibility of losing the household income and number

of family members which contribute to household income 2011

Possibility of losing the household income and number of income contributors =2


Poor

Wadi Arabah 8.3 0.0 91.7 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 13.1 7.3 79.5 01101

Al-Azraq 21.0 21.9 57.1 01101

Ghour Essafi 6.9 14.3 78.8 01101

Salhiyyeh 29.1 0.0 70.9 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 13.8 0.0 86.2 01101

Hoasha 0.0 6.7 93.3 01101

Borma 13.4 0.0 86.6 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 0.0 6.5 93.5 01101

Russeifa 5.1 6.6 88.3 01101

Qasr 4.7 11.8 83.5 01101

133

Table C.4.4: relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the possibility of losing the household income and number

of family members which contribute to household income 2011

Possibility of losing the household income and number of income contributors >2


Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 12.0 0.0 88.0 01101

Al-Azraq 0.0 56.8 43.2 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 36.0 10.9 53.1 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Russeifa 0.0 13.8 86.2 01101

Qasr 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

134

Table C.5.1: Relative distribution of households by sub-district, poverty status and savings coverage on household expenditure and the

regularity of the main source of income 2011

Sub-district

Savings coverage on household expenditure and the

regularity of the main source of income (monthly) Total

Less than a month (1-4)months More than 4 months No Savings

Poor

Wadi Arabah 49.5 50.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Mraighah 37.2 0.0 0.0 62.8 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 68.8 0.0 0.0 31.2 01101

Al-Azraq 11.6 12.9 0.0 75.6 01101

Ghour Essafi 20.5 7.5 0.0 72.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Hoasha 69.8 0.0 0.0 30.2 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 32.8 8.8 0.0 58.4 01101

Russeifa 26.5 39.2 1.9 32.4 01101

Qasr 12.3 0.0 17.5 70.2 01101

135

Table C.5.2: Relative distribution of households by sub-district, poverty status and savings coverage on household expenditure and the

regularity of the main source of income 2011

Sub-district

Savings coverage on household expenditure and the regularity of the

main source of income (irregular ) Total

Less than a month (1-4) months More than 4 months No Savings

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

AlRweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Mraighah 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 40.3 0.0 0.0 59.7 01101

Al-Azraq 24.6 0.0 0.0 75.4 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Hoasha 48.7 0.0 0.0 51.3 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 01101

Russeifa 0.0 25.1 0.0 74.9 01101

Qasr 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101

136

Table C.6.1: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the regularity of the main source of income and the

number of individual contributors to family income and disability 2011

Sub-district

The regularity of the main source of income, disability and the number of individual contributors in income =1

Incapable Capable

Daily Weekly Monthly Every 3

months Seasonal /annual

Irregular Total Daily Weekly Monthly

Every 3

months

Seasonal

/annual

Irregular Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 1.7 2.0 96.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 8.6 0.0 81.9 0.0 3.6 5.9 01101

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 1.5 98.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 92.7 0.0 0.0 7.3 01101

Al-Azraq 0.0 24.4 57.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 01101 11.7 4.8 81.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 2.6 85.0 2.3 2.6 7.5 01101

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 4.8 2.3 91.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 01101

Quaira 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 1.4 0.0 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 6.1 0.0 93.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 57.4 0.0 21.3 21.3 01101 0.0 2.6 95.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 2.3 4.9 90.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 68.2 0.0 31.8 0.0 01101 10.1 2.5 79.3 0.0 6.2 1.9 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

Qasr

0.0

8.0

0.0

0.0

4.7

0.0

100.0

82.9

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.4

0.0

01101

01101

01101

3.4

15.5

4.0

11.7

8.7

0.0

84.9

70.4

90.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.4

5.7

01101

01101

01101

137



Sub-district

The regularity of the main source of income, disability and the number of individual contributors in income =2

incapable capable

daily weekly monthly Every 3

months

Seasonal

/annual irregular Total daily weekly monthly

Every 3

months

Seasonal

/annual irregular Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 9.3 0.0 90.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 93.9 0.0 6.1 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 76.2 0.0 0.0 23.8 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 14.6 0.0 85.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 84.5 0.0 15.5 0.0 01101

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 93.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 86.6 0.0 13.4 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh

Russeifa

Qasr

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

80.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19.7

0.0

01101

01101

01101

9.0

13.0

0.0

0.0

5.6

0.0

91.0

81.4

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

01101

01101

01101

138



Sub-district

The regularity of the main source of income, disability and the number of individual contributors in income >2

incapable capable

daily weekly monthly Every 3

months

Seasonal

/annual irregular Total daily weekly monthly

Every 3

months

Seasonal

/annual irregular Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 38.7 0.0 61.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 18.5 0.0 76.9 0.0 0.0 4.7 01101

Qasr 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

139

Table D.1: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the availability of public transportation in the region

2011

Sub-district daily Once every two

days or more

Once every week or

more

At least Once

every hour

At least Once

every half hour

At least Once

every quarter of

an hour

irregular none Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 83.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 01101

Al-Rweished 11.0 0.0 13.3 15.3 8.9 0.0 24.6 26.9 01101

Mraighah 30.7 0.0 5.6 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.3 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 3.1 0.0 4.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 17.2 67.7 01101

Al-Azraq 35.4 19.6 20.8 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 17.2 7.6 1.4 6.6 0.0 1.6 1.4 64.3 01101

Salhiyyeh 37.5 0.0 6.4 49.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 95.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 01101

Dair El-Kahf 41.8 0.0 12.9 28.2 0.0 0.0 15.4 1.8 01101

Hoasha 22.1 0.0 41.0 17.6 3.3 0.0 11.0 5.0 01101

Borma 39.2 1.9 5.8 42.7 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 42.6 27.6 27.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 27.4 51.2 13.7 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 01101

Qasr 27.3 23.8 12.4 13.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 18.2 01101

140

Table D.2: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the number of times public transport is used 2011

Sub-district daily Once or twice a

week

More than twice a

week

Once or twice a

month

More than twice

a month

Once or twice a

year never Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 2.6 33.8 5.5 28.7 18.1 4.9 6.4 01101

Al-Rweished 9.7 25.8 7.4 30.7 8.2 9.5 8.7 01101

Mraighah 16.5 7.7 6.6 13.2 8.5 15.2 32.2 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 22.0 20.4 21.2 17.3 0.0 6.2 12.8 01101

Al-Azraq 25.2 36.2 1.8 21.9 1.5 0.0 13.3 01101

Ghour Essafi 24.5 13.9 27.1 21.9 1.5 2.7 8.5 01101

Salhiyyeh 20.4 27.8 12.9 24.4 1.7 4.8 8.0 01101

Quaira 23.9 25.9 0.0 37.1 3.9 1.6 7.6 01101

Husseiniyyeh 22.7 30.7 3.0 29.2 1.0 3.4 10.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 23.6 30.1 3.2 19.9 1.4 5.1 16.8 01101

Hoasha 24.2 26.6 14.0 14.2 1.8 0.0 19.2 01101

Borma 20.5 50.6 3.7 6.3 1.7 4.5 12.7 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 39.0 20.7 5.7 14.2 9.7 1.9 8.8 01101

Russeifa 59.5 18.8 4.7 7.8 3.3 0.9 5.1 01101

Qasr 44.7 22.0 8.1 11.8 1.4 2.9 9.0 01101

141

Table D.3: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the time it takes to reach nearest public transport stop

on foot 2011

Sub-district 15 minutes or less 16-20 minutes 21-30 Minutes 31-40 Minutes 41-60 Minutes 61 Minutes or more Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 86.4 9.9 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 38.0 11.6 24.2 6.4 9.3 10.4 01101

Mraighah 37.0 46.6 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 44.3 4.7 36.6 2.2 9.8 2.4 01101

Al-Azraq 72.4 14.4 10.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 59.9 16.2 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 84.9 11.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 69.7 16.2 6.3 7.8 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 42.4 7.9 26.8 14.2 0.0 8.7 01101

Dair El-Kahf 87.8 6.7 2.2 0.0 1.5 1.8 01101

Hoasha 84.1 5.8 3.4 1.6 1.6 3.5 01101

Borma 71.8 13.2 11.5 1.5 0.0 1.9 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 68.0 20.4 9.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 81.1 8.1 9.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 01101

Qasr 96.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

142

Table D.4: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and main means of transportation 2011

Sub-district On foot Private car Public transport Taxi, mini bus owned by other Motorcycle or bicycle Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 24.9 49.1 17.5 8.4 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 4.6 29.6 45.6 20.2 0.0 01101

Mraighah 8.2 79.7 10.1 2.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 5.0 33.0 42.9 19.1 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 8.6 25.3 61.1 4.9 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 5.7 12.7 40.7 41.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 0.0 32.3 66.8 1.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 0.0 54.8 45.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 25.3 74.7 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 1.5 33.2 49.2 16.2 0.0 01101

Hoasha 2.0 43.6 34.0 20.4 0.0 01101

Borma 0.0 43.3 49.9 6.8 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 1.9 32.1 62.3 3.7 0.0 01101

Russeifa 2.8 29.1 63.6 4.4 0.0 01101

Qasr 1.4 42.6 48.6 7.4 0.0 01101

143

Table E.1: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and where the family goes when it has an emergency health

problem 2011

Sub-district Government

hospital Private hospital Health center

Charity and none

government clinic Doctor clinic Pharmacy

Arabic

medicine Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 1.9 3.1 95.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 40.7 0.0 59.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 1.8 1.5 96.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 22.7 22.1 53.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 01101

Al-Azraq 24.5 4.8 63.3 0.0 5.7 1.7 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 66.4 6.2 23.9 0.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 1.8 5.6 89.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 01101

Quaira 70.7 0.0 26.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 31.6 0.0 61.3 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 13.9 0.0 81.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 47.7 0.0 46.6 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 01101

Borma 52.8 4.3 41.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 62.9 5.8 23.9 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 01101

Russeifa 49.2 5.3 37.9 0.0 7.3 0.3 0.0 01101

Qasr 50.9 2.6 37.3 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 01101

144

Table E.2: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the main means of transportation used to reach health

services 2011

Sub-district On foot Private car Taxi, mini bus owned by

other Public transport An ambulance Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 21.9 69.1 5.9 3.1 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 3.1 28.1 64.1 2.5 2.2 01101

Mraighah 0.0 90.2 3.0 6.7 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 2.7 13.6 23.6 1.7 58.4 01101

Al-Azraq 0.0 30.7 34.0 30.6 4.7 01101

Ghour Essafi 12.2 12.1 51.3 0.0 24.4 01101

Salhiyyeh 7.0 39.8 26.3 26.9 0.0 01101

Quaira 1.0 29.5 17.2 0.0 52.3 01101

Husseiniyyeh 5.9 52.9 9.2 1.0 31.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 8.4 40.6 42.1 9.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 9.4 47.4 39.1 1.3 2.8 01101

Borma 5.2 39.3 36.7 17.1 1.7 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 5.6 41.7 20.1 31.4 1.3 01101

Russeifa 15.0 27.1 31.9 25.2 0.8 01101

Qasr 3.3 44.7 15.3 1.7 35.0 01101

145

Table E.3: Percentage of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the problems facing the family when it goes to health care

facilities 2011

Sub-district No health

insurance

Far

distance

Absence of

specialist

doctor

Absence of

family

doctor

working

hours in the

health center

Poor

services

Cost of

visiting a

doctor

The delay in

getting an

appointment

The absence

of any

person to

take care of

the house in

case of

visiting a

hospital

Cannot take

leave from

work

I do not know

where to go

The lack of

treatment

Poor

Wadi Arabah 11.5 8.8 41.2 1.4 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Rweished 7.2 9.7 58.7 3.5 2.4 36.7 1.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1

Mraighah 4.3 14.5 59.9 4.1 1.0 39.2 0.0 11.0 3.3 1.8 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 3.4 30.7 33.2 3.5 7.5 52.9 12.5 16.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.5

Al-Azraq 17.0 37.4 37.6 8.8 4.4 47.5 6.3 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3

Ghour Essafi 1.4 9.3 12.7 0.0 0.0 46.8 4.2 10.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 3.6

Salhiyyeh 4.9 11.8 10.4 5.6 1.4 39.8 1.7 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1

Quaira 2.0 7.0 12.9 2.7 3.0 43.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0

Husseiniyyeh 2.8 7.2 18.7 1.5 1.5 27.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 19.5 20.3 8.1 6.9 31.2 1.4 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0

Hoasha 4.6 18.4 18.7 6.6 7.4 38.3 4.7 28.5 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.0

Borma 6.8 35.4 15.4 2.8 5.3 46.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 11.8 37.5 14.9 2.0 2.0 38.0 3.8 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Russeifa 24.7 19.2 12.3 1.3 2.7 40.6 3.5 24.0 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.4

Qasr 7.1 7.3 14.7 0.0 0.0 41.2 2.9 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5

146

Table E.4: Percentage of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status, age and disabled individuals in the family 2011

Sub-district

Presence of disabled children

in the family under

the age of 18 years

Presence of disabled

in the family

aged 18 years and over

Poor

Wadi Arabah 1.9 1.9

Al-Rweished 1.7 7.0

Mraighah 0.6 0.6


Al-Azraq 1.7 18.0


Salhiyyeh 1.0 5.5

Quaira 1.6 0.0



Hoasha 0.0 6.0

Borma 1.7 4.9

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 2.0 3.5

Russeifa 5.5 6.1

Qasr 0.0 6.1

147

Table E.5: Percentage of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and caregivers who care for the disabled family member 2011

Sub-district

disabled person

himself /

herself

Husband/ wife

Son/

daughter

Mother/

father Brother/ sister

Relatives/ other/

friends

Assistance/ maid/

paid help neighbor Care center

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Rweished 0.0 16.8 16.8 66.4 83.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 39.7 10.8 46.2 33.5 14.4 27.5 0.0 0.0 14.4

Al-Azraq 51.9 42.4 16.5 60.1 8.7 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour Essafi 30.2 15.8 52.8 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Salhiyyeh 21.2 62.6 58.5 14.8 14.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dair El-Kahf 14.0 17.6 51.8 30.7 30.7 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hoasha 26.1 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 51.6 0.0 0.0

Borma 0.0 23.5 76.5 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 26.3 26.3 0.0 73.7 36.8 36.8 0.0 36.8 0.0

Russeifa 41.1 21.0 28.4 63.1 24.3 7.7 2.6 0.0 4.7

Qasr 0.0 29.6 23.6 22.2 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.0 24.6

148

Table E.6: Percentage of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the difficulties faced by disabled family member 2011

Sub-district Difficulty in obtaining a

suitable job

Difficulty in obtaining health

services

Difficulty in access to public

institutions

Difficulty in obtaining social protection

services Difficulty in school

Poor

Wadi Arabah 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Al-Rweished 0.0 36.0 26.2 23.1 0.0

Mraighah 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 74.7 27.9 0.0 16.2

Al-Azraq 79.7 58.6 52.5 43.0 34.9

Ghour Essafi 49.1 63.1 63.1 63.1 35.5

Salhiyyeh 76.3 26.6 75.2 26.6 47.3

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 33.3 33.3 66.7 33.3 50.0

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 69.3 65.8 31.6 0.0

Hoasha 0.0 26.1 48.4 26.1 0.0

Borma 100.0 100.0 0.0 23.5 0.0

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 63.1 36.8 63.1 63.1 0.0

Russeifa 44.7 58.7 22.2 24.8 39.3

Qasr 61.2 45.8 46.8 22.2 100.0

149

Table E.7: Average number of hours needed to take care of disabled person in the day, according to the Sub-district, and poverty status 2011

Sub-district Average number of hours

Poor

Wadi Arabah 10

Al-Rweished 11

Mraighah 10

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 10

Al-Azraq 9

Ghour Essafi 9

Salhiyyeh 12

Quaira 24

Husseiniyyeh 24

Dair El-Kahf 13

Hoasha 5

Borma 15

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 12

Russeifa 6

Qasr 19

150

Table F.1: Distribution of Households by Sub District, poverty status and presence of children ages (5-18 years) in the family 2011

Sub-district Without Children (5-00)

With children

(5-00) Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 42.7 57.3 01101

Al-Rweished 24.4 75.6 01101

Mraighah 35.9 64.1 01101

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 23.1 76.9 01101

Al-Azraq 52.2 47.8 01101

Ghour Essafi 20.6 79.4 01101

Salhiyyeh 35.0 65.0 01101

Quaira 40.9 59.1 01101

Husseiniyyeh 17.3 82.7 01101

Dair El-Kahf 39.5 60.5 01101

Hoasha 34.3 65.7 01101

Borma 50.6 49.4 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 38.4 61.6 01101

Russeifa 37.0 63.0 01101

Qasr 57.3 42.7 01101

151

Table F.2: Relative Distribution of Households by sub district, poverty status and according of school enrollment of children ages (5-18 years)

2011

Sub-district Children Enrollment in school

No children

Enrollment

in school

Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 100.0 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 100.0 0.0 01101

Mraighah 100.0 0.0 01101


Al-Azraq 100.0 0.0 01101

Ghour Essafi 96.2 3.8 01101

Salhiyyeh 97.0 3.0 01101

Quaira 96.7 3.3 01101


Dair El-Kahf 94.0 6.0 01101

Hoasha 93.5 6.5 01101

Borma 100.0 0.0 01101

Non- Poor


Russeifa 98.5 1.5 01101

Qasr 93.9 6.1 01101

152

Table F.3: Percentage of households by sub District, poverty status and households with children who attend schools with combined

classrooms, nutrition classes or receive school stationary 2011

Sub-district Combined classes Nutrition classes School Supplies

Poor

Wadi Arabah 3.5 93.2 52.1

Al-Rweished 0.9 80.2 8.5

Mraighah 8.5 82.1 17.3

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 2.4 59.4 45.3

Al-Azraq 7.7 0.0 10.4

Ghour Essafi 5.5 84.1 67.6

Salhiyyeh 12.6 82.7 8.6

Quaira 12.2 83.4 34.7

Husseiniyyeh 2.2 63.5 23.3

Dair El-Kahf 22.6 86.4 10.2

Hoasha 0.0 75.2 4.3

Borma 18.1 80.6 0.0

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 3.4 4.6 0.0

Russeifa 2.2 2.0 2.9

Qasr 4.3 46.5 22.1

153

Table F.4.1: Relative distribution of households according on sub-districts, poverty status and the dangers/obstacles that children face in

schools 2011

Sub-district

Problems and Difficulties

No teachers Available Bad quality of education No specialized teachers Available Bad public Utilities

Very

dangerous

To some

extent

dangerous

Null total Very

dangerous

To some

extent

dangerous

Null

Total

Very

dangerous

To some

extent

dangerous

Null

total

Very

dangerous

To some

extent

dangerous

Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 8.1 23.7 68.1 01101 0.0 27.1 72.9 01101 11.7 18.7 69.6 01101 9.1 14.6 76.3 01101

Al-Rweished 9.1 35.2 55.7 01101 14.6 24.7 60.7 01101 11.6 24.1 64.3 01101 18.4 32.1 49.5 01101

Mraighah 48.9 31.1 20.1 01101 39.4 35.9 24.7 01101 44.0 31.3 24.7 01101 68.8 2.8 28.3 01101

Ghour El-

Mazra’ah 5.4 14.9 79.7 01101 4.3 37.6 58.1 01101 1.9 19.0 79.1 01101 34.9 31.9 33.2 01101

Al-Azraq 32.5 29.8 37.6 01101 36.1 29.9 34.0 01101 23.0 39.3 37.7 01101 42.1 23.2 34.7 01101

Ghour Essafi 7.1 19.0 73.9 01101 7.2 27.3 65.5 01101 6.9 18.6 74.5 01101 17.0 27.0 56.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 13.5 14.6 71.9 01101 18.4 35.6 46.1 01101 11.0 12.5 76.4 01101 18.1 41.7 40.2 01101

Quaira 11.8 5.2 83.0 01101 10.9 15.4 73.7 01101 7.4 2.8 89.8 01101 5.7 27.4 67.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 19.0 17.9 63.2 01101 14.7 28.0 57.3 01101 16.5 13.1 70.4 01101 14.1 26.0 59.9 01101

Dair El-Kahf 6.5 21.0 72.5 01101 12.8 31.7 55.5 01101 22.6 12.3 65.1 01101 18.3 24.3 57.4 01101

Hoasha 2.1 9.7 88.2 01101 14.1 34.4 51.5 01101 16.7 12.0 71.4 01101 29.9 23.7 46.4 01101

Borma 13.3 28.1 58.6 01101 28.8 37.7 33.4 01101 5.7 15.1 79.3 01101 18.2 30.0 51.7 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 5.8 21.7 72.5 01101 17.9 38.6 43.5 01101 0.0 36.4 63.6 01101 22.7 35.7 41.6 01101

Russeifa 9.4 20.1 70.4 01101 21.6 21.6 21.6 01101 21.6 21.6 21.6 01101 21.6 21.6 21.6 01101

Qasr 5.0 8.6 86.4 01101 25.2 25.2 25.2 01101 25.2 25.2 25.2 01101 25.2 25.2 25.2 01101

154


schools 2011

Sub-district

Problems and Difficulties

Crime and Violence in the school Drugs inside and outside the school Smoking in the School Lack of discipline in schools

Very

dangerous

To some extent

dangerous Null Total

Very

dangerous

To some extent


Very

dangerous

To some extent


Very

dangerous

To some extent


Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101 0.0 7.7 92.3 01101 7.7 16.0 76.3 01101

Al-Rweished 10.2 12.2 77.6 01101 8.9 0.0 91.1 01101 12.9 10.3 76.8 01101 2.4 29.1 68.5 01101

Mraighah 24.8 0.0 75.2 01101 21.2 3.7 75.1 01101 72.6 4.5 22.9 01101 33.2 37.4 29.5 01101

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 11.7 7.8 80.5 01101 0.0 2.5 97.5 01101 16.8 26.1 57.1 01101 22.0 49.0 29.0 01101

Al-Azraq 9.7 26.4 63.9 01101 6.5 13.9 79.6 01101 13.7 24.1 62.2 01101 3.6 51.0 45.4 01101

Ghour Essafi 4.5 10.0 85.5 01101 1.9 0.0 98.1 01101 16.6 16.4 67.1 01101 18.0 55.1 26.9 01101

Salhiyyeh 11.2 2.9 85.9 01101 0.0 3.0 97.0 01101 15.2 17.1 67.7 01101 16.3 17.3 66.5 01101

Quaira 6.3 16.3 77.4 01101 5.7 24.2 70.2 01101 8.5 31.9 59.6 01101 2.8 23.6 73.6 01101

Husseiniyyeh 16.9 11.5 71.5 01101 6.6 3.6 89.7 01101 6.7 22.6 70.7 01101 4.7 42.9 52.4 01101

Dair El-Kahf 3.2 16.8 80.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101 11.8 10.8 77.4 01101 3.3 7.4 89.3 01101

Hoasha 14.7 18.6 66.6 01101 2.7 4.5 92.8 01101 28.5 23.2 48.2 01101 9.4 32.1 58.5 01101

Borma 16.1 6.6 77.3 01101 2.7 0.0 97.3 01101 22.2 27.2 50.7 01101 18.6 29.8 51.5 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 12.2 39.9 47.9 01101 2.1 23.4 74.4 01101 16.6 40.2 43.2 01101 17.8 45.2 37.0 01101

Russeifa 24.7 39.5 35.8 01101 11.7 24.5 63.9 01101 32.4 34.5 33.0 01101 20.5 35.5 44.0 01101

Qasr 8.8 4.3 87.0 01101 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101 8.8 9.3 81.9 01101 13.8 42.4 43.9 01101

155


schools 2011

Sub-district

problems and difficulties

Peer Pressure Discrimination between students Large number of students in classrooms Difficulty in reaching schools

Very

dangerous

To some

extent

dangerous

Null Total Very

dangerous

To some

extent

dangerous

Null Total Very

dangerous

To some

extent

dangerous

Null Total Very

dangerous

To some

extent

dangerous

Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 100.0 01101 3.3 20.8 75.8 01101 20.6 11.3 68.1 01101 7.7 13.2 79.2 01101

Al-Rweished 5.9 19.5 74.6 01101 13.3 18.0 68.7 01101 1.0 9.7 89.3 01101 7.4 12.0 80.6 01101

Mraighah 8.0 9.9 82.1 01101 16.7 55.1 28.2 01101 31.9 35.6 32.5 01101 24.4 35.4 40.2 01101

Ghour El-

Mazra’ah 10.4 46.4 43.2 01101 24.4 39.0 36.6 01101 28.6 28.6 42.9 01101 34.0 16.2 49.8 01101

Al-Azraq 16.6 37.3 46.1 01101 19.1 29.9 51.0 01101 11.4 29.0 59.7 01101 22.9 5.8 71.3 01101

Ghour Essafi 1.8 64.7 33.5 01101 21.1 39.8 39.1 01101 22.0 44.2 33.8 01101 9.3 14.6 76.1 01101

Salhiyyeh 10.5 5.7 83.8 01101 21.6 31.1 47.3 01101 13.0 12.7 74.3 01101 16.9 0.0 83.1 01101

Quaira 12.0 25.6 62.4 01101 12.6 29.2 58.2 01101 6.3 14.8 78.8 01101 0.0 15.6 84.4 01101

Husseiniyyeh 12.8 22.1 65.1 01101 11.4 17.4 71.2 01101 22.3 22.4 55.3 01101 4.2 15.4 80.4 01101

Dair El-Kahf 6.4 3.9 89.7 01101 6.0 20.3 73.7 01101 3.4 3.3 93.3 01101 16.1 13.7 70.2 01101

Hoasha 17.8 13.4 68.9 01101 36.9 22.6 40.5 01101 9.3 11.0 79.7 01101 2.2 2.2 95.6 01101

Borma 15.8 13.7 70.4 01101 24.8 21.9 53.3 01101 9.2 18.9 71.8 01101 12.9 22.5 64.6 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 10.9 38.1 51.0 01101 17.6 48.5 33.9 01101 32.8 34.4 32.7 01101 17.4 23.3 59.3 01101

Russeifa 20.2 31.7 48.1 01101 22.3 21.9 55.8 01101 27.2 28.6 44.2 01101 9.9 18.9 71.2 01101

Qasr 13.8 16.2 70.1 01101 16.5 32.6 50.9 01101 13.8 28.3 57.9 01101 3.8 6.4 89.8 01101

156


schools 2011

Sub-district

Difficulties and Problems

Violence and Crime Around the School

Very

dangerous

To some

extent dangerous

Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 3.3 96.7 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 4.6 95.4 01101

Mraighah 13.6 11.7 74.7 01101

Ghour Al-Mazra’ah 8.2 19.6 72.2 01101

Al-Azraq 3.6 35.3 61.1 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 10.3 89.7 01101

Salhiyyeh 7.3 8.6 84.1 01101

Quaira 4.6 17.0 78.4 01101

Husseiniyyeh 20.3 15.6 64.1 01101

Dair El-Kahf 3.2 2.6 94.2 01101

Hoasha 16.8 10.6 72.6 01101

Borma 15.8 6.1 78.1 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 10.6 29.5 60.0 01101

Russeifa 19.8 19.8 19.8 01101

Qasr 35.8 35.8 35.8 01101 ا

157

Table F.5: Relative Distribution of Households by sub district, poverty status and evaluation of educational opportunities for children in the

household 2011

Sub-district

Children in your zone Children in your country (Jordan)

Better Identical Worse Total Better Identical Worse Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 86.5 13.5 01101 0.0 42.1 57.9 01101

Al-Rweished 12.5 62.2 25.3 01101 5.3 4.0 90.7 01101

Mraighah 11.9 81.6 6.4 01101 0.0 19.1 80.9 01101

Ghour Al-Mazra’ah 42.0 47.8 10.2 01101 8.9 54.2 36.9 01101

Al-Azraq 22.8 66.5 10.7 01101 10.1 10.1 79.8 01101

Ghour Essafi 9.7 79.8 10.5 01101 3.0 22.2 74.8 01101

Salhiyyeh 17.4 63.7 18.9 01101 0.0 30.1 69.9 01101

Quaira 33.2 64.0 2.8 01101 0.0 29.6 70.4 01101

Husseiniyyeh 17.0 65.0 18.0 01101 8.0 12.2 79.8 01101

Dair El-Kahf 10.8 79.4 9.9 01101 8.9 24.1 67.0 01101

Hoasha 19.6 66.7 13.7 01101 0.0 27.6 72.4 01101

Borma 13.1 61.9 25.0 01101 2.9 16.9 80.2 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 10.0 77.5 12.5 01101 2.1 19.9 78.0 01101

Russeifa 27.0 57.2 15.8 01101 12.6 24.1 63.3 01101

Qasr 30.2 61.8 8.0 01101 15.8 59.6 24.7 01101

158

Table F.6: Percentage of Household according to Sub-districts, poverty status and children’s status who plays with the households’ children

2011

Sub-Districts With Disabilities Richer Poorer Other Governorate Other Nationalities

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 100.0 82.5 15.6 0.0

Al-Rweished 4.1 73.2 81.2 20.7 18.1

Mraighah 0.0 73.1 93.6 24.7 1.5

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 13.9 44.0 59.8 26.7 30.7

Al-Azraq 3.6 54.1 48.1 20.4 31.4

Ghour Essafi 2.5 31.7 63.5 9.3 19.7

Salhiyyeh 10.0 71.5 70.2 5.4 5.2

Quaira 2.7 88.4 91.1 4.4 6.7

Husseiniyyeh 1.6 66.2 67.3 5.1 5.1

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 53.9 57.6 0.0 5.8

Hoasha 14.4 45.7 50.1 19.7 16.2

Borma 20.3 71.9 74.8 5.4 19.4

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 3.4 51.2 60.0 28.0 15.0

Russeifa 4.6 67.6 72.7 18.5 0000

Qasr 3.9 62.7 78.6 12.0 001

159

Table G.1.1: Percentage of households distributed according to Sub-districts, poverty status and quality time the father spends with his

family, relatives, neighbors and friends 2011

Sub- district

Neighbors Friends Other relative

Daily Weekly Monthly

More

than a

month

Never Total Daily Weekly Monthly

More

than a

month


More

than a

month

Never Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 62.8 24.9 1.4 10.8 0.0 01101 31.3 25.1 16.4 18.7 8.5 01101 28.1 11.9 11.0 14.8 34.2 01101

Al-Rweished 35.0 37.9 13.7 7.7 5.6 01101 17.2 22.1 17.8 32.5 10.4 01101 7.5 4.9 4.3 19.8 63.6 01101

Mraighah 43.3 36.9 10.0 9.7 0.0 01101 12.9 41.6 22.6 16.6 6.4 01101 28.0 20.5 18.4 12.7 20.5 01101

Ghour El-

Mazra’ah 43.4 34.1 7.6 4.1 10.8 01101 11.9 25.5 14.3 30.5 17.9 01101 27.2 11.4 11.7 18.2 31.6 01101

Al-Azraq 25.4 20.6 16.9 25.4 11.8 01101 7.9 22.4 28.1 27.8 13.8 01101 6.3 5.0 13.9 39.3 35.4 01101

Ghour Essafi 43.7 29.7 7.7 10.4 8.5 01101 13.5 23.8 36.3 24.8 1.6 01101 14.9 10.1 15.8 19.5 39.7 01101

Salhiyyeh 23.2 37.1 12.2 17.5 10.0 01101 10.5 28.5 12.9 34.9 13.3 01101 8.2 6.3 17.5 23.0 45.0 01101

Quaira 12.8 28.7 15.8 26.3 16.4 01101 5.0 16.0 6.8 23.1 49.2 01101 2.5 1.2 2.8 14.9 78.6 01101

Husseiniyyeh 21.9 38.4 16.4 17.6 5.7 01101 19.0 19.8 2.5 25.1 33.6 01101 5.4 12.2 0.0 22.1 60.3 01101

Dair El-Kahf 37.8 26.1 11.2 21.7 3.3 01101 8.1 31.9 18.6 24.4 16.9 01101 5.0 10.0 21.2 40.0 23.8 01101

Hoasha 22.9 26.5 26.4 20.9 3.3 01101 14.7 31.5 11.8 35.6 6.4 01101 8.6 19.1 16.1 22.9 33.4 01101

Borma 19.7 30.3 24.8 20.1 5.0 01101 8.4 19.9 25.2 41.3 5.2 01101 9.5 6.7 10.2 33.2 40.4 01101

Non Poor

Hashemiyyeh 10.1 22.6 19.8 33.2 14.3 01101 4.7 17.9 20.1 46.7 10.6 01101 11.2 8.5 15.4 32.6 32.2 01101

Russeifa 6.2 15.9 22.4 41.0 14.4 01101 3.5 7.2 26.5 46.6 16.2 01101 13.3 4.1 12.2 44.1 26.3 01101

Qasr 26.4 25.3 12.8 29.2 6.3 01101 7.4 28.2 11.6 46.0 6.8 01101 19.2 6.8 6.3 22.9 44.8 01101

160

Table G.1.2: Percentage of households distributed according to Sub-districts, poverty status and quality time the father spends with his

family, relatives, neighbors and friends 2011

Sub-Districts

Family Relatives Other relatives


More

than a

month


More

than a

month


More

than a

month

Never Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 56.1 37.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 01101 39.6 23.8 17.2 19.3 0.0 01101 41.6 16.7 17.2 24.6 0.0 01101

Al-Rweished 23.6 32.1 16.9 18.6 8.8 01101 14.1 14.7 22.3 29.2 19.7 01101 5.8 13.4 17.3 48.1 15.5 01101

Mraighah 47.5 51.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 01101 27.8 43.6 26.8 1.8 0.0 01101 20.1 29.7 38.8 11.4 0.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 34.8 18.0 22.2 16.4 8.5 01101 5.1 22.6 23.1 27.7 21.4 01101 1.6 5.7 24.1 55.3 13.4 01101

Al-Azraq 49.9 26.5 13.4 8.3 1.9 01101 1.8 35.9 23.7 19.7 18.8 01101 0.0 18.7 33.1 39.9 8.3 01101

Ghour Essafi 43.2 33.8 16.4 6.6 0.0 01101 6.5 26.5 31.6 21.7 13.7 01101 6.9 21.6 45.6 22.9 3.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 55.7 18.8 17.5 7.9 0.0 01101 7.8 24.9 18.9 42.5 5.9 01101 7.4 23.3 27.6 38.5 3.2 01101

Quaira 39.3 23.8 20.8 10.4 5.6 01101 2.5 19.3 20.4 41.9 16.0 01101 1.2 17.2 10.0 58.4 13.2 01101

Husseiniyyeh 36.7 37.0 11.9 9.9 4.6 01101 7.4 22.3 20.7 32.8 16.9 01101 18.0 13.7 14.4 48.2 5.7 01101

Dair El-Kahf 55.4 26.1 10.4 5.3 2.8 01101 15.3 34.5 22.5 15.9 11.8 01101 5.5 28.5 31.9 28.8 5.4 01101

Hoasha 49.0 31.0 10.4 4.7 4.9 01101 3.2 36.1 19.0 28.9 12.9 01101 7.7 23.4 18.5 38.1 12.4 01101

Borma 56.3 28.0 9.9 4.3 1.6 01101 1.7 26.9 28.2 32.3 10.8 01101 1.9 15.6 43.7 33.9 4.8 01101

Non Poor

Hashemiyyeh 37.7 29.1 16.7 12.7 3.7 01101 4.7 6.8 27.7 49.3 11.5 01101 1.8 7.4 27.2 54.3 9.4 01101

Russeifa 34.7 25.3 23.8 14.0 2.2 01101 3.6 14.2 33.3 38.9 9.9 01101 1.3 3.6 24.3 57.2 13.6 01101

Qasr 46.1 20.2 12.6 21.0 0.0 01101 9.6 12.8 19.1 37.8 20.7 01101 6.1 27.0 21.6 39.0 6.3 01101

161

Table G.2.1: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of head of family invites his family for

tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outings 2011

Sub-district

For Drinking Tea For a feast

Daily Weekly Monthly More than

one month Null Total Daily Weekly Monthly

More than one

month Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 17.7 73.3 6.2 0.0 2.8 01101 2.0 8.3 17.9 66.5 5.2 01101

Al-Rweished 7.9 22.4 4.5 17.1 48.0 01101 0.0 6.0 22.7 57.7 13.6 01101

Mraighah 27.7 58.6 7.0 0.0 6.6 01101 0.0 10.1 38.5 47.5 3.9 01101

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 18.3 22.7 24.6 24.2 10.2 01101 1.6 5.1 26.7 49.9 16.7 01101

Al-Azraq 18.4 34.8 18.7 8.6 19.6 01101 1.7 9.1 30.1 36.6 22.5 01101

Ghour Essafi 36.9 34.5 15.3 10.1 3.1 01101 4.7 13.9 33.1 43.1 5.1 01101

Salhiyyeh 22.8 33.8 22.7 14.2 6.5 01101 1.0 17.3 24.2 52.5 5.0 01101

Quaira 13.4 29.3 16.8 10.2 30.3 01101 0.0 6.5 14.4 61.5 17.6 01101

Husseiniyyeh 13.3 41.1 22.1 6.6 16.9 01101 0.0 20.2 15.3 49.4 15.1 01101

Dair El-Kahf 41.2 17.2 14.5 8.2 19.0 01101 3.2 23.3 21.3 42.6 9.6 01101

Hoasha 26.1 23.9 14.3 15.5 20.2 01101 3.1 22.0 25.3 38.2 11.4 01101

Borma 26.4 35.0 13.2 8.8 16.6 01101 2.9 16.4 23.9 55.2 1.6 01101

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 8.7 30.8 24.7 18.2 17.5 01101 1.8 15.3 19.6 53.2 10.1 01101

Russeifa 8.6 25.5 21.8 30.3 13.8 01101 0.6 7.1 20.5 54.5 17.4 01101

Qasr 42.2 25.2 18.6 12.5 1.5 01101 6.4 11.4 20.0 57.9 4.4 01101

162

Table G.2.2: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of head of family invites his family for


Sub-district

For a dinner (Meal) For evening gathering For an outing


More

than

one

month

Null Total Daily Weekly Monthly

More

than

one

month


More

than

one

month

Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 8.3 13.5 67.6 10.6 01101 7.3 37.6 2.0 26.1 26.9 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 92.0 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 2.2 6.3 14.4 77.1 01101 1.5 9.6 6.1 11.9 71.0 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 97.8 01101

Mraighah 0.0 12.1 21.6 58.6 7.8 01101 13.1 25.7 9.4 42.3 9.6 01101 0.0 2.3 4.1 12.2 81.3 01101

Ghour El-

Mazra’ah 4.1 6.6 27.0 34.5 27.7 01101 13.3 18.6 10.5 33.2 24.5 01101 0.0 0.0 1.6 35.2 63.2 01101

Al-Azraq 6.1 4.7 22.2 38.3 28.8 01101 9.3 9.1 9.9 35.1 36.7 01101 0.0 3.1 7.6 31.1 58.2 01101

Ghour Essafi 6.1 14.3 27.3 45.6 6.7 01101 12.1 38.2 13.2 28.8 7.7 01101 0.0 0.0 1.5 29.1 69.4 01101

Salhiyyeh 4.5 5.2 15.5 37.9 36.9 01101 11.1 15.9 20.5 27.7 24.8 01101 0.0 0.0 1.9 40.9 57.2 01101

Quaira 1.4 5.6 21.7 26.9 44.4 01101 3.0 9.2 12.5 16.8 58.5 01101 0.0 0.0 1.4 20.7 77.9 01101

Husseiniyyeh 4.7 19.8 12.2 35.1 28.2 01101 10.9 34.3 10.7 5.0 39.1 01101 0.0 1.5 3.3 13.3 81.9 01101

Dair El-Kahf 9.0 11.7 6.9 42.4 30.1 01101 12.7 24.9 10.4 19.6 32.4 01101 0.0 0.0 1.7 38.6 59.7 01101

Hoasha 0.0 16.3 19.4 20.8 43.6 01101 8.9 24.7 16.8 14.5 35.1 01101 0.0 1.8 12.1 41.3 44.8 01101

Borma 2.9 5.0 14.5 45.2 32.4 01101 9.5 24.9 12.4 23.9 29.3 01101 0.0 3.0 1.3 34.1 61.5 01101

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 1.8 10.2 20.1 47.2 20.7 01101 3.3 8.9 17.0 36.0 34.7 01101 0.0 1.8 4.0 36.6 57.7 01101

Russeifa 2.4 3.3 19.2 55.0 20.1 01101 2.7 7.8 21.6 40.7 27.1 01101 0.0 0.9 1.8 51.0 46.3 01101

Qasr 6.4 14.4 22.1 48.9 8.3 01101 18.9 25.8 14.1 22.5 18.6 01101 0.0 0.0 1.6 21.9 76.5 01101

163

Table G.3.1: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of head of family invites his friends for


Sub-district

For Drinking Tea For a feast

Daily Weekly Monthly More than

one month Null Total Daily Weekly Monthly

More than

one month Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 10.3 54.3 19.2 10.2 5.9 01101 0.0 6.1 17.1 64.6 12.2 01101

Al-Rweished 1.5 23.8 13.1 24.5 37.1 01101 0.0 0.0 9.2 60.5 30.3 01101

Mraighah 7.9 57.8 19.1 3.6 11.5 01101 0.0 4.4 25.6 63.0 7.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 23.5 31.7 13.4 24.2 7.3 01101 1.6 0.0 8.1 40.8 49.5 01101

Al-Azraq 5.7 22.8 20.6 29.7 21.1 01101 0.0 1.7 15.3 50.7 32.3 01101

Ghour Essafi 5.9 37.0 26.9 28.6 1.6 01101 0.0 2.9 10.3 58.2 28.5 01101

Salhiyyeh 1.9 21.9 20.3 25.1 30.7 01101 0.0 1.7 6.9 61.8 29.5 01101

Quaira 5.3 5.3 7.0 16.9 65.4 01101 0.0 3.2 6.3 34.8 55.7 01101

Husseiniyyeh 9.9 11.1 18.3 17.9 42.7 01101 0.0 9.7 11.8 21.8 56.7 01101

Dair El-Kahf 4.6 20.6 17.1 28.5 29.3 01101 0.0 1.4 6.3 63.5 28.8 01101

Hoasha 4.6 20.8 23.0 25.7 25.9 01101 0.0 1.6 12.2 62.6 23.7 01101

Borma 3.3 16.5 35.0 23.2 22.0 01101 0.0 1.7 11.4 59.5 27.4 01101

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 2.9 3.8 17.0 46.1 30.2 01101 0.0 2.5 1.3 52.0 44.2 01101

Russeifa 1.6 5.7 13.8 45.2 33.7 01101 0.0 0.0 3.0 56.8 40.1 01101

Qasr 5.1 28.3 20.5 36.1 10.0 01101 0.0 2.0 8.6 59.6 29.8 01101

164

Table G.3.2: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of head of family invites his friends for


Sub-district

For a dinner (Meal) For evening gathering For an outing


More

than

one

month


More

than

one

month


More

than

one

month

Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 2.8 13.4 70.5 13.4 01101 3.9 23.3 7.2 43.7 21.9 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 01101

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 1.5 19.3 79.2 01101 1.5 8.1 11.9 19.3 59.2 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 01101

Mraighah 0.0 6.7 16.1 61.3 15.9 01101 2.9 26.8 6.7 40.5 23.1 01101 0.0 1.0 1.8 7.0 90.2 01101

Ghour El-

Mazra’ah 0.0 0.0 13.9 40.3 45.8 01101 8.2 34.6 14.3 17.5 25.4 01101 0.0 0.0 1.6 20.3 78.1 01101

Al-Azraq 0.0 1.7 13.7 49.3 35.3 01101 0.0 3.4 11.1 40.8 44.8 01101 0.0 0.0 6.5 39.0 54.5 01101

Ghour Essafi 0.0 4.3 6.0 45.9 43.8 01101 2.0 24.5 27.4 28.5 17.7 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 89.3 01101

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 3.1 42.4 54.5 01101 0.0 12.3 14.2 31.0 42.5 01101 0.0 0.0 1.9 35.2 62.8 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 90.7 01101 0.0 4.7 4.1 7.4 83.8 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 92.2 01101

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 3.8 9.1 21.8 65.3 01101 1.3 8.2 7.2 13.7 69.5 01101 0.0 1.5 0.0 9.2 89.3 01101

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 5.3 48.5 46.1 01101 0.0 15.1 7.2 27.5 50.3 01101 0.0 0.0 1.4 30.5 68.1 01101

Hoasha 0.0 1.4 7.9 34.3 56.4 01101 2.0 8.2 19.2 37.4 33.3 01101 0.0 0.0 7.5 30.6 61.9 01101

Borma 0.0 0.0 8.4 43.0 48.7 01101 0.0 8.3 20.0 33.5 38.3 01101 0.0 0.0 8.5 35.9 55.6 01101

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 0.0 4.2 1.3 41.4 53.1 01101 0.0 5.4 9.9 29.4 55.3 01101 0.0 2.5 0.0 26.6 70.9 01101

Russeifa 0.0 0.6 3.9 51.0 44.5 01101 0.4 1.1 8.0 42.0 48.5 01101 0.0 0.0 1.1 40.1 58.8 01101

Qasr 0.0 3.6 8.0 46.1 42.3 01101 1.4 20.5 19.2 26.9 32.0 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 84.7 01101

165

Table G.4.1: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of visits conducted by family head to

family, friends, neighbors for tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outing 2011

Sub-district

For Drinking Tea For a feast For a dinner (Meal)


More

than

one

month


More

than

one

month


More

than

one

month

Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 15.8 66.8 9.1 2.8 5.5 01101 0.0 0.0 33.6 59.7 6.7 01101 0.0 0.0 20.1 68.3 11.6 01101

Al-Rweished 13.1 33.8 11.5 12.3 29.3 01101 0.0 3.9 15.0 66.7 14.4 01101 0.0 1.5 2.2 20.9 75.5 01101

Mraighah 20.0 67.9 6.5 2.3 3.3 01101 0.0 9.8 31.3 55.1 3.9 01101 0.0 7.9 18.2 63.6 10.3 01101

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 30.2 28.1 13.8 23.9 4.0 01101 0.0 1.8 23.4 47.8 27.1 01101 4.1 4.0 16.1 41.9 33.9 01101

Al-Azraq 16.3 28.0 12.9 23.4 19.4 01101 1.7 11.3 11.8 46.9 28.2 01101 1.7 5.5 6.2 51.0 35.5 01101

Ghour Essafi 26.6 41.0 18.4 13.9 0.0 01101 0.0 2.2 33.4 51.6 12.8 01101 0.0 12.6 14.8 58.3 14.3 01101

Salhiyyeh 29.1 36.6 16.1 8.7 9.4 01101 1.9 3.5 21.0 58.1 15.5 01101 1.9 9.0 12.7 32.4 44.1 01101

Quaira 33.3 27.4 18.6 14.8 5.8 01101 0.0 5.3 15.9 70.7 8.1 01101 0.0 3.6 18.0 30.9 47.5 01101

Husseiniyyeh 20.4 49.1 16.1 9.3 5.2 01101 1.8 20.4 19.3 48.1 10.4 01101 1.8 25.7 19.6 27.2 25.7 01101

Dair El-Kahf 41.3 29.6 7.7 11.2 10.3 01101 0.0 27.5 15.9 45.0 11.6 01101 7.6 5.0 20.5 29.5 37.5 01101

Hoasha 26.4 34.1 12.8 15.3 11.4 01101 2.9 15.6 16.9 52.3 12.3 01101 7.3 9.4 10.5 32.9 39.9 01101

Borma 46.2 28.2 8.4 9.4 7.7 01101 4.9 24.6 19.0 47.0 4.5 01101 3.5 7.8 10.9 44.4 33.5 01101

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 6.2 16.9 28.4 35.1 13.3 01101 0.0 4.0 18.4 52.9 24.8 01101 0.0 4.0 13.3 40.5 42.3 01101

Russeifa 7.3 19.1 22.4 33.8 17.4 01101 0.0 3.1 21.4 53.2 22.3 01101 0.0 2.4 16.6 54.9 26.1 01101

Qasr 33.3 27.2 12.9 25.1 1.5 01101 4.6 6.3 26.7 49.0 13.4 01101 4.6 14.6 20.9 38.8 21.1 01101

166

Table G.4.2: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of visits conducted by family head to

family, friends, neighbors for tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outing 2011

Sub-district

For evening gathering Special occasions For an outing


More

than

one

month


More

than

one

month


More

than

one

month

Null Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 13.1 29.9 0.0 40.5 16.6 0110101 0.0 2.9 29.3 40.4 27.4 0110101 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 94.9 01101

Al-Rweished 5.6 18.5 12.4 9.5 54.1 01101 0.0 0.0 3.9 63.8 32.3 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 79.6 01101

Mraighah 7.5 29.2 9.5 44.0 9.8 01101 0.0 3.8 20.3 57.4 18.6 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 01101

Ghour El-

Mazra’ah 17.4 18.2 16.2 25.5 22.7 01101 0.0 0.0 46.3 46.3 7.4 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 01101

Al-Azraq 6.4 4.8 9.4 38.4 41.0 01101 1.7 1.8 26.9 45.6 24.0 01101 1.7 0.0 4.5 31.7 62.1 01101

Ghour Essafi 4.2 37.4 25.1 18.7 14.6 01101 1.4 9.0 42.5 44.2 2.9 01101 0.0 0.0 2.0 16.3 81.7 01101

Salhiyyeh 7.4 27.6 12.5 21.7 30.9 01101 0.0 0.0 8.9 70.9 20.2 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.6 58.4 01101

Quaira 17.9 7.4 9.8 22.6 42.4 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.3 7.7 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 01101

Husseiniyyeh 7.2 52.2 6.0 8.4 26.2 01101 0.0 5.8 16.9 65.9 11.3 01101 0.0 2.9 0.0 25.4 71.6 01101

Dair El-Kahf 15.1 19.1 14.9 16.8 34.0 01101 2.0 0.0 17.5 58.4 22.1 01101 2.0 0.0 0.0 30.1 67.9 01101

Hoasha 18.3 23.5 12.8 15.9 29.5 01101 0.0 4.6 30.6 56.4 8.3 01101 0.0 1.3 3.3 41.7 53.7 01101

Borma 11.1 29.5 18.7 22.0 18.7 01101 0.0 8.0 22.3 60.6 9.0 01101 0.0 1.6 7.5 37.1 53.8 01101

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 0.0 9.2 10.6 38.3 41.9 01101 0.0 4.3 23.2 51.0 21.5 01101 0.0 2.5 0.0 34.9 62.6 01101

Russeifa 0.3 6.4 18.8 43.4 31.0 01101 0.0 1.2 14.8 64.0 20.0 01101 0.0 0.3 1.5 45.3 52.9 01101

Qasr 10.4 33.3 11.7 24.4 20.2 01101 0.0 1.4 48.2 42.5 8.0 01101 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 73.6 01101

167

Table G.5: Percentage of households according to districts, status of poverty and status of head of the family’s friends 2011

Sub-district With Disabilities Richer Poorer From other governorate From other city Older or less than your

age

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 94.6 93.4 63.3 0.0 65.1

Al-Rweished 9.4 76.9 75.1 31.1 19.9 42.5

Mraighah 1.8 81.6 93.9 52.6 14.6 54.6

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 23.4 63.8 78.6 65.4 40.1 76.5

Al-Azraq 13.1 69.7 71.8 54.7 30.8 40.8

Ghour Essafi 8.4 56.5 67.2 54.9 21.0 73.4

Salhiyyeh 7.5 82.6 80.3 43.1 24.7 43.8

Quaira 2.6 92.6 95.4 56.5 13.5 66.5

Husseiniyyeh 7.3 83.2 74.9 45.5 17.5 72.0

Dair El-Kahf 10.3 67.9 58.3 43.3 16.2 37.0

Hoasha 16.9 64.5 52.6 56.3 31.6 57.7

Borma 6.4 71.1 65.8 51.1 17.1 25.7

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 7.6 67.8 78.2 37.6 28.8 49.1

Russeifa 3.3 77.3 76.0 34.3 24.2 52.5

Qasr 11.2 81.1 79.6 61.1 15.8 79.7

168

Table H.1: Percentage of households according to districts, poverty status and the available facility in case a family member has an urgent

health problem and needs daily care 2011

Sub-district Family

members Relatives

Other

relatives Neighbors Friends Mayor

Religious

institutions

Government

institutions

Private

Institutions No one

Poor

Wadi Arabah 88.7 42.7 10.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0

Al-Rweished 81.1 7.6 0.0 5.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9

Mraighah 91.5 35.0 10.1 16.6 9.6 3.7 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 74.9 9.5 7.4 11.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.8 12.2

Al-Azraq 81.2 18.0 10.9 16.1 7.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 3.0 2.9

Ghour Essafi 66.7 6.5 21.1 20.3 8.2 1.4 0.0 4.4 7.0 19.6

Salhiyyeh 80.9 21.3 23.8 6.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 5.0

Quaira 98.4 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 90.9 5.4 6.0 6.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dair El-Kahf 85.0 10.4 15.9 10.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7

Hoasha 82.1 14.9 10.6 4.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 4.7

Borma 92.3 23.5 19.1 12.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 73.7 27.9 9.3 19.6 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7

Russeifa 79.6 17.9 6.1 7.4 8.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 12.3

Qasr 68.5 2.9 14.3 9.2 2.8 0.0 1.6 3.6 1.5 21.7

169

Table H.2: Percentage of households according to districts, poverty status and the available entity/person in case they need to loan money,

2011

Sub-district Family members Relatives Other relatives Neighbors Friends Mayor Religious

institutions

Government

institutions Private Institutions No one

Poor

Wadi Arabah 91.7 47.1 15.5 16.7 6.6 0.0 0.0 4.2 17.4 3.1

Al-Rweished 38.6 9.6 1.7 3.9 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.9

Mraighah 95.5 53.5 20.5 16.3 13.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 41.1 11.7 5.6 3.4 17.4 1.6 0.0 1.6 29.0 20.8

Al-Azraq 45.5 14.8 2.8 12.6 15.3 0.0 1.9 4.7 28.6 12.7

Ghour Essafi 44.9 0.0 20.3 27.3 14.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 21.0 18.5

Salhiyyeh 57.0 19.1 17.0 10.2 24.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 10.8 10.6

Quaira 61.9 5.0 1.6 5.9 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 10.9

Husseiniyyeh 50.3 6.8 4.2 4.7 10.6 1.3 0.0 3.7 24.9 10.3

Dair El-Kahf 51.2 14.4 13.5 15.8 18.2 1.8 0.0 3.3 19.3 11.4

Hoasha 59.6 11.2 9.6 3.8 16.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 15.9 6.3

Borma 71.9 26.5 22.2 18.6 32.5 0.0 0.0 9.4 6.2 6.1

Non-Poor

Hashemiyyeh 55.5 24.6 14.4 13.3 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 12.6

Russeifa 68.9 19.6 6.3 7.3 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 12.0

Qasr 46.0 1.4 14.0 11.6 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.7 13.6

170

Table H.3: Percentage of households according to districts and lending source to cover the costs of a wedding or a funeral 2011

Sub-districts

Family

member Relatives Other Relatives Neighbors Friends Area/district leader

Religious institutions

and associations

Government

institutions Private institutions No one

Poor

Wadi Arabah 96.9 58.8 5.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1

Al-Rweished 57.9 9.2 3.6 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.8

Mraighah 100.0 50.7 9.9 3.7 6.6 2.4 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 54.4 17.6 10.3 8.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 21.8

Al-Azraq 66.0 21.8 11.9 16.8 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 7.8

Ghour Essafi 69.3 12.0 24.0 13.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 20.7

Salhiyyeh 72.2 25.4 29.6 18.3 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1

Quaira 95.6 3.6 9.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 80.5 8.2 2.5 1.0 3.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 9.0 3.2

Dair El-Kahf 75.9 21.0 20.8 11.9 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1

Hoasha 82.5 10.7 18.0 7.8 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 11.2

Borma 84.6 22.2 22.4 17.9 16.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4

Non-poor

Hashemiyyeh 70.5 29.5 14.7 24.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 9.1

Russeifa 80.8 23.8 9.0 8.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 12.4

Qasr 72.6 9.6 25.5 12.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 18.3

171

Table H.4: Percentage of households distributed according to districts, poverty status and lending source in case of an unspecified problem

2011

Sub-districts

Family

member Relatives Other Relatives Neighbors Friends Mayer

Religious institutions

and associations

Government

institutions Private institutions No one

Poor

Wadi Arabah 98.6 32.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

Al-Rweished 66.0 17.0 1.7 3.9 21.9 13.5 0.0 4.6 0.0 6.6

Mraighah 98.2 34.2 6.8 6.9 10.5 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 80.1 16.4 6.9 9.8 28.6 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8

Al-Azraq 90.4 26.0 11.6 14.3 9.4 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4

Ghour Essafi 78.0 5.9 14.2 12.7 8.4 10.4 0.0 6.6 2.8 5.8

Salhiyyeh 90.2 24.4 19.2 17.3 22.2 6.6 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0

Quaira 88.5 1.4 1.6 0.0 5.3 8.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.4

Husseiniyyeh 80.6 4.4 10.0 1.3 3.7 3.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0

Dair El-Kahf 91.4 23.7 20.1 16.6 10.5 8.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0

Hoasha 80.0 21.6 16.6 3.5 12.5 4.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 5.2

Borma 84.0 31.6 25.7 16.0 20.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Non-poor

Hashemiyyeh 78.5 25.7 14.4 17.7 9.6 1.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 10.3

Russeifa 82.1 24.1 6.8 7.1 14.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.3 9.1

Qasr 78.2 5.0 10.8 6.0 6.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1

172

Table H.5: Relative distribution based on districts, poverty status and a household’s confidence in surrounding society 2011

Sub-districts Households that trust their society Households that do not trust their society Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 89.4 10.6 01101

Al-Rweished 48.5 51.5 01101

Mraighah 86.9 13.1 01101


Al-Azraq 40.9 59.1 01101

Ghour Essafi 43.7 56.3 01101

Salhiyyeh 51.9 48.1 01101

Quaira 24.4 75.6 01101


Dair El-Kahf 51.3 48.7 01101

Hoasha 34.9 65.1 01101

Borma 63.0 37.0 01101

Non-poor


Russeifa 44.5 55.5 01101

Qasr 39.8 60.2 01101

173

Table H.6: Relative distribution based on districts, poverty status, and main reason for not applying for aid 2011

Sub-districts

Households that do not

need aid

Households that are not eligible

for aid

Households that find it

difficult to fill out aid

application

Do not know where help is

provided

Households that receive

aid from the National Aid

Fund

Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 55.1 33.5 1.6 1.9 8.0 01101

Al-Rweished 24.7 8.6 0.0 2.2 64.5 01101

Mraighah 83.3 10.3 1.1 3.2 2.2 01101

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 51.4 29.2 0.0 2.0 17.5 01101

Al-Azraq 33.1 35.4 6.7 4.1 20.7 01101

Ghour Essafi 14.8 51.2 1.8 1.5 30.7 01101

Salhiyyeh 71.1 5.5 0.0 4.2 19.3 01101

Quaira 54.0 34.4 0.0 0.0 11.6 01101

Husseiniyyeh 51.5 31.3 0.0 0.0 17.2 01101

Dair El-Kahf 56.3 11.1 0.0 11.9 20.6 01101

Hoasha 80.4 12.0 0.0 5.7 1.9 01101

Borma 72.6 18.0 0.0 2.2 7.1 01101

Non-poor

Hashemiyyeh 54.4 30.4 0.0 9.4 5.8 01101

Russeifa 62.9 23.3 0.0 7.7 6.1 01101

Qasr 46.4 39.2 0.0 1.9 12.5 01101

174

Table H.7: Percentage of households with people seeking jobs according to sub district and poverty status who asked for help 2011

Sub-districts

Percentage of families with members seeking employment

who have requested aid

Percentage of families with member who aren’t seeking

employment and have requested aid

Poor



Mraighah 0.0 8.3

Ghour El-Mazra’ah 26.2 9.7

Al-Azraq 9.0 3.5


Salhiyyeh 9.8 12.2

Quaira 0.0 2.3



Hoasha 19.1 6.2

Borma 9.7 6.0

Non-poor


Russeifa 16.0 4.8

Qasr 0.0 2.1

175

Table H.8: Relative Distribution of households that applied for help and that did not submit an application according to Sub-districts, poverty

status and the regularity of the main income of the household 2011

Sub-district

Regular income Irregular income

Percentage of household made a request

for assistance

Percentage of household that didn’t

submit a request for assistance Total

Percentage of household made a

request for assistance

Percentage of household that didn’t

submit a request for assistance Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 9.2 90.8 01101 0.0 100.0 01101

Al-Rweished 6.0 94.0 01101 29.4 70.6 01101

Mraighah 6.5 93.5 01101 0.0 100.0 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 13.7 86.3 01101 40.3 59.7 01101

Al-Azraq 3.5 96.5 01101 23.7 76.3 01101

Ghour Essafi 1.6 98.4 01101 16.7 83.3 01101

Salhiyyeh 12.1 87.9 01101 0.0 100.0 01101

Quaira 1.6 98.4 01101 0.0 0.0 01101

Husseiniyyeh 4.5 95.5 01101 50.0 50.0 01101

Dair El-Kahf 10.0 90.0 01101 100.0 0.0 01101

Hoasha 9.4 90.6 01101 0.0 100.0 01101

Borma 5.3 94.7 01101 48.2 51.8 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 7.9 92.1 01101 50.0 50.0 01101

Russeifa 6.0 94.0 01101 12.5 87.5 01101

Qasr 0.0 100.0 01101 32.2 67.8 01101

176

Table H.9: Relative Distribution of households that applied for help and that did not submit an application according to Sub-district, poverty

status and the possibility of losing the main source of income 2011

Sub-district

Very likely Possible to some extent Not likley

Percentage of

household made

a request for

assistance

Percentage of

household that

didn’t submit a

request for

assistance

Total

Percentage of

household made

a request for

assistance

Percentage of

household that

didn’t submit a

request for

assistance

Total

Percentage of

household

made a

request for

assistance

Percentage of

household that didn’t

submit a request for

assistance

Total

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 100.0 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 10.5 89.5 01101

Al-Rweished 12.5 87.5 01101 34.7 65.3 01101 4.5 5.5 01101

Mraighah 44.1 55.9 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 4.4 95.6 01101

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 22.2 77.8 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 13.8 86.2 01101

Al-Azraq 0.0 100.0 01101 18.2 81.8 01101 2.8 97.2 01101

Ghour Essafi 10.5 89.5 01101 7.3 92.7 01101 0.0 100.0 01101

Salhiyyeh 25.4 74.6 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 7.5 92.5 01101

Quaira 0.0 0.0 01101 0.0 0.0 01101 1.6 98.4 01101

Husseiniyyeh 40.6 59.4 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 4.6 95.4 01101

Dair El-Kahf 43.2 56.8 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 6.7 93.3 01101

Hoasha 0.0 100.0 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 10.2 89.8 01101

Borma 21.8 78.2 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 6.1 93.9 01101

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 45.2 54.8 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 5.4 94.6 01101

Russeifa 8.4 91.6 01101 11.9 88.1 01101 4.8 95.2 01101

Qasr 11.7 88.3 01101 0.0 100.0 01101 0.0 100.0 01101

177

Table H.10: Percentage of households who whose application for aid was refused according to Sub-district, poverty status and the main

reason for request refusal 2011

Sub-district Application data incomplete Not meet the conditions

Poor



Mraighah 0.0 0.0


Al-Azraq 0.0 70.3


Salhiyyeh 0.0 12.2

Quaira 0.0 100.0



Hoasha 23.1 30.4

Borma 0.0 100.0

Non- Poor


Russeifa 0.0 80.9

Qasr 0.0 100.0

178

Table H.11: Percentage of households with knowledge of the social institutions that provide services or assistance according to sub-district,

poverty status and the type of social institutions 2011

Sub-district

Social services

foundation

(elderly care)

Social services

foundation

for children

Foundation offers

advice for training

on how to work

Foundation offers

advice for

small business

Poor

Wadi Arabah 9.4 9.4 7.4 9.1

Al-Rweished 25.5 13.1 28.3 13.2

Mraighah 49.8 40.4 40.7 49.1

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 31.2 25.6 18.8 39.6

Al-Azraq 21.0 14.5 26.2 27.2

Ghour Essafi 45.5 32.9 16.6 31.5

Salhiyyeh 47.9 33.3 39.2 22.0

Quaira 47.8 37.9 34.3 32.9

Husseiniyyeh 68.5 62.3 50.4 59.4

Dair El-Kahf 51.2 40.4 35.4 22.5

Hoasha 42.9 37.6 42.1 33.2

Borma 63.5 42.6 30.8 31.2

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 24.0 18.2 24.1 15.8

Russeifa 32.6 24.2 21.0 23.0

Qasr 58.4 50.2 36.0 56.8

179

Table H.12: Percentage of households that have benefited from the services of social institutions according to Sub district, poverty status and

the type of social institution 2011

Sub-district

Social foundations

Social services

foundation

(elderly care)

Social services

foundation for

children

Foundation offers

advice for

training on

how to work

Foundation offers

advice for

small business

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Al-Rweished 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mraighah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 3.2 0.0 25.7

Al-Azraq 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.2

Ghour Essafi 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0

Salhiyyeh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Quaira 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Husseiniyyeh 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4

Dair El-Kahf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hoasha 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.9

Borma 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0

Russeifa 0.7 0.0 3.3 3.1

Qasr 2.3 2.3 4.2 15.2

180

Table H.13: Percentage of households according to sub-district, state of poverty and the means of how household knows about existing social

institutions 2011

Sub-district

Means of knowledge

Municipality Newspapers/Radio Neighbors/friends/relatives From the

same organization

Poor

Wadi Arabah 0.0 57.3 57.6 0.0

Al-Rweished 8.8 72.9 39.5 8.3

Mraighah 0.0 85.5 51.0 8.5

Ghour El-Mazra'ah 0.0 48.5 51.5 6.3

Al-Azraq 0.0 47.2 49.9 26.5

Ghour Essafi 0.0 66.6 33.9 14.9

Salhiyyeh 9.1 88.0 29.5 18.1

Quaira 0.0 90.9 51.3 2.3

Husseiniyyeh 1.5 76.9 57.9 5.7

Dair El-Kahf 7.5 88.0 36.1 10.1

Hoasha 7.2 73.1 63.8 22.0

Borma 10.6 84.6 44.7 10.6

Non- Poor

Hashemiyyeh 6.7 78.4 60.8 11.5

Russeifa 1.1 63.6 69.7 17.6

Qasr 0.0 60.6 35.3 16.1

181

UNDP is the UN's global development network, advocating for change and connecting

countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We

are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global

and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the

people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.

For more information

United Nations Development Programme

United Nations University

Queen Rania Street

Building No. 274

Jordan

Email: registry,[email protected].

Website: www.undp-jordan.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.undp-jordan.org/

thinking differently about the poor findings from … poc… · 8 external macro conditions or...

Documents