Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Survey Za’atari refugee camp, Jordan, 2017
Abstract This year’s KAP survey has found significant differences across districts, genders, age groups, household sizes and disability in multiple areas such as: water quality and quantity, recycling practices, diarrhea prevention knowledge, volunteering disposition, complaint likelihood, and labor opportunities, amongst others. These results should prove of interests across the WASH sectors.
Za'atari Camp WASH Sector Coordination Group Abrassac Karamara
[email protected]
Consultant Cristobal Mingo
[email protected]
ACRONYMS TABLE
3
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
4
METHODOLOGY
5
DATA LIMITATIONS
8
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
10
WATER
16
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE)
37
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (SWM)
46
CASH FOR WORK (CFW)
53
COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION
58
HYGIENE PROMOTION
64
ACCOUNTABILITY
72
CLOSING QUESTIONS
82
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
88
ANNEX I KAP SURVEY 2017
92
BIBLIOGRAPHY
97
Cover image Za’atari Refugee Camp, Jordan. Taken by Planet Labs, Inc. the 25th of February 2016. (CC BY-SA 4.0).
2
Acronyms Table ACTED ANOVA CFP CFW CI df HH HoH IMDAD JEN JOD KAP O&M PHE PWN Sig. SWM UNHCR UNICEF WASH WASH IP WN WWN
3
Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development Analysis of Variance Community focal point Cash for Work Confidence Interval Degrees of Freedom Households Head of Household Jordan based Logistics contractor Japanese Jordan Currency ISO code Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Operations and management Public Health Engineering Piped Water Network Significance Solid waste Management United Nations High Council for Refugees United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund Water Sanitation and Hygiene Water Sanitation and Hygiene Implementing Partners Water Network Waste Water Network
Background and Rationale Za’atari camp was established in mid 2012 by the Jordanian government and UNHCR. Originally designed for a population of 60,000, the camp’s population has currently plateaued around 70,0001. In late 2012, a survey assessing residents’ knowledge, attitudes, and hygiene practices (KAP) was carried out by WASH partners to provide a baseline and set goals for their projects in the camp. The survey was repeated annually2 to provide feedback and information used by WASH actors to review progress and develop strategies for future interventions. This report contains the results of the fifth KAP survey, conducted in Za’atari camp between April 25th and May 7th, 2017. The survey was led by Oxfam, but conducted in collaboration between the JEN WASH Implementing Partners (IPs) ACTED, JEN, and Oxfam using funding from UNICEF. 2017’s KAP survey was divided into two sections due to its length. Section A interviewed 428, and section B another 409 members of households across the camp’s 12 districts, spread proportionally between the districts according to population size. The household selection was random and all the households that participated in the study did so willingly.
ACTED
OXFAM
Map 1 Partner Distribution in Za'atari camp
The sample size was calculated for a 95% confidence level with ± 5 confidence interval using REACH’s report on Za’atari camp population count 2015 (12,916 households). All figures given in this report for households at a camp wide level are within the 5% confidence intervals. That said, data that has been broken down by district, partner area, gender and other demographic subgroups may have wider confidence intervals and this is reported. Only statistically significant differences are reported for the convenience of the reader. Any statistically significant difference between implementing partner areas has not been included in the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. The decision to do so was taken by UNICEF in accordance with the WASH implementing partners as the main objective of the KAP is to show a snapshot across the camp as a whole, and not to delve into district or partner areas differences.
1 2
Sources: Report of 2014 KAP Survey and Report of 2015 KAP survey With the exception of 2016, which it was skipped.
4
Methodology This section is divided in two-- the first explains the sampling methodology and the second gives an overview of the analysis methods used, providing a brief explanation of why they were chosen.
Sampling Methodology The sample size was calculated for a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval (margin of error). Hence, for a population of 12,916 households3 a sample of 373 households is required for each survey part, see Table 1 . Given that the survey will be conducted in two independent parts, the required sample size was doubled up to 746 cases, 373 for each part. An additional 5% was added to the sample size to allow the discarding of incomplete cases and errors, while still attaining the planned confidence level and confidence interval. The sample was proportionally stratified by the HH number in each district, to ensure representability of all districts. The district distribution of each of the survey parts was checked independently and it respected the proportional distribution of households established during the design. That said, in the sample, none of the strata went below the calculated minimums for each district, see Table 1, “Sample needed”. To ensure randomness and coverage, the enumerators were asked to survey one of every 16 houses, starting from the corner of each district, starting from a random number given to them4. If the household is not in or available to talk, the neighboring house was selected. Count for the next house to interview was done from the original 16 th house and the enumerators were instructed to systematically walk across the district as shown in the figure below. Table 1 Sample Size
District D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D07 D08 D09 D10 D11 D12 Total
3 4
Number of % of Households* camp 1,130 9 1,227 9 823 6 773 6 921 7 1,199 9 1,174 9 1,474 11 847 7 1,023 8 1,366 11 959 7 12,916 100
Sample needed 33 35 24 22 27 35 34 43 24 30 39 28 373
Sample needed doubled 66 70 48 44 54 70 68 86 48 60 78 56 746
Based on the REACH 2015 Population Survey count see Table 1 (*) Using Excel formula “=RANDBETWEEN(1,16)”
5
Plus 5% 69 74 50 47 56 73 71 89 51 62 83 58 783
Random start house no. 12 7 3 4 4 4 16 3 5 2 11 8
Figure 1 Systematic route of enumerators
Collected data The valid responses amount to a total of 837, well above the minimum needed to achieve camp wide 95% confidence level (see Table 2). The over sampling occurred across districts in different degrees with the smallest districts incurring in the largest oversampling. The main reason for this was that enumerators were instructed to continue collecting samples until the end of the working day (1PM). The proportion of the districts is not significantly altered there for the analysis method is maintained as seen in Figure 3. Table 2 Collected sample was of 837 cases, well above the 783 required.
District D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D07 D08 D09 D10 D11 D12 Total 6
Sample needed + 5% 69 74 50 47 56 73 71 89 51 62 83 58 783
Observed sample count 77 75 60 56 57 74 72 92 63 63 84 65 837
Part A 41 40 27 24 28 39 37 49 34 32 42 35 428
Part B 36 35 33 32 29 35 35 43 29 31 42 30 409
Data Handling, Missing cases and Errors Given its extension, the KAP 2017 survey was divided in two parts. Each survey part, A and B, have been evaluated as an independent data set, the only merging of data was done for the introductory and closing questions which are the same for both parts. The questions were subject to descriptive analysis of frequency and range to check for outliers and abnormalities. Cases that do not fit the valid ranges or format, were considered as missing for the analysis of that question. I.e. for the variable “Respondents Age” which is expected to range from 18 to 90 years of age. Any value falling out of this range will not be considered valid and marked as missing for analysis on the particular variable. All answers have been cross checked for logical validity. In example, the variable “water source” must maintain logical validity with the variable “district”. Only district 06 has installed piped water. Any case which reports piped water and is not located in district 06 will be excluded from any “water source” and “piped water” analysis. For non-parametric data (open ended qualitative questions): the answers will be read and checked for logical correspondence to the question asked. In cases in which the answers don’t answer to the question, they will be flagged to the Oxfam Jordan Office, responsible for translation. This first step is to understand if there has been an error in translation that could account for the mismatching answer. Following this step, and if the answer still lacks correspondent logic to que question (does not answer what was asked) they will be marked as not valid, and will be treated as missing under any further analysis of the variable. The frequency of these cases will be reported for any variable that holds them. Numeric interpretation of Likert type variables: to permit parametric analysis of some qualitative Likert type variables (i.e. mean, Std. Deviation), they will be assigned a numerical value. In the case of variables such as “Generally, how clean do you think is the area around your street?” the “Very dirty value will be assigned a value of 1, dirty a value of 2 and so on until “Very clean” a value of 5. “I don’t know” values will be treated as missing values for any calculations.
Analysis Methodology The analysis will be focused on the disaggregation of KAP variables by population subgroups (age, gender, household size, and disability within the household), geographical distribution (Districts and Partner areas), and comparisons with the past years. Below are the statistical tests used in this report to check for the significance of the differences, or the effect of one variable over the other. All analysis will be carried for a 95% confidence level. Chi square: A chi-square test is used to explore if there is a relationship between two categorical variables. For example, to check if there is a relationship between (water quality satisfaction) and (Respondent’s Gender). To determine the magnitude of the effect we will use Phi for 2X2 tables and Cramer’s V 7
for larger tables. This will be the most common method used to compare variables in this report. A relevant term in this test is the expected count, when doing a cross tabulation of two variables such as the water quality satisfaction and gender, the expected value is the projected number of respondents if there would be no effect by the gender of respondent on the level of water quality satisfaction. This value is calculated from the complete samples' proportion of a gender, multiplied by the sample size of each category of satisfaction (very satisfied, satisfied, neither…). The expected count for males which are satisfied would be (respondents count satisfied) 237*0.3738 (proportion of males in the sample of the camp) = 88.6. We would expect 88.6 of males to be satisfied and we observed 78 males in satisfied with the water quality in the sample. The Chi square test looks at these differences for every cell, at the sample size, and the degrees of freedom to tell if there is a statistically significant effect by the categories given a set confidence level. One-way ANOVA: A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to test for differences amongst groups defined by categorical independent variable (with two or more categories) for a normally distributed interval dependent variable. This test allows to test for differences in the means of the dependent variable broken down by the levels of the independent variable (i.e. differences in HH water expenditures by districts). In some cases, due to violation of homogeneity of variance, we will use Welsh ANOVA, which does not assume homogeneity of variance within the dependent variable. Kruskal Wallis test: The Kruskal Wallis test can be considered as the non-parametric version of ANOVA. It is used to compare independent variables with two or more levels and an ordinal dependent variable. i.e. (number of diarrhea prevention steps mentioned) by (district). Two sample T-test: An independent samples t-test is used to compare the means of a normally distributed interval dependent variable amongst two independent groups (i.e. camps' difference in the chances of volunteering between male and female respondents) Adjusted Wald Confidence Interval: This method of calculating the confidence interval for binomial variables (i.e. gender, male or female) is used only when sample size is small enough to have any of the two counts under 10 (n). Over that, the Agresti-Coull interval is used. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test: The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test is a non-parametric version of the independent samples t-test and can be used when you do not assume that the dependent variable is a normally distributed interval variable (it is assumed that the variable is ordinal).
Data limitations Though an effort has been made to ensure representability of our sample through stratification and random selection, it still may occur that the real population values fall out of the confidence 8
intervals calculated in this report. The following is a list of the limitations of our data and the possible effects it might have on the KAP survey data.
Awareness of respondents We relied on respondent’s knowledge of multiple aspects of their household, and in many ways, they act as representatives of their household unit. It might be the case that they are not aware of all household aspects, such as who built the toilet or the precise amount of water each member of their household gets. We are subject to their knowledge level and estimations.
Respondent’s fatigue Though an effort was made to limit the survey duration and simplify the questions, some respondents might grow tired of answering, and in order to avoid giving further information, change their answers to avoid further logical questions.
Changes in question formulation It is not possible to control for small differences in the way questions have been asked in past years or amongst enumerators. Though an effort was made to make the questions as consistent as possible during the induction and piloting stages, variations in tone, context, or peer persuasion may affect the responses. I.e. when asked to mention key moments to wash hands, the enumerator in past years could have pushed for more than one answer.
Timeliness The survey was conducted between the 25th of April to the 7th of May 2017. Multiple WASH project are implemented at all times in the camp, and at the time of each surveys their level of completion varies. This might lead to variations between the population and the sample data which fall outside the expected confidence intervals. For example, the number of toilets built is different when the first survey was conducted than when the last survey was completed. In the same way, the time of the day the surveys were taken might have an effect on the demographics of the population sampled. For example, during the day many males might leave the household, therefore it is expected that the sample will find a higher proportion of female respondents.
Confounding variables It is worth noting that some of the variables identified as having a dependency on each other might have a confounding covariate, a third variable which affects them both. Therefore, the analysis which shows relationships between variables must be accepted only if there is a sound mechanism by which they could relate. For example, if the respondent’s knowledge of the community focal point shows an effect on the amount of JOD spent on drinking water a week, it is most likely there is a 3rd variable explaining this relationship such as the family size or location.
9
Analysis notes All confidence levels for this report are set at 95%-- in other words, there is a 1 in 20 chances that the population (true) value falls outside the confidence intervals mentioned in the report.
Sample Characteristics Date and time: 837 surveys that comprise the sample were conducted during the working days between April 25th and May 7th of 2017. The frequency of surveys shows a homogenous distribution between 9 AM to 10:30 AM, slowly reducing their frequency until 1 PM (Figure 2-2). The average duration of surveys was 18.5 minutes, with a standard deviation of about 9 minutes. It is expected that men might be absent from the house during the daylight hours more than women, as they might be engaged with livelihood activities. Count of surveys per day 80 60 40 20
7.5.17
6.5.17
5.5.17
4.5.17
3.5.17
2.5.17
1.5.17
30.4.17
29.4.17
28.4.17
27.4.17
26.4.17
25.4.17
0
.
Figure 2 Count of Surveys by Calendar Day
Districts The data collection plan expected to collect a proportionately stratified random sample by district. Using the Reach-UNICEF population survey from 2015, the graph below compares the expected versus the observed sample proportion of households by district (Figure 3). The proportion is approximately respected in all strata (districts), hence the methods used to calculate statistics (means and standard error) will be for a non-stratified random sample, as the sample’s and population strata proportions match.
10
Stratified Random Sample Proportion Observed v/s Expected Sample Proportion
12% 10% 8% 6%
Expected
4%
Observed
2% 0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District # Figure 3 Stratified random sample proportion by district (strata), observed v/s expected
Blocks In the Reach-UNICEF population survey, block numbers range from 1-24, varying by each district. From the number of households in each block, we calculate an expected proportion of the population for each block (HH in Block 1/total number of HH). This is then compared to the sample proportion of each block. Figure 4 below shows little difference between the expected and the observed values, attesting for good coverage and random case selection. Seven cases register block numbers which are out of range, they have been considered as missing for this variable’s analysis. Proportion of HH per block, Observed v/s Expected 9%
Proportion of total HH
8% 7% 6% 5% 4%
Observd
3%
Expected
2% 1% 0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Block #
. Figure 4 Proportion of HH per block, observed v/s expected
Number of people living in the same household (HH) For the KAP surveys, household is defined as the number of people living together and sharing a single UNHCR HH identification number. The average HH size in the 2014 and 2015 KAP surveys 11
was of 5.5 and 5.6 respectively. 2017’s average HH size is of 6.2 members per household. A t-test comparison with 2015’s average shows a statistically significant increase of 0.6 average members, (t= 8.0 df= 834 Sig=0.00). Note that 2 cases with values of 46 and 36 were counted as missing. Proportion of HH Size in 2015 and 2017 Proportion of HH
25% 20% 15%
2015
10%
2017
5%
0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 21 22
HH Size
. Figure 5 Proportion of HH Size by Years 2015 and 2017
There is no statistically significant difference on household size by district, but there is a significant difference in the average HH size by the gender of the head of household. Male headed households have on average 0.65 more members per HH than their female counterparts (Figure 6). The average size of HH with male head is 6.3 and female head is 5.7 members per HH (t= 2.84, df= 833 sig= 0.05). HH Size by gender of the household head 140 120
Count of HH
100 80 60
Female
40
Male
20
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
19
21
22
Size of HH
. Figure 6 HH Size by gender of household’s head
Head of Household 80% of households in the sample are headed by males, which is not statistically different from the proportion of male headed households in the 2015 population survey of 81% (Sig =0.2115 N=837). 12
However, districts show wide variations, ranging from District 3 with 52% male headed household and District 1 with 90% male headed households. Table 3 Male Headed Household Prevalence by District
District # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
N 77 75 60 56 57 73 72 92 63 63 84 65
Proportion of Male headed HH CI ± 95% 90% 7% 61% 11% 52% 13% 82% 10% 79% 11% 84% 9% 86% 8% 86% 7% 89% 8% 87% 8% 79% 9% 83% 9%
Respondent’s Gender
This could be product of multiple factors such as respondent’s self-selection, the time of the survey or a cultural matter, for example, if women stay at home a larger proportion of the day, there is a higher chance for them to be interviewed in a HH survey. Less likely is the possibility of an increase in the female population in the camp.
Prevalence of female respondents 64%
prevalence of female respondents
63% of respondents were female, a significant difference from the camp's female population proportion observed in the 2015 population survey of 50.6% (binomial N= 837, sig. 0.00). This difference in the gender proportion, though present in the past years, has seen a sharp increase (Figure 7).
62% 60% 58%
56% 54% 52% Population survey
50% 48% 2014
2015
2016
KAP surveys Figure 7 Female Respondents Prevalence by Year
13
2017
Respondents Age Group There is a significant difference between the respondent’s age groups of KAP 2017 survey and the expected distribution from the 2015 Population Survey (Chi square=57.9 df=2 sig=0.00). 7 cases with values under 18 have been considered as missing. KAP 2017 Survey Respondents v/s Population Survey 2015
Age Groups
60+
40-59
KAP 2017 Population 2015
18-39 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Proportion of the population
. Figure 8 there is a higher proportion of younger respondents than expected by the 2015 population survey
Respondent's Female Proportion, Expected v/s Observed Kap 2017
Age Group
60+ Expected Population Survey 2015 Observed KAP 2017
40-59
18-39 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Female Proportion
. Figure 9 There is a higher proportion of females than expected in the younger age group
Amongst the youngest respondents (18-39), there is a statistically significant higher proportion of females than expected from the 2015 population survey (chi-square= 14.4 df=2 sig=0.001). Both demographic differences, the gender proportion and age group distribution, could be explained by the time and dates the surveys have been conducted. Cultural reasons might leave women of ages between 18-39 at home, whereas young men might be out during the day engaged with social, livelihood, or other activities. This could also explain the higher proportion in our sample in the ages between 40-59.
14
Physical disability The proportion of HHs with members with disability that requires them to use a wheelchair, cane, or crutches to move about or suffer impairing chronic illness is 15% (C.I. 2%). The proportion shows no significant difference with the proportion from the KAP Survey 2015. In the same way, the incidence of disability amongst households of the different partner areas shows no statistically significant difference with the camp’s average or between each other. The same is true for the districts. The gender of the head of HH has no significant effect on the reported disability. On the other hand, there is a moderate effect on the age of the respondent on the declaration of a disability in the HH (Cramer's V=0.26). Declaring a disability amongst the household members is more likely than expected in the older segments of the population, the contrary is true for younger respondents (chi-square=56.2 df= 2 sig.=0.00), see Table 4. Table 4 Contingency Table of Age Group and Disability with expected values
Age Groups 18-39
40-59
60+
Total
Count/Expect Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count
No Disability 430
Yes Disability 50
Total 480
405.4 240
74.6 51
480 291
245.8 31
45.2 28
291 59
49.8 701
9.2 129
59 830
There is a weak but significant effect on the declaration of disability by the size of the households (chi square = 22.4 df =4 Sig.=0.00 Cramer’s V=0.17). Households with 3-6 members show lower than expected disability incidence (Table 5). On the other hand, HHs of 1 and 2 members and HHs with more than 7 members show higher than expected count of HH with a disabled member. Only the last effect could be explained by the natural higher probability of finding at least one disabled individual amongst a larger sample (HH). This is of interest for the communicational efforts focusing on disability.
15
Table 5 Contingency Table of HH Size and Disability with Expected Values
HH Size group 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9+ Total
Count/Expect Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count
No Disability 31 36.4 136 135.3 269 250.3 169 170.8 101 113.3 706
Yes Disability 12 6.6 24 24.7 27 45.7 33 31.2 33 20.7 129
Total 43 43 160 160 296 296 202 202 134 134 835
Water
Of the households that use trucked water, 61% have private water tanks (CI= 4.7% N= 414). The chance of having a private water tank are statistically higher than expected if you are part of a family of 9 or more members, whereas if you are part of a household of 5 to 6 members your chances are statistically lower than the camps' average (Chi-square= 23.6 df= 4 Sig=0.00 Cramer’s V = 0.239) Figure 10.
Proportion of HHs with private water tank 100% 90%
Proportion of the population
97% of the camps population depends on trucked supply of water (CI= 1.6% N= 426). As expected, whether the water is piped or trucked has no dependency on any demographic factor, but only geographical, as the piped water network has only been applied in Oxfam partner area, in particular blocks in District 6.
80% 70% 60% 50%
Observed
40%
Expected
30% 20% 10% 0%
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
+9
HH Size Groups Figure 10 Proportion of the HHs with private water tank
There is a strong effect by districts on the ownership of a private water tank (Cramer’s V= 0.44). Households in districts 1, 2, and 4 show a statistically higher chance of owning a water tank, while
16
the opposite is true for households in districts 5, 7 and 8. There is no effect on private tank ownership by the respondent’s gender or household member with a disability. Proportion of HHs with private water tank by District 100% 90%
Population Proportion
80% 70% 60% 50%
Observed
40%
Expected
30%
20% 10% 0% DistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrictDistrict 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
.
Figure 11 Proportion of HHs with private water tank by District
Table 6 Proportion of HHs with private water tank by District
HH Size District 01 District 02 District 03 District 04 District 05 District 06 District 07 District 08 District 09 District 10 District 11 District 12
N 41 40 27 24 28 27 37 47 34 32 42 35
Observed 90% 95% 52% 92% 25% 56% 35% 43% 59% 69% 48% 66%
Expected 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61%
CI 95% - + 9% 7% 19% 11% 16% 19% 15% 14% 17% 16% 15% 16%
When asked about the frequency in which households cleaned their private tanks, the mode was every 6 months (count= 82). By taking advantage of the ordinal nature of the categories this variable was reclassified and interpreted as magnitude of cleaning frequency. From this we can 17
tell that there is no effect from any demographic group (HH size, gender, or age) on the cleaning frequency of private tanks. How often is your private tank cleaned? 90
Count of households
80 70 60 50 40 30
20 10 0 Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly
Every 2-3 months
Every 6 months
Less than every 6 months
Never
I don’t know
Figure 12 Frequency of private tank cleaning
Regarding who cleans the private tank (Figure 13), 50% declare that the WASH implementing partner cleaned the tank (CI= 7%), while 49% of the household do it themselves (CI= 7%). Given the low percentages of other and third-party cleaners they were omitted from analysis for simplifying purposes. There was a moderate effect (Phi= 0.2) making it more likely for households that have a member with physical disability to have their tanks washed by a WASH IP (Chi-square= 7.5 df= 1 Sig=0.01)i.
Who cleans your private tank? (N= 221)
WASH IP 50%
Household 49%
Other 0%
Third party 1%
Figure 13 who cleans your private tank, percentage
On the other hand, 67% (CI= 7%) of households that use public tanks are unconcerned or very unconcerned with the cleanliness of the public tanks. The gender of the respondents had a strong effect (V: 0.29) on whether the respondents had a concern regarding the public tank’s cleanliness (Corr.= 14.424 df=1 sig.= 0.00). As observed below, male respondents have a 29% (C.I.= ±13%) higher chance of being unconcerned by the cleanliness of the public tanks (t= 4.4 df= 149 Sig= 0). No other demographic or geographic effect was found.
18
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Public tank: How concerned about its cleanliness? (N= 163) Count of respondents
Proportion of the population
Proportion of the population which is unconcerned about the public tank's cleanliness?
Observed
Expected
Female
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Male
Respondent's gender Figure 14 Males are significantly more likely to be unconcerned about the cleanliness of the public tank than males
Water quality Regarding the perception of water quality, the majority of the camp (83% CI= 4%) with a trucked water supply, is satisfied with the water quality (high + very high). The camp has seen a substantial increase with the satisfaction levels of water quality since the 2014 KAP of 59% satisfaction. There is no statistically significant difference in the satisfaction levels of groups disaggregated by: Head of Household gender, disability, HH size, respondent’s age and sexii.
What do you think about the quality of water delivered in all of Za'atari camp? 400 300 200
100 0 no opinion very low
low
high
Very high
Figure 15 Water quality perception
If the respondents receive their water according to schedule, there is a slightly higher possibility to be satisfied with the water quality. Though the Chi square test (Cont. Corr.=8.8 df= 1 Sig.= 0.00) shows a significant relationship, it is too weak (Phi= 0.1) to be taken into account for planning purposes. On the other hand, whether or not the HH perceives to always get 35L/person/day also has a significant effect on whether there is satisfaction with the water quality. The effect is moderate (Phi= 0.2) showing the quantity received is relevant for the population when stating its water quality satisfaction. Other variables such as: connection to a WWN, awareness of the WWN focal point, participation of the CFP selection show no statistically significant effect on water quality satisfaction
19
Reason given by the 17% of respondents which are not satisfied with the water quality When asked about the reasons behind their low rating to the quality of water, the most common reason given amongst the 76 respondents was the taste and/or smell of the water, mostly specified as chlorine or dirt. The color of water was another frequent problem stated, followed by the presence of foreign bodies in the water such as rust, sediment, or insects. There were 34 mentions in the "other" reason section. It is worth noting that chlorine levels must be high given multiple steps of direct handling of water, which can cause higher risk of cross-contamination. The vast majority of reasons focus on the water characteristics itself and there are only 2 mentions of the water logistics (tank, truck, origin). Reasons for stating low water quality (not satisfied) Other Dirty private tank Taste and/or smell of water Dirty Public tank Dirty water Colour of water 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
.
Figure 16 Frequency of reasons for low water quality
Community focal point (CFP) CFPs are local representatives that are responsible for the distribution of water in the streets at a household and tank level. They deal with any problems that residents may have concerning their water delivery. When asked if they knew their CFP representative for their block, 74 % of the households (CI= 4% N=414) said they did. This marks a substantial increase over 2015’s awareness proportion of only 56%. The respondent’s gender, as well as the district, both have significant effect on the proportion of the population which knows their CFP. Males are slightly more likely to know their CFP than females (Chi-square= 10 df= 1 Sig.= 0.00 Phi= 0.155) iii. The rating of the performance of the CFP was done by the 306 respondents that declared knowing their CFP, 81% (CI= 4% N= 306) of them approved of their performance (Good and Excellent). In contrast with 2015’s approval rate of 87% (CI= 4% N=246) this year shows a significant decrease (Figure 17). The approval rate has no significant effect by any demographic indicatoriv.
20
Like in the KAP 2015, this year there is also significant effect in the approval rates by whether the respondents were involved in the selection process of the CFP. The respondents who were involved are more likely to approve of the CFP’s performance (Cont. Corr= 4.29 df= 1 N=0.039). Though significant, the effect is too weak (Phi= 0.128) to be taken into account for planning purposes. When asked whether the water was delivered according to schedule 80% of the respondents felt it was according to schedule (CI=4% N= 411). There was no statistically significant difference across any demographic or geographic groups.
How would you rate their performance? 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Excellent
Good
Acceptable
2017
Poor
Very Poor
2015
Figure 17 CFP approval rate by year
Piped water network At the time of the survey the piped water network was limited only to District 6, where 40% of the households are connected. The District 6 sample shows 31% of households currently connected to the piped water network at a 95% confidence level and for a sample size of 39, the confidence interval (CI) for the sample is +/- 14.5%, showing our sample does not have a statistically significant difference from the expected piped household rate of 40%. Regarding the continuity of the service, 50% of the sample (N= 12) report continuity in the service, given the size of the sample the inferential statistic for the population should have a confidence interval of 25%, this mean 95% chance of the population actually experiencing continuity falls between 25 and 75%. Note: Due to the small sample size, the adjusted Wald interval was used. Regarding the quality of the water, 64% reported being satisfied (levels of high and very high quality) with a margin of error of 24%. All three users that notice quality issues with the water, deal with it by leaving it for a few days. Only 2 of the 3 respondents which perceived they received low quality water have seen their water tested. Of the 12 households surveyed which receive piped water 7 of them report that the water is better than the trucked water alternative. None of the respondents had seen a leakage from the piped water network, but when asked if they thought a leakage represented a health risk, 5 said they did. When prompted if in their block they had seen any household connections from the tap stands, only 3 reported seeing these connections which no one raised as a cause for concern.
21
Water Quantity It is expected that Za’atari residents should know their water entitlement of 35 liters of water/person/day. When asked about this, 68.5% of the respondents correctly answered 35 liters (N= 428 C.I.= 4%). This marks a 25.5% (statistically significant) improvement from the year 2015 (t= 11.3 df= 427 Sig.= 0.00) v.
36-80 liters 4% I don't know 9% 35 liters 68%
3-25 liters 7% 26-34 liters 12%
Awareness of water daily allocation (35l.) % of population aware of allocation
How much water do you think you should receive on average per person per day? (2017)
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2014
2015
2016
2017
Figure 18 There is a significant increase on the proportion of respondents that correctly answered 35 liters of water/person/day from 2015's KAP survey
Though male and female headed household do not have a significant difference in the correct response rate by gender (T= 1.9 df= 426 Sig.= 0.058), they do have a statistically significant difference in the response rate of “I don’t know” (T= -2.4 df= 93 Sig.= 0.02) and the overall effect of HoH gender is significant (Chi-square= 10 df=3 Sig.= 0.015). Meaning female headed households have a higher chance of having poorer knowledge of the daily allowance of water per person, see right. This might be relevant for the targeting of future awareness and education campaigns in the camp. In example: Why female headed HHs are not getting/remembering this information? Is there more information they are not accessing?.
How much water you think you should recive on average per person per day 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% I don't know 1-34 liters % of Female HOHs
35 liters
36 or + liters
% of Males HoHs
Expected water allotment/person/day by Head of household gender
After asking how much water people thought they should receive per day, enumerators explained that each person was allotted 35 liters/day. Once this was clarified, then enumerators asked if the respondents felt they received this amount every day (Figure 19). 56% of respondents (CI= 5%) in Za’atari camp feel they always got their 35 22
liters/person a day. Concentrating the analysis on this question as a binary indicator, on whether they had recived the the alloted amount or not can be seen in Figure 20. Do you feel that you get 35 L of water per person per day?
Do you feel that you get 35 L of water per person per day? 250 200 150 100
50
Other answe rs 44%
Figure 20 Proportion of population which feels that always gets their allotted amount of water
Households with people with disabilities, show a 15% less chances (43% N= 67 CI= 12%) of stating they receive their daily allotment per person (df= 418 t= -2.3 Sig.= 0.02) than the HH with no disable members, as see in Figure 21(59% N= 353 CI= 5%) vi. There was no significant effect on the proportion of the population that reported always receiving 35L/person/day by any of the following demographic variables: HH size groups, age groups, HoH gender, and respondent’s sex. Nor there was an effect by water source (trucked or piped), knowledge of CFP, nor by the reporting of additional water storage (jerry cans).
0
Figure 19 Response frequency of 'do you feel that you get 35l of water/ person/day
Percentage of population that feel they always get 35 L of water /person/day by HH with disable memebr Percentage of the population
Yes, always 56%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
20% 10% 0% No Disability Observed
Disability Expected
Figure 21 Percentage of the pop. that get their 35l./per./day
Out of the 426 respondents, 184 expressed that either they “never”, “rarely”, or “sometimes” got their allotted 35 liters/person/day. These respondents were prompted about the reasons for not receiving the 35 liters of water per person per day. The most common replies were that “the water delivery is not based on the accurate population”, that “some households took more than their share”, and others blamed it on “delays on the water deliveries” (Figure 22) vii. 23
Reasons why you feel you are not receiving the 35 liters of water /person/day (N=184) 1-water delivery is often late 2-other households take more than their share of water
3-the water delivery is not based on the accurate… 4 - the location of the water points makes it unfair for… 5- The CFP does not distribute water fairly 6 - other(Explain) 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Count of respondents
HHs that don't always get 35l. in each HH size group
Figure 22 Frequency of reasons for not receiving the allotted 35 liters/person/day
Reason for not always getting the assigned 35l of water: the water delivery is often late
100% 80% 60% 40%
Observed
20%
Expected
0% 1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9+
HH size groups
Figure 23 Smaller households show less chance of giving delays as a reason for not receiving their 35 liters/person/day
The reasons given have no statistically significant effect by demographic groups with the exception of timeliness of water delivery and house hold size which have a moderate effect (Cramer’s V= 0.23) (Chi-squared= 9.6 df= 4 Sig.= 0.046). Small households (1-2 persons) have less chances of giving “delays” as a reason for not getting their allotted water, and large households of 9 or more people having a much higher chance of doing so, see Figure 23 and Table 7 Table 7 Proportion of HHs that gave “delays in the deliveries” as a reason to not get their allotted amount of water by household size
24
HH Size
N
Observed
Expected
CI 95% - +
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9+
10 29 62 47 36
10% 31% 32% 19% 47%
30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
19% 17% 12% 11% 16%
Aditional water storage 62.4% of the households have additional water storage such as jerry cans and buckets (C.I. +- 5%). This proportion shows no significant difference across any demographic subgroups (gender, age groups, disability). The opposite is true for the location of the households, where districts have a strong effect (Cramer’s V= 0.347) of the proportion of households that have additional water storage (Chi square= 51.6 df =11 Sig.= 0.00). As shown in the Figure 24 and Table 8 below, districts 1, 2, and 9 have a lower chance of having additional water storage whereas Districts 5, 7, and 8 show a higher predisposition to having additional water storage.
Proportion of households
Proportion of households which have additional water storage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Observed Expected
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District #
. Figure 24 Proportion of households which have additional water storage Table 8 Proportion of households which have additional water storage
District # District 01 District 02 District 03 District 04 District 05 District 06 District 07 District 08 District 09 District 10 District 11 District 12
25
N 41 40 27 24 28 39 37 49 34 32 42 35
Observed 37% 45% 74% 46% 89% 67% 81% 80% 41% 56% 74% 57%
CI 95% - + 15% 15% 17% 20% 11% 15% 13% 11% 17% 17% 13% 16%
It is interesting to note that there is no statistically significant effect from the level of water quality, nor the respondent’s perception of water availability, on the proportion of households with additional water storage. On the other hand, there is a weak but significant effect by quantity of water received. Households that feel they always receive their share of water are less likely to have additional water storage than households that feel they never receive their share. Given that the effect is weak (Phi= 0.18) and not clear in its direction, it is likely that there is a more relevant factor influencing the decision to store water (Chi square= 13.1 df =4 Sig.= 0.01). Table 9 percentage of households with additional water storage
Do you feel you get 35 L of water per day Never Rarely Neither Sometimes Yes, always Of the 267 households that store water, 88% store it for less than 2 days (CI -/+= 6%). It is interesting to note that although HoH gender had no effect on whether the household stored water or not, there is a significant effect (Cramer’s V= 0.182) on the time they store it (Chi square= 8.8 df =3 Sig.= 0.03). As shown in Figure 26, female headed households tend to store the water longer than male headed households. There was no other demographic or geographic significant effect found for the storage of water times. Nor there was a significant effect in the length of storage by quality or quantity of water.
26
N 12 26 23 123 236
HH with water storage 83% 58% 43% 72% 58%
CI 95% - + 21% 19% 20% 8% 6%
How long do you store collected DRINKING water at home before using it? (N= 267)
1 day 34%
2 days 33%
Over 2 days 22%
Less than half a day 11%
Figure 25 How long do you store collected water at home before using it
The 236 people that store water for over one day were asked to give their reasons why they store water. The most common reason was to reduce the chlorine taste in the water, and the second most common reason was to reduce the number of trips to collect water. Though half of the 22 reasons marked as other involve or are related with not having enough water, these only make up 4% of the total reasons given for water storage. The reasons given have significant difference by geographical location but not by demographic indicators, including disabilityviii. 97% of household that declare having water containers and that they clean them (CI 2%). As expected with such a predominant practice, there is no significant differences across any demographic factor nor geographic location. In the same way, it is not possible to infer an effect given this sample size with the length of storage.
Proportion of the population by water storage time 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than half a day
1 day Female
2 days
Over 2 days
Male
Figure 26 Females headed households tend to store water for longer times before drinking
Why do you store water over 1 day Other To reduce the no of trips to collect water To reduce the chlorine taste 0
50
100
150
Figure 27 Frequency of reasons to store water longer than a day
27
200
The 267 households that have containers were asked about the methods used when cleaning them; the most frequent methods used are washing up liquid (68% CI± 6%), water rinsing (58% CI± 6%), and bleach (33% CI ± 6%). The least commonly mentioned methods were chlorine (N=4) and soil (N=1). 77.5% of households (CI± 5%) use a mix of 2 or more methods of cleaning, the most common combination being water and washing up liquid (N= 84) and washing up liquid and sponge (N= 46). It is curious that some of these cleaning methods are more likely to be used in some demographic groups. For example: Female respondents and female HoH are more likely to use sponges than the male counterparts (Chi-square= 5.854 df= 1 Sig.= 0.016) or older people are more likely to use Dettol (7.709 df= 2 Sig.= 0.021) ix.
Do you ever clean the household water containers? (N= 267)
I don't know 0%
No 3%
Yes 97%
Figure 28 Do you ever clean the household water containers?
How do you clean your household water containers? Other I clean them with a cloth I clean them with a sponge I rinse them with water I clean them with Dettol I clean them with washing up liquid I clean them with bleach 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 29 the most frequent methods of cleaning are washing up liquid and rinsing with water
28
140
160
180
200
Water Complaints As observed in Figure 30 below, when asked who would they contact in case of complaints, the most frequent answer by households was ACTED with 34% of respondents (CI±= 4%), then Oxfam with 21% (CI±= 4%), followed by the CFP with 19% (CI±= 4%). Some of the few open answers worth noting are, “the water filler” and the water distribution center. Though almost insignificant, it is important to ensure all potential complaint recipients should be instructed to know how to deal with complaints. If you had a complaint about water services who would you contact? ACTED OXFAM Community Focal Point Representative I don’t know JEN I don’t want to answer Other UNHCR Unicef 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 30 If you had a complaint about water services who would you contact, frequency of answers
There is a coniderable proportion of respondents who don’t know who to contact (15% CI= 3%) for a water related complaint, though it is a significant improvement from the 31% in KAP 2015. On a positive note, there was no effect of demographic factor or location on the likelihood of not knowing who to contact. Nonetheless, respondents from female headed households are slightly more likely to not know who to contact than respondents from male headed households (Chisquare= 5.5 df= 1 Sig.= 0.019). Another weak but significant effect is that of younger people being slightly less likely to complain to CFPs than older people (Chi-square= 13.8 df=2 Sig.= 0.01 Cramer’s V= 0.18). Finally, it is worth noting that none of the other reasons were shown to be affected by any other demographic indictorx. When asked how they would go about submitting a complaint on water delivery, the preferred methods were to go to the community center with 31% (CI±= 4%) and speak directly to someone 30% (CI± 4%), with only 21% using the hotline as the third most common method. Amongst the unlisted responses the community focal point was the most frequent with 10 mentions, and others mentioned once include: CM team, community police, water distributor.
29
How would you submit a complaint about water delivery? (% of households)
Go to the community center
n, 131
Speak directly to someone
n, 129
Call the hotline
n, 92
I don't know
n, 76
Go to basecamp
n, 25
Other
n, 16
Write a letter
n, 1 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Proportion of households (multiple selection)
. Figure 31 The preferred methods of water delivery complaints are to go to the commune and speak directly to someone
With a significant 9% reduction from the 2015 KAP survey, only 18% don’t know how to submit a complaint (t= -4.99 df= 427 Sig.= 0.00). Respondents that didn’t know how to submit a water delivery complaint are not affected by districts, partner area, age, disability, or household size. As see in Figure 32, there is a very weak effect (Phi= 0.11) by gender of the respondent and of the HoH (Chi-square= 4.5 df= 1 Sig.= 0.025). In other words, the proportion of females is significantly higher than the proportion of males who don’t know how to submit a complaint (t= -2.015 df= 103.061 Sig.= 0.046). The same is true for respondents from a female headed household, which have a 27% (CI 5%) chance of not knowing, versus the lower 15% (CI 6%) of male headed households. These differences should be interesting for awareness campaigns that wish to target the demographics with least knowledge on complaining processes. . 30
Respondents that didn't know how to submit a complaint 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Respondent Females
Head of Household (HOH) Males
Expected
Figure 32 Males and Females have a significant difference on their proportions of respondents that don't know how to submit a complaint about water delivery
In a similar way, there was a strong effect (Cramer’s V= 0.25) on the proportion of people that would call the hotline (Chisquare= 26.3 df= 2 Sig.= 0.00) or would go to the community centre (Chi-square= 17.1 df= 2 Sig.0.00). As it can be observed in the Figure 33 below, ACTED respondents are more likely to “call the hotline” than JEN and Oxfam respondents, and the most likely to “go to the community center” are Oxfam and JEN residents. There was no significant difference found for the responses across demographic groups or geographical locations.
How would you submit a complaint on water delivery? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Call the hotline ACTED
Go to community center JEN
Oxfam
Figure 33 ACTED respondents are more likely to “call the hotline” than JEN and Oxfam respondents, on the other hand the most likely to “go to the community center” are Oxfam and JEN residents
Information regarding piped water network (PWN) People that could mention aspects of the network such as: “all houses will be connected to a sewerage system" (16 cases) and "Water will be piped to every household" (341 cases) have been categorized as having heard information about the PWN and the WWN. Figure 34, below, shows that 83% of the sample in the camp has heard information, we are 95% certain that the population value lies 3.5% above or below this proportion (CI= 3.5%)xi.
Percentage of population that heard information on piped water and WWN
Had heard information 83%
No information 17%
Figure 34 Percentage of the population that has heard any information
31
When asked how they thought the piped water network would affect life in the camp, 73.6% (CI±= 4% N= 428) of the respondents thought it will have a positive or very positive effect. There was no statistically significant effect found on the expected effect of the water network amongst any demographic groups, nor was there an effect by location of the household. When asked if they had concerns about the new piped water network, 68% (CI= 4%) said they did not have a concern. There was no significant effect found on the level of concern by any of the demographic indicators (age, gender, HH size, disability) xii. The 138 respondents that expressed concern were asked to explain the reasons for their concerns, 91% of them (N= 125 CI±= 3%) are strictly related to apprehensions of receiving less water. The main reasons for this include: drop in pressure, time management, and the use of pumps by other households. Other causes for concern were the decrease in quality of the water with only 4 mentions, and the construction process itself with 2 mentions. Out of the 121 respondents who are concerned with not getting enough water, only 21 don’t mention or imply the actions of other households. This indicates that the main cause for concern is the distrust that other households are unable to respect the water allotment. These should be tackled by the implementing partners at a community level. When asked about the respondent’s perception of water availability in Jordan, 71% think it is very scarce or somewhat 32
How do you think the new networks will affect life in Zaatari? 250 200 150 100 50 0
Figure 35 There is a major positive disposition towards the piped water network
Do you have any concerns about these networks? (N= 428)
Yes 32% No 68%
Figure 36 Most residents don’t have concerns with the new networks
What is your perception of availability of water in Jordan? 200 150 100 50 0 I don't know
very scarce somewhat somewhat Very scarce abundent abundent
Figure 37 71% of the respondents think water is somewhat scarce or very scarce
scarce (N= 428 CI±= 4%), and 24% believe it to be somewhat abundant or very abundant. There is a strong effect (Cramer’s V = 0.373) of the district, on the proportion of people which think water is abundant or very abundant in Jordan (Chi square= 56.5 df =11 Sig.= 0.00). Districts 2 and 9 show the highest proportion of people which think water is abundant, whereas districts 3 and 7 show the smallest proportions (Figure 38 and Table 10). Additionally, there is a very weak effect (Phi= 0.11) by the respondent’s gender, with males less likely to think water is abundant than women (Chi square= 5.4 df =2 Sig.= 0.00). Such a difference, though statistically significant, is too weak to orient awareness campaigns on water wastage.
District # District 01 District 02 District 03 District 04 District 05 District 06 District 07 District 08 District 09 District 10 District 11 District 12
N 41 39 26 21 26 34 36 43 33 31 41 35
Observed 39% 54% 8% 29% 23% 29% 3% 26% 52% 16% 7% 17%
CI 15% 16% 10%* 19%* 16%* 15% 5%* 13% 17% 13%* 8%* 12%
Table 10 Proportion of people that think water is somewhat abundant or very abundant in Jordan. *CI not meaningful due to sample size
Proportion of the population
Proportion of the population which thinks water is somewhat abundant or very abundant 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Observed Expected
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Distict # Figure 38 District 2 and 9 have the highest proportion of people which think water is abundant. People’s perception of abundance might be strongly related to the province of origin and it average annual waterfall.
Limiting water wastage Respondents were asked to mention steps they might take to limit water wastage in their households. The three most mentioned steps were re-using the dishwater (57% CI±= 5%), limiting water usage to basics when cooking and cleaning (50% CI±= 5%), and being careful about the frequency of washing clothes (47% CI±= 5%). 33
Steps taken to reduce water wastage (multiple choice) I re-use dishwater I only use as much water as I need when cooking and… I am careful about how often I wash my clothes I re-use bath or shower water I turn the tap off when I am bushing my teeth I do not try and limit water wastage I turn the shower off when I am using shampoo or soap Other
I don’t know I don’t want to answer 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figure 39 The frequency of steps taken to reduce water wastage
40% of the camp (CI= 4.6% N=428) can mention 3 or more steps to limit wastage of water within the household. No other demographic indicators have a significant effect on the capacity to mention these stepsxiii. Neither do other variables of interest such as the additional capacity to store water, the water source (piped or trucked), nor knowledge of the Community Focal Point.
34
Frequency of how much on average does your HH spend on potable water per week? 250 200
Count
As none of the steps are considered more relevant than the other, only the number of steps mentioned by the respondents is analyzed, with the expectation that a higher number of steps is a reflection of better knowledge and awareness of water wastage. There is no significant effect in the number of steps mentioned by demographic groups (gender, age, HH size, disability) nor is there an effect whether the respondent thinks water is abundant or not in Jordan.
150 100 50 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JOD ($) Figure 40 Most households don’t spend money on drinkable water
Amongst the other steps mentioned are other ways of reutilizing the water from cooking and cloth cleaning. Others mention the change of practices such as wiping the floor not rinsing it, cleaning the floors less often, and putting plastic on the water taps to reduce flow. It is worth noting that most of the steps are actually productive ways in which to decrease water wastage and only one respondent commented that reducing water wastage is not possible due to the weather. None of the practices mention actions outside the households. When asked to estimate the amount of money spent on potable water each week, 53.6% of the respondents answered they did not spend money on drinkable water whereas the 195 respondents that did spend, have an average weekly expenditure of 3 JOD (CI±= 0.2 JOD). It is important to note that 8 values which are higher than 9 JOD have been considered as input errors and treated as missing for this and further analysis5. There was no significant difference between the averages of weekly expenditure and any demographic factor. At the same time, there was no significant correlation amongst the level of expenditure and the number of people in the household, nor the ordinal interpretations of water quality and quantity received. For purposes of analysis the average weekly expenditure will be classified as 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4+ JOD/week groups, this allows us to analyze with a chi-square test. How much on average does your HH spend on potable water per week? Proportion of population
60% 50% 40% 30%
ACTED
20%
JEN
10%
Oxfam
0% 0 JOD($)
1 JOD($)
2 JOD($)
3 JOD($)
4+ JOD($)
JOD/week
. Figure 41 There is a moderate effect on the expenditure level by partner area
The graph below shows the proportion of the households which buy drinking water by districts, the chi-square test (23.584 df= 11 Sig.= 0.01) reveals the districts have a significant effect (Cramer’s V=0.23) on the proportion of the population which spends money on drinking water. Do note that there is a significant effect overall but there is no statistically significant difference amongst districts due to sample size limitations.
Decimal places were not accepted in the question input, only whole numbers, so an entry for example of 15 probably referred to 1.5. Families in the camp are not expected to be capable of spending more than 9 JOD a week on drinking water 5
35
Proportion of the populaton
Proportion of households that spend money on potable water 100% 80% 60% 40%
Observed
20%
Expected
0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District #
Figure 42 There is a weak but significant effect by district on the proportion of households that spend money on potable water.
If we include the cases which do not spend on drinking water, the analysis shows no significant effect on water expenditure by level of water satisfaction, nor perception of quantity of water received, nor by any other demographic subgroup. On the other hand, if we only analyze the cases which declare expenditure in drinking water there is a weak positive correlation (Person’s r(193)= 0.15 Sig.= 0.04) between the household size and the amount spent on drinking water per week. As seen in the graph below, there is a significant difference between household with 3-4 members and households with 7-8 and over 9 members (ANOVA F= 4.3 df= 4 Sig.= 0.002). there is no significant difference on the average expenditure by any demographic factor. Average expenditure on potable water per week by HH size (not including nonspenders) 4
JOD
3 2 1 0
N, 76 N, 5 1-2
N, 43
N, 41 3-4
5-6
7-8
N, 30 +9
HH Size Groups
. Figure 43 There is a statistically significant difference on the water expenditure between HH size groups 5-6 and 7-8 and over 9
36
Public Health Engineering (PHE)
Was your toilet built by a WASH IP?
From the surveyed sample 19 % of household toilets in Za’atari camp were built by WASH implementing partners (N=79 CI±= 4%). There is no significant effect by gender of HoH, Respondents gender, Age group or disabilityxiv. The 79 households whose toilet had been built by an implementing partner were asked what they thought about the quality of work they had received. 90% of them thought the work was good or very good (CI±= 11%). Whether the household was satisfied by the works received was not affected by any demographic or geographical variable. That said, the 3 respondents that reported “Bad” and “Very bad” works justified their rating due to poor location of the toilets, stagnant water or bad implementation.
Yes 19%
No 81%
Figure 44 Most toilets have not been built by an implementing partner
If toilet built by WASH IP: What do you think about the works you received? 40 30 20 10 0 Very bad
Waste Water Network (WWN) 96% of the surveyed households are connected to the WWN (CI±= 2%). Given the high incidence of connection to the WWN there is no statistically significant effect from any demographic group or geographical location on the proportion of connections to the WWN. When asked how satisfied they were with the results of the WWN, 89% of the households report to be Satisfied or Very satisfied with the results of the WWN (CI±= 3%). There is no statistically significant effect from any demographic group or geographical location on the proportion of households satisfied with the WWN results. Amongst the 25 respondents that stated being “unsatisfied” and “very unsatisfied,” the most frequent reasons involve foul 37
Bad
Neither
Good
Very good
Figure 45 90% of households that received a toilet from an implementing partner are satisfied
Are you fully connected (i.e. bathroom and kitchen) to the WWN? (N=428) just the kitchen is connected 2%
No 2% Yes 96%
Figure 46 410 households out of the 428 sample are fully connected to the WWN
smells with 12 mentions and blockings and flooding with 4 and 7 mentions, respectively. There were 2 mentions of households which did not receive complete work and had to pay for its finalization, which is irregular and should be looked into further. All the other comments (N=23) refer in one way or another to design issues of the WWN; foul smells are usually a byproduct of connections which do not include siphons and/or exhaust vents for vapors or pressure changes created by flowing water. When asked what difference had the WWN made to desludging and clearing blockages in their system, 94% of the households expressed that it had a positive difference (CI±= 2%), see Figure 48 below. There is no statistically significant effect from any demographic group or geographical location on the difference made by the WWN on desludging and clearing blockages. When asked to justify their statement on the difference the WWN had made, the most frequent reason with 138 comments was about graywater, particularly the benefits of not having to deal with it, this includes calling for desludging, improved perfusion, and reduced floods. Strongly related but mentioned specifically was the hygienic improvements brought by the WWN with 83 comments mentioning the cleanliness and reduction of diseases. The reduction of smells was mentioned 75 times and 12 of these times it was mentioned together with hygiene topics. Also related to the reduction of graywater contact was the elimination of cesspits/tanks, mentioned on 69 38
How satisfied are you with the results of the WWN? 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Figure 47 89% of the households report to be Satisfied or Very satisfied with the results of the WWN
What difference (if any) has the WWN made to desludging and clearing blocks in your system?
Negative difference, 9, 2%
Positive difference, 401, 94%
No difference, 18, 4%
Figure 48 94% of households report a positive difference on desludging and clearing blocks made by the WWN
occasions, followed by reduction of insects and rodents which was mentioned 49 times. The elimination of technical drilling was highlighted by 8 respondents. The operational aspects of the WWN were mentioned 34 times in a positive tone, related to improvement in response times and organization. 3 other respondents mentioned the operation in a negative way referring to problems of implementation. The remaining 14 negative comments are related most frequently to smell (5) and flooding (6). When asked if they had faced any desludging issues in the past 4 weeks, 16% of the respondents said they had (N=68 CI±= 3%). There was no effect on the proportion of people that had found desludging issues demographic group or partner area.
Have you faced any desludging issues since being connected to the network last 4 weeks?
Yes, 68, 16% No 358 84%
Figure 49 Only 16% of the population has faced desludging issues
Out of the 68 respondents that had faced desludging issues, 46% (CI±= 12%) dealt with it by asking the district implementing partner for help (ACTED, JEN, or Oxfam). Only 29% dealt with it by themselves (CI±= 11%). We must note that given the sample size, these proportions have a very wide confidence interval, which must be taken into account when inferring the populations' manner of dealing with desludging. The least common practice was to ask for another implementing partner's help. How did you deal with the desludging? Asking district agency for help By ourselves With help from committee With help from neighbours other Asking another agency for help 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
# of Mentions
. Figure 50 Most households deal with desludging by calling their local implementing partner or by themselves
39
WWN cluster focal point Only 28% of the population (N= 428 CI±= 4%) is aware of the existence of WWN cluster focal points, and of that 5% is a CFP (see Figure 51). Female respondents are slightly less likely to be aware that there are Cluster FPs (Chisquare= 7.9 df= 1 Sig.= 0.01 Phi= 0.14). This finding is however too weak to be used for targeting purposes. Out of the 22 Cluster Focal Points surveyed, 16 had received training on removing blocks and reporting problems. Using the Wald adjusted method, our best estimate for the CFP’s rates of completion of training is 71% with a margin of error of 18% with a 95% confidence level.
Are you aware there are WWN cluster focal points?
Yes (but I am not one) 23%
No 72%
Yes (I am one) 5% Figure 51 The majority of the population is not aware there are WWN cluster focal points
Out of the respondents that were aware there was a Cluster Focal Point, 59 respondents (61%) also were aware that tools were distributed to the CFP for repair works to the network (N= 97 CI±= 10%). Of these 59 respondents, only 15 (26%) had needed to borrow the tools (N= 59 CI±= 11%). Of these, only 3 (24%) encountered problems (N=15 CI±= 20%)-one of them was from district 5 and the other two from district 8.
WWN Construction works
Are you aware that tools were distributed to the FPs for repair work to the network? (N= 97)
No 39%
Yes 61%
As it is shown in Figure 53, 31% of the population thinks that the works could have been implemented in a better manner (CI±= 4%). There was no effect found for the proportion of respondents that believe the work could have been Figure 52 Most of the respondents that knew about the CFP also knew implemented in a better manner by about the tools they had been given demographic group nor partner area. Out the 134 respondents that think the construction process could have been carried out in a better manner, the most frequent reason given relate to design issues and not the actual 40
construction process. 70% of them (CI±= 8%) asked directly to move the tanks outside the camp with various reasons cited such as odor 16% (CI±= 6%) and health issues. It is interesting that 21% (CI±= 7%) of the comments suggest the creation of one large collective tank, with diverse logic, such as saving on the piping network and most notably its treatment and re-use. More reduced in frequency were observations focused on the household connection itself, 3 mentioning the diameter of the drain pipe was not adequate to prevent blockage, and another recommended for more connection points per home and interestingly one comment recommends the separation of solid and liquid waste. When prompted about the level of information on safety around the construction works, 90% (CI±= 3%) felt they received adequate information. The 25 respondents that felt they did not have adequate information on safety around the construction, were prompted to give suggestions to improve this, most (9) said they could not give a reason. Other 5 recommended giving out brochures, 3 mentioned putting warning signs, and 5 recommended giving clear messaging, and 2 recommended the use of cellphone messages. Others mentioned physical measures such as fencing the construction area and nets over the trenches. It is worth noting that given that the question gives a context of security information and not security measures, it is natural that most answers are oriented to the creation of awareness and not physical interventions. Hence the popularity of information related measures in relation to the physical intervention should not be indicative of preferences. 41
Do you think that the construction works could have been implemented in a better manner?
No 69%
Yes 31%
Figure 53 31% of the population thinks the construction works could have been implemented in a better manner
Did you feel that you had adequate information on safety around the construction works? (N= 428) I don't know 4%
No 6% Yes 90%
Figure 54 Most feel they had adequate information on safety around the construction.
There was no statistically significant effect found on the information safety feeling amongst any demographic groups, nor was there an effect by location of the household. Who do you think is responsible to maintain the networks at your HH level?
Responsibilities for maintenance of the networks When asked who they thought was responsible to maintain the networks at their household level, 49% (CI±= 5%) thought the household was. Only 36% said the WASH Implementing Partner was (CI±= 5%) and 14% supposed a private plumber would be (CI±= 3%). The only demographic effect on the proportion of respondents who think their households are responsible for their own WWN maintenance, was amongst respondent’s gender (t= 2.8 df= 426 Sig.= 0.005). As seen in the Figure 56, male respondents are 14% more likely to think their household should be responsible for the maintenance (CI±= 9%). This difference might be a product of local culture or other variables; nevertheless, future selfmaintenance programs can take advantage of this to focus their work and reinforce this tendency or tackle the gender gap.
WASH IP 36%
Private plumbers 14%
HH 49%
Other 1% Figure 55 Almost half of households feel responsible of their WWN (HH level)
Proportion of respondents that think their households are responsible of their own WWN maintenance 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Male
Female
Figure 56 Male respondents are more likely to feel their household is responsible for their WWN
At a District level, there is a strong effect (Cramer’s V= 0.291 Chi-square= 36.3 df= 11 Sig.= 0.000) with the highest proportions present in districts 8 and 9 and the lowest in district 10, see Figure 57. That said, the differences are not consistent enough across the districts to suggest specific targets in future self-maintenance programs. 42
Proportion of respondents that think their households are responsible of their own WWN maintenance Proportion of population
80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
Observed
30%
Expected
20% 10% 0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District #
. Figure 57 District 10 shows the lowest proportion of respondents which think that the household are responsible of their WWN maintenance
Less decisive is the proportion who think they have the capacity to maintain the WWN with only 55% (CI±= 5%). Most interestingly, respondents who think they are responsible for the maintenance of their WWN are 58% more likely (CI±= 8%) to think they are capable of doing so (t=14.6 dfq= 426 Sig.= 0.000) than the ones that don’t think they are responsible. Beyond understanding the reason for such a strong effect (V= 0.58 Chi-square 138.3 df= 1 Sig.= 0.00), a self-maintenance program should exploit this correlation by complementing both improvements in capacity with the awareness of the responsibility. Additionally, the comparison of capacity versus responsibility reveals that 16% (CI±= 5%) of the respondents who think their HH is responsible feel they don’t have the capacity.
Do you think your HH has capability to maintain the networks at your HH level on your own? (N=428) I don't know, 13, 3%
Yes, 237, 55%
No, 178, 42%
Figure 58 Less decisive proportion thinks they actually have the capacity to maintain the networks, which calls for training
43
Proportion of population which thinks HH had the capacity to maintain their WWN 100% 90%
Proportion of the population
Another relevant effect for future WWN self-maintenance efforts is that there is a significant effect of the respondent’s gender over the capacity thought to be had to deal with WWN maintenance (Chisquare 10.2 df= 1 Sig.= 0.00). Though weak (V= 0.16), the effect makes females less likely to feel capable of maintaining their HH’s WWN. Of similar relevance is the effect by districts (Chi-square 50.4 df= 11 Sig.= 0.00) as seen in Figure 60 and as expected after observing the strong relationship between capacity and responsibility, the variations are similar to the ones observed in Figure 57 (HH responsibility/District).
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Thinks HH is responsible
Does not think HH is Responsible
Figure 59 there is a strong relationship between responsibility and capacity of the households to maintain their WWN
Proportion of population which thinks their HH has the capacity to maintain the networks at a HH level Proportion of population
100% 80% 60%
Observed
40%
Expected
20% 0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District #
. Figure 60 Respondents which think their HH has the capacity to maintain the networks varies significantly across districts
44
Of the respondents that thought their household was not capable of maintaining their WWN, 85% said they didn't think they could due to lack of experience (N= 178 C±= 5%); another 10% (CI±= 2%) say they lack the equipment to carry on the maintenance (mainly due to money). The remaining respondents gave reasons such as illness, disability, and gender. Of the respondents that thought private plumbers should be responsible for the maintenance of their WWN, 73% willing to pay for the service (CI±= 11%), though an amount was not stated.
Percentage of respondents that think private plumbers should maintain their WWN are willing to pay for this service (N= 59) I don't know, 2, 3%
Yes, 43, 73% No, 14, 24%
Only 21% of respondents asked for the WASH IP's Operation and Maintenance (O&M) help in the past 12 months, this proportion has no significant relationship Figure 61 a high willingness to pay for such a service suggests with any demographic or geographic possible CFW opportunities variable (N=428 CI±= 4%). Of these, 85% (N=89 C±= 7%) had a good or very good experience. Amongst the 10 respondents that reported having a bad or very bad experience, the most frequent reason given was the lack of response from the team (5 mentions), the team didn’t present itself, bad implementation (both with 2 mentions), and finally one mentioned the operations & maintenance (O&M) team did not listen to their complaints. Have you ever asked for an agency's O&M team help in the past 12 months? (N=428)
Rating of experience with the O&M team (N=89) 60 50 40
No, 336, 78%
30
Yes, 89, 21%
I don't know, 3, 1% Figure 63 Most respondents have not asked agency O and M for help the past 12 months
45
20 10 0
Very bad
Bad
Neither
Good
Very good
Figure 62 85% of the respondents that have asked for O&Ms help have had a good or very good experience
Recycling and Solid Waste Management (SWM) Recycling Practices in Syria 35% of the camp's population reported recycling or separating waste in Syria, for a sample of 428 cases, and at a 95% confidence level the confidence level for this proportion is (- +) 4.6 %. There are no significant effects observed on recycling prevalence by HH size, nor disabilityxv.
Did you ever recycle or separate your waste in Syria?
Yes 35%
No 65%
Current Recycling Practices The current proportion of HH that recycle (separate or reuse garbage) is 96.3% (C.I. 95% = - +2%), showing a strong increase from the 2015 KAP survey, with only 32% of HHs recycling (Figure 65 Proportion of HH which recycle, by Year). The prevalence of “yes” by district vary from 91% up to 98%, but none of the district’s confidence intervals are meaningful due to sample size. There is no statistically significant effect in the currently recycling households by Head of household gender (sig.=0.051), Respondents gender, nor HH size group. A Cross tabulation of the household’s recycling practices in Syria and their current recycling practices shows that the past recycling practices have no effect on the current recycling situation of a household. In other words, if a household was recycling in Syria, this does not make it more likely to recycle in Za’atari, or vice versa (Chi-square= 0.00 sig. 0.986). This
46
Figure 64 Did you ever Recycle or Separate your waste in Syria?
Proportion of HH which recycles 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2015 Figure 65 Proportion of HH which recycle, by Year
2017
could be relevant to support the notion that the camp’s recycling mechanisms and incentives are the main determinant on the prevalence of recycling amongst Za’atari’s HHs Do you currently separate or reuse garbage
Did you ever recycle or separate your waste in Syria?
No
Yes
Obs./ Exp.
No
Yes
Total
Obs.
11
5
16
Exp.
10.5
5.5
16
Obs.
269
143
412
Exp.
269.5 280
142.5 148
412 428
Total
Table 11 Cross-tabulation of Current and past recycling practices
Additionally, looking at the HHs that started recycling in the camp (Recycling Choice), disaggregated by the gender of the head of household, we observe no significant effect of gender on the choice of recycling (chi-square= 3.5 sig.0.63 phi =0.09).
Why households recycle The most frequent reason for recycling was “Because I was asked to” with 74% of the recycling households. There is no significant effect on the reasons for recycling from any demographic groupxvi. When asked about the reasons why they recycled and they specified other responses, 34 households gave another reason for recycling, of which the majority (14) recycle because it created employment opportunities for others. Not far behind with 12 mentions is the reuse of material or giving a second use to objects. In a much smaller proportion is helping the recycling project. It is worth noting that 22 out of the 34 households gave reasons for recycling which make
47
Change in Recycling Habits by Gender of Head of HH 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Female
Male
Syria
Currently
Figure 67 Change in Recycling proportion by Gender of Head of HH
Why do you recycle? To reduce waste to landfill site Because I was asked to To help the environment Other 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Figure 66 count of Reasons for Recycling
# of Mentions
reference to the community and only 9 gave reasons of personal benefit. Of the 16 households which currently do not recycle (3.7%), 7 say they have no motivation to do so, whereas 5 had no knowledge of the recycling works. There are 3 cases (one from each partner area) which mention that they do not recycle due to fear of pests and request more frequent collection of the material.
Topic Employment Creation Re use materials Help Project Don’t know Personal Economy -Missing-
14 12 4 2 1 1
Table 12 Recurrent topics in other reasons for recycling
Reason for Not Recycling No Motivation No Knowledge Fear of Pests No plastic to recycle Table 13 Reasons for not recycling
48
Frequency
Frequency 7 5 3 1
Cleanliness of public spaces 83% (CI= 3.6%) of respondent’s state that the area around their streets is clean or very clean. A comparison with past years is not available as a different scale was used, but as a reference in the 2014 KAP survey 88.4% of respondents (328) responded to the question with very clean, clean, and mostly clean. The cleanliness of the surrounding shows no statistically significant differences by demographic group or location. Generally, how clean do you think is the area around your street? 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 I don’t know
Very dirty
Dirty
Average
Clean
Very clean
.
Figure 68 83% of the population thinks the area around their streets is clean or very clean
The camp’s population is engaged in several CFW programs, one of them focuses on cleaning the camp's public spaces. When asked what they would do if this program were no longer available, only 33% of respondents said they would do nothing (N= 428 CI±= 5%) and 42% would volunteer to help (N=428 CI±= 5%).
If CFW camp cleaning was no longer available how woud you respond? Volunteer to help
179
Do nothing
142
Encourage others to help
84
Clean only around my house
64
Other
8 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
# of Mentions Figure 69 Just 33% say they would do nothing if the CFW camp cleaning stopped
49
140
160
180
200
If the issue is engaging the 33% that would do nothing, some useful information could be that there is no effect by demographic disaggregation such as age, gender, HoH gender, HH size, and a very weak effect by disability (Phi= 0.1), too weak to be used for targeting effectsxvii. Amongst the other actions suggested by the respondents the most common one, “Cleaning only around my house” was added as a response in Figure 69 due to its high frequency and predominance amongst the suggested actions. It is noteworthy that an important proportion of the supporters of this action talk about the entire community doing this to keep the street clean. Other three suggestions highlight the value of the CFW program, and most interestingly one suggest to “go and complain until they return, because their work is good”.
Pests, Flies, and Rats prevention When asked about the steps to take for the prevention of pests, flies, and rats, 99% (N=428 CI±= 1%) of the population can mention at least one step to prevent pests. 66% can mention two or more steps (N=428 CI±= 4%). This gives an elevated level of knowledge in the prevention of pests, flies, and rats. The most frequent answer with 76% of respondents (N= 79 CI±= 10%), was putting out poison, an active measure common amongst implementing partners. There was no demographic effect on this response but there is a strong effect by districts, particularly due to the proportions of district 10 (see Figure 71), which are significantly lower than most other districts. It might be interesting to understand what makes district 10 so different, in order to repeat in other districts to change preferences. How can you prevent the presence of pests flies and rats within your household? (N= 428) Put out poison Do not leave food scraps out Keep the caravan or kitchen very clean Do not dry bread where pests can access it Put food in metal containers Other Hang food containers There is nothing that can prevent them I don’t want to answer 0
50
100
150
200
# of Mentions
Figure 70 the most for of prevention for pests, flies, and rats is poison as in the KAP2015 survey
50
250
300
350
Population proportion
Proportion of the population which puts out poison to prevent pests, flies and rats. 100% 80% 60% 40%
Observed
20%
Expected
0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District #
. Figure 71 Putting out poison is the preferred method of preventing pests in most district other than number 10
It is worth noting that this question in the KAP 2014 survey had the focus on the prevention of diseases instead of the vectors themselves. Since this change, rat poison has maintained its position as the most frequently mentioned step, whereas in the 2014 survey, putting out poison was one of the least frequently mentioned steps. Amongst the other steps mentioned by the respondents, the most frequent was the spraying of pesticide by the local organization, with 7 mentions. The use of “Kaz oil” and diesel is mentioned 5 times, and nets and other homemade traps are only mentioned 4 and 2 times, respectively. Again, the reliance on the local partners seems to be important.
Desludging Households were asked to identify one or more point of contact in case of problems with desludging. The most frequent response, not surprisingly, is ACTED, with a strong correlation to its own partner area-- this would be expected as their area holds the most households. Although this is true for ACTED, it is not for JEN and Oxfam. Both have been surpassed in frequency by IMDAD and UNICEF, which is the correct answer. In the case of JEN, even respondents that didn’t know who to contact was more frequent. It is worth noting that the mention as contact of the three WASH IPs had a strong effect by partner area (as would be expected), but IMDAD and UNICEF do not have any effect by location or demographic groups. Respondents who didn't know who to contact amount to 10% (N=428 CI±= 3%) and have no statistically significant difference amongst any demographic group, nor with geographical group. Finally, amongst the other contacts mentioned by respondents, the most frequent one was the street leader, with 3 mentions. Equally frequent were diverse ways of referring to various hotlines.
51
Who would do you contact if you had a problem with the desludging ? (N= 428) I would call the hotline for ACTED I would contact IMDAD I would contact UNICEF I would call the hotline for Oxfam
I don’t know I would call the hotline for JEN I would got to the community centre Other I don’t want to answer I would speak to someone directly I would write a letter I would go to base camp 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
# of Mentions Figure 72 The frequency of who to contact for desludging problems differs from the frequency for water services
52
140
160
Cash for Work (CFW)
Proportion of HH with someone working with an agency as a CFW
Proportion of HH with someone working with an agency as a CFW
0.4 0.3
Proportion of population with CFW
Proportion of population with CFW
26% of the surveyed camp’s households have at least someone working with an agency in a CFW project (N= 409 CI±= 4%). There is no effect by partner area, nor by HH size. There is a 14% significant difference between gender of the head of household (CI±= 8% t= 2.754 df= 404 Sig.=0.006) in the proportion of households with a CFW working member, see Figure 74. On the other hand, households with a member with a physical disability, have a 16% higher chance of having a member working with an agency (CI±= 9% t= 2.4 df= 74.9 Sig.= 0.019). The later difference can be explained by the positive bias set for vulnerable households in the CFW programs.
0.2 0.1 0 Male
Female
Head of household gender
0.5 0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0 Yes
No
Household has a disabled member
Figure 74 Male headed households are more likely to have a Figure 73 Households with a disabled member are more likely CFW role to have an agency CFW role
There is a moderate effect by districts (Cramer’s V= 0.24 Chi-square= 23.0 df= 11 Sig.= 0.00). This is particularly visible in the significance differences between district 2 and 9 (t= 2.1 df= 11 Sig.= 0.017) as Figure 75 shows. Due to sample size, it is not possible to identify at a 95% level of confidence any other statistically significant differences between districts.
Proportion of population
Proportion of population that has at least one member working in a CFW project 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Observed
Expected
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District # Figure 75 26% of the camps households have at least one member working in a CFW project.
These three differences, HoH gender, Disability, and Districts are important, understanding their origins can lead to providing fairer CFW programs to the camp’s population. 53
Amongst the 106 households with an CFW working member, the most common role was litter picking with 45% (CI±= 9%); guards and warehouse guards amount to 21% (CI±= 8%). If HH has a member working in a CFW agency project, what does he do? (N=106) Water Networkworker 5%
Warehouse guard 9%
Other 11% Guard 12%
Community mobilization team 5% Maintainance Workers 4% Recycling 3%
Litter Picking worker 45%
Loading worker Dataentry 2% 2% Sterilization workers 2%
. Figure 76 Litter picking is by far the most frequent role in CFW positions
Male headed households have a 14% higher chance of having a working member and they account for 93 of the 106 households with a working member. Nonetheless, amongst the female headed households that have a working member, these are more likely to be amongst the litter pickers than their male headed counterparts, even though they represent only 10 of the 48 households with working member involved in litter picking (Phi= 0.24 Chi-square= 4.62 df=1 Sig.= 0.032). Table 14 Female headed households are more likely to be litter pickers than male headed households
54
HoH Female
Count/Expected Count
Not Litter Picking 3
Litter Picking 10
Total 13
Female
Expected Count
7.1
5.9
13
Male
Count
55
38
93
Male
Expected Count
50.9
42.1
93
Total
Count
58
48
106
There was no other significant effect on litter picking workers found by geographic or demographic disaggregation. Amongst the other kind of works mentioned were desludging worker, facilitator, IT teacher, supervisor, and the most frequent with 3 mentions, teacher. The 106 households that had a member which was working for a WASH IP CFW activity were asked if they thought the activities offered were in line with health and safety regulations. 83% though they were (CI±= 7%), while 6% thought they were not (CI±= 6%). The main reasons given to think the work is not in line with the regulations were the lack of protective gear such as gloves or design of the activities not according to the weather. One case mentioned the member working had rheumatism. Do households with a working member think the work offered is in line with health and safety regulations? (N=106) I don't know 11%
Yes 83%
No 6%
. Figure 77 Most respondents thought the CFW activities offered are in line with health and safety regulations
Fairness of CFW Programme 53.6% of the camp thinks agencies operate a fair and equally accessible CFW programme (N=409 CI±= 5%). 24.7% didn’t know (CI±= 4%) if it was fair and equally accessible and another 22.7% decisively said they didn’t think the agencies operated a fair and equally accessible CFW programme (CI±= 4%)xviii. When asked why they thought the agencies didn’t operate a fair CFW programme, the most common response directly or implied was favoritism with 63 of the 93 cases (68% N= 93 CI±= 10%). The count of comments referring to having registered but didn’t have success or didn’t get a response was 8. Interestingly, there are complaints about the seasonality or lack of permanency of roles and other comments accusing the existence of some permanent roles. These comments lead us to believe that there is no clarity amongst the population that responded “No” on the process of selection, its duration, or its transparency. 55
It’s worth taking into account when assessing the gravity of the situation that there is a 13.6% (CI±= 10.6%) significant difference between households that have a member working from the ones that don’t, when assessing if they think the programme is fair or not. Households which have a member working having a 13.6% higher chance of thinking the programs are fair and equally accessible (t= 2.5 df= 186 Sig.= 0.012). Note this evaluation leaves out the respondents that said they didn’t know. Table 15 Proportion of the population that thinks CFW is operated fairly (Not including "I don't know" responses)
Households that: N Have a member in CFW 88 Don't have a member in CFW 220
Proportion that said yes (not Std. Std. Error including I don’t know) Deviation Mean 80%
0.41
0.04
66%
0.48
0.03
Respect and Dignity 75% of the respondents believes the agencies treat their CFW workers with respect and dignity with high or very high extent of respect (N=409 CI±= 4%). There is no significant difference between the average level of respect and dignity with which the CFW workers are treated with by any demographic disaggregation. To what extent do you feel agency treats their CFW with respect and dignity? 250 200 150 100 50 0 I do not know
Very low
Low
Neither
High
Very high
. Figure 78 A 75% of the population thinks agencies treat with respect and dignity
Most of the reasons given by the 7 respondents who thought the CFW workers were treated with low or very low respect and dignity are related to management issues mainly with the supervisors, 56
“not good treatment”, or unequal treatment from supervisors. Another mentions inability to deal with people, not listening and no allowance of breaks.
Engagement of women in CFW activities 63% of the households think it would be acceptable for women to be engaged in CFW activities (CI±= 5%). Although the proportion of respondents which are female is 64% (CI±= 5%), there is no effect by the gender of the respondent nor any other demographic indicator on whether the respondent thinks it is acceptable for women to be engaged in CFW activities. Though there is no significant effect by partner area, there is a strong one (Cramer’s V= 0.3) at district level (Chisquare 34.7 df= 11 Sig.= 0.00). As it can be appreciated from Figure 80 this is mainly due to the differences from the expected values in Districts 1, 2, 4, 9, and 12. Why some district appear more permissive than other is not clear yet, but might hold relation to the geographical origin of the population in Syria.
Would you find it acceptable for women at your HH to be engaged in CFW activities? I don't know, 11, 3%
Yes, 259, 63%
No, 139, 34%
Figure 79 Most respondents think it would be acceptable for women to be engaged in CFW activities
Population proportion
Proportion of population that would find it acceptable for women of their HH to be engaged in CFW activities? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Observed Expected
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District #
.
Figure 80 the proportion of respondents that would approve of women to be engaged in CFW activities is lowest in districts 1 and 9, in contrast with districts 2, 4, and 12.
57
Understanding that both men and women are equally probable to find acceptable the engagement of women in their household in CFW activities is relevant for targeting in awareness campaigns. They must avoid focusing on any demographic subgroup and engage the entire community. Amongst the reasons given by the respondents (N= 139) who did not find acceptable the engagement of women in CFW activities, almost every single one with the exception of 4 was related to the role of women in society. Most of them cited directly “Customs and traditions”, others cited the role of women as the one responsible for the household or on the contrary, the role of men as the designated workers. Another subset explains the camp is not respectable enough for women and fewer directly do not allow them to work in a dry tone. It is interesting that most answers use custom or tradition as a reason, but do not provide deeper or more specific reasoning behind their posture. This is true for both male and female respondents. Males tend to use the definition of responsibilities and women tend to use the lack of time due to their roles and incapacity. It is noteworthy that most justifications, with the exception of 10, are not finding acceptable the idea of women working in general and are not limited to the CFW programs. Most of the respondents are aware of the CFW opportunities available for women, in fact there is no effect on the proportion of awareness between the respondents that think it’s acceptable or not for women to work in CFW. There is no effect for any demographic disaggregation including disabilityxix.
Community Mobilization When asked how they would like to receive information on WASH programs and changes in their area, 48% liked “Sessions with other people” (N=409 CI±= 5%) and 45% liked “Flyers” (CI±= 5%). Focus groups discussions lags behind with 36% (CI±= 5%), followed by home visits with 25% of respondents liking this option (CI±= 4%). The least preferred methods were the “Imam” and “Community Hygiene Promotor,” both liked only by 2% (CI±= 1%). Note that there is an average of 2.1 responses per person, and there are no significant differences on the average number of responses by partner area or any other demographic indicator (gender, age, HH size, and disability).
58
How would you like to receive information on WASH programs and changes in your area? (multiple selection) Sessions with other people Flyers Focus group discussions
Sessions where someone visits me at home Campaign Posters Mobile Messages I don’t know Imam Community Hygiene Promotor I don’t want to answer 0
50
100
150
200
250
# of Mentions Figure 81 The preferred methods of access to information are “Sessions with other people”, “Flyers”, and “Focus groups discussions”
Interestingly there is no statistical difference amongst the top 4 preferred methods of information communication by any demographic subgroupsxx. Another point of remark is that 19 out of the 20 communication methods proposed by respondents were mobile messages, an option not originally proposed, but one that should be considered as a convenient complement, particularly due to the high rate of mobile phone ownership found in Za’atari camp (Maitland & Xu, 2015).
Community center usage There is one community center in every district, operated by the WASH IP of that district. 55% of the respondents go to their local community center (CI±= 5%). There is no significant variation of this percentage by districtxxi. There are no differences in the proportion of declared use by age groups, HoH gender, disability, nor HH size, but there is a 17% difference in the proportion of attendance by respondent’s gender (t= 3.4 df= 314.4 Sig.= 0.001). As seen in Figure 83 below, 66% of males declare using the community center, and only 49% of females do so.
Do you ever go to the agency community centre? (N= 409) I don't know, 2, 1% Yes, 226, 55%
No, 181, 44%
Figure 82 About half of Za'atari camp attends their community center
59
This difference may have important consequences in the access to any activity or awareness campaign based on the community center. The reason for this gender imbalance must be understood and a culturally sensitive alternative must be produced which levels this access gap. It is worth noting that this is measuring declared use and is not actual attendance in the center. The two may vary due to cultural taboos or that it could be frowned upon women declaring the use of the community center within their household. Further research is required.
Proportion of population that goes to their community center 1
Proportion of population
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
0.1 0
Uses for the community center
Male
Female
When the 226 users of community centers were asked about what use they give to the Figure 83 Males are more likely to attend to their community center center, 47% said they used it for “Community sessions” (N=226 CI±= 5%). “Registration” and “Complaints” followed with 39% and 36%, respectively (CI±= 5%). The center is also used by 29% to get information. A few people use the center as a place to celebrate global days, or for distribution of personal hygiene products (soap). Only one user reported receiving training in the center. What do you use the community center for? (Multiple selection) (N= 226) Community sessions
47%
Registrations
39%
Complaints
36%
Getting information
29%
Celebration of global days
2%
other
1% 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
# of Mentions
. Figure 84 Community sessions is the most frequent use given to the community centers.
Community sessions are the predominant use given to the community centers across all geographic and demographic subgroups. There is no significant variations from the 47% observed 60
at camp level. This is not the case with the uses of registrations and complaints. There is a strong effect for both registration (Cramer’s V= 0.34) and complaints (Cramer’s V= 0.37) at a district level (Chi-square= 26.2 df= 11 Sig.=0.006) (Chi-square= 31.2 df= 11 Sig.=0.001), but not within partner areas, see Figure 85 and Figure 86.
Proportion of users of the community center that use it for complaints (N= 226)
Proportion of CC users
70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
Observed
20%
Expected
10% 0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Distric # Figure 85 Complaints are a main use of the Community center for district 2 but not for districts 7 or 10
Proportion of users of the community center that use it for registration (N= 226) 80%
Proportion of CC users
70% 60% 50% 40%
Observed
30%
Expected
20% 10% 0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District #
. Figure 86 Registration is an important role of the community center in district 2, but this is not the case for district 3 and 4
61
Community center access A vast 90% of the camp has no problems accessing their community center (CI±= 5%), this proportion sees no difference across demographic group or location. Amongst the reasons given by the 33 respondents that have problems accessing the center, the most frequent one is being “busy with my kids”; it is noteworthy that all of the respondents that gave this reason are female respondents. The main reason given by male respondents is that staff are not friendly, see Figure 87. .
Do you have any problems accessing (going to) the community centre? (N= 409) Yes, 33, 8% I don't know, 8, 2%
No, 368, 90%
Figure 87 90% of the camp has no problem accessing the community center
Reasons why the respondents have problems accessing the community center (multiple choice) (N=33) Busy with my kids Location is too far Staff are not friendly Health/Disability Don't feel safe Other Work I'm not allowed
Male
Female
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
# of Mentions Figure 88 The biggest issue accessing the community center for women is lack of time due to child caring duties
When asked what other functions would they like to see the community centre used for, most respondents (285) did not give a suggestion either because they declined to give an activity or they deemed themselves unsuitable of suggesting one. Amongst the 124 that did give a suggestion, 56 are related directly with the creation of income, either by suggestion of livelihood activities such as craftsmanship reusing recycled material, sewing, and hairdressing, or proposing education that can lead to income generation. The latter is in strict relation with the second most common topic, education. There were 46 mentions for the creation of an educational center, 15 of which were in connection to livelihood activities. There is a large variety amongst the educational/awareness topics but they are mainly oriented at women, children, and youth (handicrafts, wool sewing, cooking). Interestingly there are some suggestions for teaching “large 62
scale rebuilding techniques”, maintenance of caravans and electricity. 18 suggestions would like increase of leisure practices in the community center, mostly aimed at children, but some like internet access points and gardening are intended for adults. Probably to improve access and decrease travel time, there are suggestions to use the community center as distribution center or complaint center which are fulfilled by other locations and organizations in the camp. Leading topics of suggestions for uses of the community center (Multiple selection) No suggestions
Income/employment/livelihood Awareness/Education Leisure/entret/Social Children/kindergarten Distribution center Complaints center Other 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
# of Mentions Figure 89 The leading suggested uses for the community center are closely related, employment and education
The Road Magazine With UNICEF funding and JEN’s implementation, a group of refugees volunteer every month to produce 20,000 Arabic copies of the magazine called “The Road”. 49% of the interviewed sample has read a WASH article in the magazine (CI= 5%). When asked which topics they would like information on which are not currently available in “The Road”, most responded “nothing” (65% N=409 CI±= 5%). The remaining 35% make suggestions regarding the most pressing issues the respondents face, as a community or in a personal sphere.
Have you ever read any WASH article in the magazine 'The Road'? I don't know "the roa, 19, 5%
Yes, 201, 49%
No, 189, 46% Figure 90 Almost half of the respondents have read a WASH article in "The Road"
63
Some very practical suggestions by the respondent’s included: times of garbage collection, diaper disposal, first aid, firefighting, and the characteristics of the next project to be implemented in the camp. Others are more complex, such as psychological support and how to deal with family conflicts. Some suggest using "The Road" as a platform for open discussions regarding matters that have to be decided upon as a community/moral issues such as how to deal with children groups in the streets. Most suggested topics relate to immediate needs of the population. Related to the latter, there are 11 mentions requesting a widening of scope of the articles, or at least broader than the implementing partner’s aim. Frequency of suggested topics for "The Road" (multiple selection) Awareness/Education Health/Safety/First Aid/Taboo subjects Children Latest projects/Work/Distribution Insects/Pests/Rats Water Widen scope of articles Distribution/Transparency Street boys’ groups Food Weather safety Electricity Psychology and family issues Science and culture
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
# of Mentions Figure 91 The majority of suggested topics for “The Road” involve awareness and education of health safety and first-aid
Hygiene promotion Food storage With higher temperatures and no means of refrigeration, the storage time of cooked food becomes a relevant matter of hygiene. When asked how long they kept cooked rice during the hot summer, 79% of the households said they normally would not keep food for more than 6 hours. Note that rice was used to make the question more specific and easy to answer.
64
What is the longest time (in hours) you would normally keep cooked rice for before eating during the hot summer months? (N= 409) I don’t know
0%
More than 24 hours
2%
12-24 hours
7%
6-12 hours
12%
3-6 hours
12%
1-3 hours
20%
We eat it immediately
47% 0
50
100
150
200
250
# of Mentions Figure 92 The 79% of the households will eat cooked food within the first 6 hours of its preparation.
Proportion of the population
This proportion is not affected by any demographic disaggregation or partner area, but does show significant variance from the expected values by districts. Districts 6, 9, and 11 have a significantly higher proportion of households not storing their cooked rice for more than 6 hours than districts 10, 7, and 4 (Chi-square= 54.2 df= 11 Sig=0.000 Cramer’s V= 0.343). The latter districts should be prioritized in an awareness campaign. Proportion of the households that store cooked rice 6 hours or less (during hot summer months)
100% 80% 60% 40%
Observed
20%
Expected
0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District # Figure 93 Districts 6, 9 and 11 have a significantly higher proportion of households not storing their food for more than 6 hours than districts 10, 7 and 4.
Identification of diarrhea Diarrhea is defined as the frequent passing of watery or loose stool. Some people may also have other symptoms, depending on the cause. It is essential for it to be identified as soon as possible, to prevent dehydration and limit the spread to other members of the camp. 91% of the camp can identify diarrhea and only 9% believes it can’t be identified or does not understand what diarrhea is. 65
How can you identify diarrhea? (N= 409) watery stool three times a day or more
83%
Passing of loose
47%
Cannot identify
9% 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
# of Mentions Figure 94 Only 9% of the households can't identify diarrhea
Excluding the 9% that could not identify diarrhea (38 cases), respondents were asked to name steps by which they and their children could prevent diarrhea. On average, respondents named 3.4 steps, and there is a very small, but significant difference of 0.3 steps between male and female respondents (male average= 3.2, female average= 3.5 steps t= -2.45 df= 273.203 Sig.= 0.015). Regarding the steps themselves, hand washing was the most frequently mentioned, with 85% (N=371 CI±= 5%) see Figure 95 below. Washing hand after going to the toilet and before cooking are established as some of the best-known practices. How people prevent themselvs and their children from getting diarrhea? (N= 371, multiple selection) Wash hands before eating
85%
Wash hands after going to the toilet
55%
Wash food before cooking
49%
Eat safe food
48%
Cover food from flies
40%
Cook food correctly
32%
Wash hands before breastfeeding and feeding babies… 15%
Drink healthy bottled water
13%
Other
3%
I don’t know
2% 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
# of Mentions Figure 95 Before Eating, after toilet, and before cooking are still the most frequent methods mentioned to prevent diarrhea
66
There has been a significant increase of 8% since 2015 in the proportion of respondents mentioning washing hands before breast feeding (t= 4.3 df= 370 Sig.= 0.00). Similar case with washing hands before cooking, which saw an increase of 5% in the proportion of respondents mentioning it in contrast with 2015. (t= 2.1 df= 370 Sig.= 0.04). All other change also shows significant differences to a 95% confidence level. One of the most important declines has been the drinking of safe and clean water, with a drop of 30% on the proportion of respondents (t= 17.5 df= 370 Sig.= 0.00).
Proportion of the respondents which mentioned the diarrhea prevention step 100%
Drink healthy bottled water
90% Wash hands before breastfeeding and feeding babies and children
Proportion of respondents
80% 70%
Cover food from flies 60% 50%
Eat safe food
40% Wash food before cooking
30% 20%
Wash hands after going to the toilet
10%
Wash hands before eating
0% 2014
2015
2016
2017
Figure 96 Washing hands before eating has maintained its popularity since 2014
Judging by the number of steps mentioned, the population that is capable of identifying diarrhea also has an acceptable level of knowledge on how to limit its spread. Regarding the proportion of the population which mentioned the most frequent step of washing hands before eating, there is no significant difference between demographic subgroups. The prevention steps mentioned by respondents show a very wide range on the level of knowledge. Some show deep understanding of diarrhea and its causes, mentioning contaminated water, dirty food, or that it can be caused by a germ (one even mentioned the local ice-cream shop). On the other hand, others show little knowledge of its possible causes, for example the 67
most frequent prevention step mentioned was staying away from the sun and dust or simply not knowing.
Hand washing Keeping hands clean is a key step to avoid getting sick and spreading germs to others. Many diseases are spread by not washing hands with soap and clean, running water. Respondents were asked to name 3 critical times for washing their hands. The 409 respondents gave an average of 3.3 responses, with no significant differences amongst the population subgroups such as gender, HH size, age groups, and disability. Nor was there a significant difference across the partner areas on the average number of mentioned critical times to wash hands. The most popular time for handwashing was “before eating”, mentioned by 96% of the population (N= 409 CI±=3%), which is consider a critical time for hand washing. 88% mentioned “after using the toilet” as a critical time to wash hands (N= 409 CI±=3%). After eating with 67% and after playing with 49% both have confidence intervals of ±5%. Oddly “before cooking” was not mentioned, though mentioned by 49% when asked about diarrhea prevention. Nonetheless “after cooking” was mentioned by 14% (CI±=3%) of the respondents. With a similar proportion, “after touching animals” was only mentioned by 10% (CI±= 3%). Amongst the other times, after changing diapers was mentioned twice and taking out the trash once. Please name 3 critical times for washing your hands (multiple mentions) I don’t know
0.2%
Other
1%
After touching animals
10%
After cooking
14%
After playing
49%
After eating
67%
After using the toilet
88%
Before eating
96%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
# of Mentions Figure 97 Critical times for hand washing by number of mentions by respondents.
Critical time of handwashing, before eating, after using the toilet, and after eating, did not show significant difference across demographic groups.
Feminine hygiene products 97% of the surveyed women in the camp (N= 263 CI±=2%) use sanitary towels, only one uses a reusable cloth, 6 stated using nothing and only one did not wish to answer the question. 92% of
68
women get the products from the camp's distribution (N= 263 CI±= 3%), with only 24% and 15% also getting them from the market and supermarkets, respectively (CI±= 5%). Where do you get your feminine hygiene products from? (multiple selection) Distribution
92%
Market
24%
Supermarket
15%
I don’t want to answer
1%
Other
1%
I don’t know
0% 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
# of Mentions Figure 98 Almost all women in the camp obtain their sanitary towels from the distribution centers
Though almost all women get their hygiene products from the distribution centers, some obtain additional hygiene products from the market and supermarket, interestingly there is a geographical effect on the proportion of women that get additional sanitary towels from these locationsxxii. On the other hand, women from male headed households are 22% less likely to get feminine hygiene products from the supermarket (t=-4.846 df= 261 Sig.= 0.000), see Figure 99. A possible explanation of this could be a difference in expense priorities within the households that change with the head of household.
Proportion of women
Proportion of women that get their sanitary product from supermarket 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Observed Expected
Female
Male
Head of household Figure 99 women from female headed households are 22% less likely get their hygiene products from the supermarket
When women were asked where they disposed of their used feminine hygiene products, 98% of them responded in the main garbage bin or the regular household waste. The other 4 women said they first put them in a black bag and then dispose of it in a trash container, it is most likely that these are the steps most women that use the main garbage bin follow. Only 1 said she used the toilet and another one mentioned burning them. 69
. Analyzing the proportion of women that dispose in the two main categories (main bin and regular household waste) there was no significant difference found for the head of household, age group and household size for whether women disposed their used products in the regular household waste or in the main garbage bin.
Hygiene promotion The majority of respondents or their household members have not taken part in any hygiene promotion activity in the last three months (79% N= 409 CI±= 4%). There is no significant difference between any demographic subgroups, nor geographical location. The 83 households that had at least one member attend a hygiene promotion activity were prompted about what they learned in the activity. Of these, 7 didn’t want or could not specify what they had learned in the activity, and were left out of further questions about the sessions. For the remaining 76, the most frequent subject with 26 mentions (34% of comments) was personal hygiene, particularly the washing of hands. Another 14 comments (18%) mention they increased their knowledge or awareness in multiple areas or didn’t specify an area. Water conservation topics follow closely with 13 mentions or 17% of the comments. Many of the comments that mentioned personal hygiene also mentioned child care and motherhood topics. It is worth noting that there was a 70
Once used, how do you dispose of your feminine hygiene products? (N= 263)
I don’t want to answe, 1, 0% Main garbage bin, 166, 63%
Toilet, 1, 0% Other, 4, 2% Regular household waste, 91, 35%
Figure 100 98% of women dispose their feminine hygiene products on the main garbage bin or the regular household waste
Have you or any members of your household taken part in any hygiene promotion activities in the last three months?
Yes, 83, 20% No, 323, 79% I don’t know, 3, 1%
Figure 101 Only 20% of households have had at least one member attended a hygiene promotion activity (CI±= 4%).
general tone of practical utility of the sessions given by most of the comments and mentioned explicitly by 11 of them. Frequent topics learned during hygiene promotion activity (muliple selection) Personal Hygiene/handwashing/beauty
34%
General increase of awareness/information
18%
Water conservation
17%
Child care/ vaccination
13%
First aid and Safety
12%
Day celebrations
9%
Environment recycleing trash
7%
Domestic Violence and Child marriage
7%
Disease prevention/ health/pests
7%
Benefits and tickets
4%
Oral hygiene
3% 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
# of Respondents Figure 102 Most frequent topics learned during hygiene promotion activities
Supporting what is found in the comments of what the assistants learned, 96% of them answered they thought the activity was useful or very useful (N= 76 CI±=5%). The remaining 3 respondents said the activity was neither useful nor useless, and none said it was useless. This high level of appreciation for the activities is also reflected in the decision of 97% of attendants to share the gained information with other family members, neighbors or friends. When prompted about their interest in attending these activities, 10 could not or would not specify a reason. Most of the remaining 66 attendants were broad on the reasons for their interest. 71% explicitly say they attend to gain useful information and increase their level of knowledge, though very few defined a particular subject. 5 mentioned their 71
How useful was the Hygiene promotion activity you or your family member attended? (N= 76) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Very useless
Useless
Neither
Useful
Very useful
Figure 103 Out of 76 assistants 96% thought the hygiene promotion activity was useful or very useful
interest on health and disease prevention, one actually gave ways to identify TB. Another 5 respondents are interested in the community’s interaction, mentioning that sessions allow for people to talk to others of their similar interests, learn from each other and leave a register. 5 more mention their interest in the work helping women and children in multiple aspects including domestic violence. A lesser 4 comments are mainly interested in the entertainment factor. It is worth noting that 20% of the comments explicitly mention benefits for themselves and for others derived from the sessions.
Accountability A key step for monitoring and accountability is the easy and transparent registration of feedback and complaints by the users. It is not enough to have an accessible channel and the mechanisms to deal with complaints. There must be awareness amongst the users that such a channel exists and the steps and time each requires. 81% of the respondents know it is possible to complain to a WASH IP (N= 409 CI±= 4%). There is a very small effect by household size (Cramer’s V= 0.17) mainly for the smaller households, which show less likelihood of knowing it is possible to complain to agencies (Chi-square= 10.3 df= 4 Sig=0.035). There was no significant effect by gender, disability, age, or HoH.
72
Do you know whether it is possible to complain to implementing partners? I don't know, 21, 5%
Yes, 331, 81%
No, 57, 14%
Figure 104 Most resident know they can submit a complaint for the services they receive.
Proportion of the population
Proportion of the population that knows it's possible to complain to implementing partners 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Observed Expected
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9+
HH Size Figure 105 Smaller households appear less likely to know they can complain to their implementing partner
Complaint methods Most camp residents are aware they can complain, but when asked about the methods they were aware of, the average number of methods listed per person was only 1.3, showing most respondents only named one method. This average shows no significant variance across partner areas or gender of respondents. As seen in Figure 106, the complaint method respondents are most aware of is the hotline, with 46% of respondents naming it (CI±= 5%). With significantly less popularity, complaining directly to a manager was mentioned by 28% (CI±= 4%), and giving feedback at the community center by 24% (CI±= 4%). 4% of respondents said they didn’t know or did not give an answer (CI±= 2%). What complaint methods are you aware of? (multiple selection) Hotline
46%
Directly with a Manager
28%
Feedback at community centre
24%
At the office
12%
Feedback box
7%
Other
5%
Don’t Know
4% 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
# of Respondents Figure 106 The complaint method respondents are most aware of is the hotline
73
140
160
180
200
Proportion of population that mentioned complaining directly to the manager as a method Proportion of the population
The hotline method is the most popular and it has no significant variations across demographic or geographic disaggregation. This is not the case with the method of talking “directly to the manager” which has significant differences between respondent’s gender and across partner areas. Females are 16% less likely to mention complaining directly to the manager (T-test F= 3.3 df= 263 Sig.= 0.001) as a method than malesxxiii.
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Observed Expected
Female
Male
The proportion of the population which Respondent's gender mentioned “feedback at the community center” as a method of complaint shows Figure 107 Male respondents are significantly more likely to complain to no significant variance for any the manager directly than females demographic groups, but it does by location of district as seen in Figure 108, below (Chi-square= 32.97 df= 11 Sig.= 0.001). This method shows no other significant variances across any demographic subgroups.
Proportion of population
Proportion of the population which mentioned feedback at the community center as a method of complaint 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Observed Expected
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District # Figure 108 Wide variance across district is visible for the proportion of population which would complain with feedback at the community center
74
Staff satisfaction
Have you ever been dissatisfied with the performance or behaviour of the staff from WASH IP? (N=409)
Most of the population is satisfied with the behavior and performance of the agencies’ staff members, with 19% (N=409 CI±= 4%) declaring they have been dissatisfied at some time with the staff’s performance or behavior.
Yes, 76, 19%
This proportion holds no significant variance across population subgroups except by gender of respondent. As seen below, males are 13% more likely to be unsatisfied with staff than female respondents (F 2.89 df= 230 Sig.= 0.004) xxiv.
I don't know, 17, 4%
No, 316, 77%
Figure 109 Only 17% of the population has been dissatisfied with the performance or behavior of a staff member
Proportion of the population that has been dissatisfied with the performance or behaviour of the staff (N= 316) Proportion of population
. Of the 76 respondents which reported being dissatisfied with the staff’s performance or behavior, only 37% submitted a complaint (N= 76 CI±= 11%) and 62% had not. Though this proportion is already low, it shows significant difference by the respondent’s gender, women being 26% (CI±=21%) less likely to report feeling dissatisfied with the staff’s behavior or performance than their male counterpart (t= 2.4 df= 72 Sig.= 0.021), see Figure 110xxv.
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Observed Expected
Female
Male
Respondent's gender Figure 110 Females are less likely to be dissatisfied with the staff's behavior or performance
75
Feedback and complaints
When asked what would prevent you from submitting a complaint or giving feedback, there was an average of 1.05 reasons given per respondent and the number of responses given by the person show no significant variation by demographic groups or locations.
Proportion of the propulation
Awareness of complaint methods is not enough to ensure timely feedback on the partners' work. There must be understanding of the Proportion of the popultation that steps, precautions, and level of submitted a complaint after feeling transparency involved in a complaint. This dessatisfied with the behaviuor or demystifies the costs and risks associated performance of the staff with complaining. Understanding what 60% would prevent potential complaints to be 50% submitted allows the implementing partners to get an idea of possible bias in 40% the complaints registered and design 30% Observed possible awareness campaigns to reduce 20% this. Expected 10%
0% Female
Male
Respondent's gender Figure 111 Female respondents that have been dissatisfied with the staff are less likely to report it than male respondents
What would prevent you from submitting a complaint/giving feedback? (N= 409) Lack of time
28%
Fear of repercussions
22%
Nothing would stop me
19%
Lack of belief in the system
18%
No need to complain
12%
Other
2%
I don’t want to harm others
2%
I don’t complain
1%
Cost
1% 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
# of Respondents
. Figure 112 the most common reasons that would prevent respondents from submitting a complaint or give feedback would be the lack of time, fear of repercussion and lack of belief in the system
The distribution of the reasons given show 4 main reasons with a similar frequency ranging from 18-28% of the respondents. The mode of one reason, and the equal distribution of frequencies, suggests that there isn’t one main reason most respondents share, followed by multiple secondary reasons as seen in other topics. Instead, the reasons are unique for most respondents. 76
The biggest deterrent for would-be complaints is the “lack of time”, with 28 % of respondents citing this reason (N= 409 CI±= 4%), followed by 22% of "fear of repercussions" and 18% of “lack of belief in the system" both with a confidence interval of ± 4%. There is an important proportion (19%) which claim that “nothing would stop them” from submitting a complaint or giving feedback. This, complimented by the 12% that express that they don’t need to complain, add up to 31% of the respondents not identifying a possible deterrent. It is worth noting that some of the other deterrents for submitting complaints include lack of permission from husband, mentioned twice; inability to access the center due to disability, mentioned twice as well; and most interestingly the inability to register complaints in large groups for safety was mentioned only once. Regarding the most popular reason “lack of time”, there is a moderate but significant difference amongst the gender of the head of households, with female headed households being 18% (CI±= 10%) more likely to mention lack of time as a reason than respondents from a male headed household (T-test t= 3.2 df= 124 Sig.= 0.002). The later could be product of a higher cost of opportunity in female headed households, as usually they are the only adult in the household. Hence having more burden on their available time. There are no other significant variances for this reason between respondent’s gender, disability, or age group. For the second most common reason, “fear of repercussion”, there is significant variance across districts, particularly amongst district 4, the highest, and districts 2, 3, 7, 9 and 11, the lowest. There are no other significant variances for this reason between respondent’s gender, disability, or age group.
Proportion of the population
Proportion of the population that gave "fear of repercussions" as deterrent for complaint submission 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
District # Figure 113 There is significant variance amongst some district's proportion of population that gave fear of repercussions as a deterrent for complaint submission
77
The variations across districts and partner areas show us there is no particular focus that could be given across the camp for a campaign to raise awareness on the complaint steps and transparency. An intervention of this sort will need to work on these three areas equally across the camp as none of the reasons has an overwhelming majority.
Proportion of the population that gave "lack of belief in the system" as deterrent for complaint submission Proportion of the population
For the third most popular reason, “lack of belief in the system”, there is a significant difference in the proportion by respondent’s gender (T-test t= 3.99 df= 228 Sig.= 0.00). As seen in Figure 114, females are 17% (CI±= 8) less likely to give this reason than male respondents. There are no other significant variances for this reason between HoH, disability, or age group.
0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Male
Female
Respondent's gender Figure 114 Male respondents are more likely to give lack of belief in the system as a reason for not complaining than female respondents
Seriousness Only 47% of respondents (CI±= 5%) thinks that WASH IPs are serious in responding to their complaints and feedbacks. The proportion of people that think the response is serious shows variation across districts but none across any other demographic subgroupxxvi.
0.4 0.35
How serious do you think implenting partners are in responding to complaints and feedback? 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very unserious unserious
Neither
Serious
Very Serious
Figure 115 Most of the population thinks the response to their complaints and feedback is unserious or neither serious or unserious
78
Openness 72% of the population thinks the WASH IPs are open, willing, and interested in listening to them (CI±= 4%). The most frequent reasons given for thinking the partners are not open was the failure to reply to submitted complaints with 13 mentions out of 21. The others point towards diverse reasons for not trusting the organization or their managers, amongst them the failure to distribute jobs equally and unfulfilled promises. There is no significant variation across demographic subgroupsxxvii. 68% of the population feels informed about their implementing partner’s work in their district CI±= 5%). The proportion of the population that feels informed and very informed does not vary across any demographic or geographic subgroups.
Do you feel the agency is open, willing and interested in listening to you? 250 200 150 100 50 0 not open at not open all
neither
open
very open
Figure 116 the majority of the population thinks the implementing partners are open to listening
To what extent do you feel informed about agency work in your district? 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Very unimformed
Uninformed
Neither
Informed
Very informed
. Figure 117 The majority of the population feels informed or very informed about the works in their area by their implementing partner
79
Participation 70% of the population feels welcomed or very welcomed to participate in their implementing partner’s projects at all stages. The most frequent reasons (7 mentions) given by the 17 respondents that did not feel welcomed are related to not being able to work on the project itself, most expressing concerns with favoritism and bias in selection. The second most frequent, with 5 mentions, was the poor reception of comments or suggestions made to the projects.
To what extent do you feel you are welcome to participate in agency projects (includes at all stages, not just being a direct beneficiary)? 300 250 200 150
100
Respect 80% of respondents feel respected or very respected by their implementing partner's staff (CI±= 4%). Out of the 7 respondents that felt they weren’t respected, 5 say they felt this way due to lack of respect given to people, and 2 cite prejudice and favoritism.
50 0 not not welcomed welcomed at all
neither
welcomed
very welcomed
Figure 118 Most feel welcomed to participate in their implementing partner's projects at all stages
Proportion of the population which feel welcomed to participate at any stage of the projects in their district 100%
Proportion of th epopulation
The proportion of the population which feels welcomed or very welcomed shows no significant change across geographic or demographic indicators with the exception of gender of respondent. An independent sample T test shows that females have a 23% higher chance to feel welcomed to participate than males (CI±= 9%) (t=4.7 df= 256 Sig.= 0.00). Given the high proportion of comments referring to labor opportunities, this difference might be the product of a misunderstanding of the term "participation". Many understood participations as CFW engagement, instead the question referred to involvement in the decision making of the design stage.
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Male
Female
Respondent's gender
Figure 119 Females have a higher chance of feeling welcomed than their male counter parts
80
Though the proportion of the population which feels respected or very respected shows no significant differences across partner area, or any demographic subgroup (gender, age group, HH size, or disability).
To what extent do you feel well respected by agency staff? 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 not respected
neither
respected
very respected
Figure 120 Most respondents feel respected or very respected by their implementing partner's staff
81
Closing questions Both parts of the survey A and B had the same closing questions, reaching a sample size of 837. This section was concerned with gaining a better understanding of the respondent’s priorities regarding their districts, the WASH service they received, voluntary work, as well as giving a space for further comments. When asked about what they thought were the major issues in their districts, 38% of the 837 respondents said they had no issues or did not comment. From the remaining 518 comments, 160 of them (19% N= 837 CI±= 3%) mentioned the limited electricity as a problem. In strong relationship with electricity are the comments about water, with a third of the 157 water comments also mentioning electricity. The majority of comments on water deal with its shortage in summer months and some mention the problems with equal distribution. A few others mention preoccupation or urgency for the new water network. 90 of the comments refer to the public space, amongst these the most frequent topic was the pavement of main streets for dust during summer and mud during winter. The second most frequent comment relates to the building of open malls or promenades of commercial space, including trees for shade and street furniture. One of these comments go as far as saying that poor street status affects the water supply in some districts. 66 comments indicate the lack of a kindergarten/school or entertainment center for children and youth. The reasons for bringing up this issue vary: from mothers that require more time, the poor education available, and the most frequent one, to keep them off the streets. 53 comments mention the limited possibilities to leave the camp (leave or vacation) and request more of these permits. The comments mentioning an increase in control of street dogs and pests like rats, cockroaches, and flies amounts to 40. The dog citations are particularly concerned with the dangers for children and pedestrians. In the case of insects and pests, it is mainly the health concern. 35 comments mention the lack of jobs or the issues with the fairness of the CFW role allocation. Many propose more carpentry shops, another a farming program, beauty salons, and specific roles for women. Amongst the other issues mentioned there is 3 proposals of free bread distribution centers, one concern about petty crime, one on the high prices of good and the rest are concerns referring to the general situation of the camp with no specific focus. Most of the topics do not have a gender effect with the exemption of work, which males are more likely to mention than women. The opposite is true for the Children’s category, which females are more likely to mention than males.
82
What do you think are the major issues in your district? (multiple selection N= 837) No issues/no comment
38%
Electricity (more time)
19%
Water (More allocation, Equal distribution)
19%
Public space (Trees for shade, Mall, Pave street for mud &… 11% Children (Entretainment, Education, Kindergarden)
8%
Leave (Out of camp)
6%
Animal/Vector control (Flies, Dogs, Insects)
5%
Services (Fire, Ambulance, Accesible hospital)
4%
Work (Capentry, Women, Farming, Beauty saloon)
4%
WWN (Smells, Sound, Desludging)
3%
Other (Bread, Security, Prices)
1%
Free transport
1%
SWM (increase recycle, clean trash containers)
1% 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
# of Respondents Female
male
Figure 121 The most common issues in the districts are electricity and water availability (with percentage over total)
Community Goals 2017 When asked about the goals for their community this year, the most frequent topics were very similar to the major issues mentioned above, with the main differences on their tone or objective. For example, the most frequent topic was again an increase in the hours of electricity, but this time there was mention of alternate sources and projects related to the production. Another repeated topic was the leave or holidays, although this time a third of the comments referred specifically to being able to return back to Syria. In the case of work, another frequent topic amongst the issues of the district, the focus changed from proposals of work to an equality in its distribution, including between genders. Another frequent mention was water, though the requests of more of it and equally distributed is maintained, its frequency has decreased from 157 to 70 mentions. The same is the case for public spaces that decreased by 32 mentions. Education, a topic present amongst the issues of the district, is also frequent amongst the community goals, this time with a focus on the future of the generations and their possibility to find work later with only 38 mentions. One of the few new
83
recurrent topics amongst the community goals is the caravan improvements, with 29 mentions; it usually involved turning the caravans into a real house. What are your community goals for 2017? (Multiple selection N=837) # of Respondents 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Electricity (More time, Solar) Nothing Leave (To Syria, Out of camp) Work (Equality in distribution, sectors gender) Water (More allocation, Equal distribution) Public space (Malls, Pave street, Gardens) Education/ Entretainment Caravan improvement Security/safty/stability/peace/porsperity Transport (Free, nominal) Hospital (Accesible, health) WWN (Tank out of camp) Animal/Vector control (Flies, Insects) SWM (Hygiene) Figure 122 Amongst the most interesting community goals for 2017 are the return back to Syria and peace amongst the Arab nations
Volunteering Only 33% of the population would be willing to volunteer (CI±= 3%) to attain a community goal in their district, whilst 7% said they did not know and 58% decisively said they would not. Would you be willing to volunteer unpaid in your neighborhood or district to achieve a community goal?
Yes, 279, 33%
I don't know, 70, 9% I don't want to answer, 2, 0%
No, 486, 58%
. Figure 123 Only 33% of the respondents said they would be willing to volunteer unpaid in their neighborhood district to achieve a community goal
84
Satisfaction with WASH work 85% of the population (CI±= 2%) said they are generally satisfied with the WASH work in their district. This proportion shows no significant change by any demographic subgroups xxix.
Proportion of population willing to volunteer for unpaid work in their neighborhood Proportion of the population
There was an effect on the willingness to volunteer by the gender of the respondent males are 18% more likely to volunteer than females (CI±= 7%) (t= 5.2d f= 590 Sig.= 0.00) as seen in Figure 124. There is no further effect on the chances for volunteering by age group, HoH gender, disability or HH sizexxviii.
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
0 Male
Female
Respondent's gender Figure 124 Males are more likely to volunteer than female respondents
When asked to give a reason for the level of satisfaction reported, there was 837 comments recorded, of which 819 are What is your general satisfaction with the logical and legible. Of these, 302 refrained WASH work in your district? from making a comment or giving a 600 reason, leaving 517 valid comments as our sample. 79% (407) of these are positive 500 comments and 15% (79) are negative 400 comments, 3% (18) include both negative 300 and positive observations. The remaining 3% are observations or recommendations 200 and do not pose a tone (13). 100 The majority of the satisfied and very 0 satisfied comments cite the projects utility Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very by using expressions such as: unsatisfied satisfied “improvement”, “better than before”, “served the people”, “helped the Figure 125 Most of the population is satisfied with the WASH work in community”. A few (8) mention the their district “success” of the projects, a word that supposes a level of adequate expectations/information regarding the project's objectives. For many it was the ease of the conditions that give reason to their level of satisfaction, or the reduction of particular negative aspects, such as insects, grey water, floods, or smells. Others simply say they are satisfied or have no problems and complaints. Fewer use more contempt expressions such as “well enough” and “fine”. Amongst the 400 exclusively positive comments, 30% mention the availability of water, its quality, and improvements in its distribution. 26% comment on the positive effects of the WWN such as improvements in drainage and perfusion, the reduction of gray water and cesspits, and the 85
elimination of frequent earthwork and excavations. 22% justify their satisfaction with the sanitation and general improvements in the camp's cleanliness. 14% see an improvement in health issues such as less disease and germs, and the reduction of vectors such as flies, rats, and insects. The reduction of odors was mentioned by 8% of the comments and only 3% remark on the efforts in awareness and education. The majority of the 77 exclusively negative comments are concerned with the low availability of water (60%), and issues of the wastewater network (26%), most of the comments of the latter refer to the tank’s location, the need for desludging, and foul smells. Almost all (15) of comments that are both positive and negative in tone refer to the advantages of the WWN but complain about the availability of water for their needs. The remaining might be satisfied with the amount of water but have issues with the smells of the WWN. Some of the comment that lack a tone are recommendations such as the unification of one big tank and its treatment outside the camp's boundaries. Others are statements that lack reasoning such as giving such rating because “it is the truth” or reality that the respondent wishes to share.
Recommendations When asked for recommendations, the vast majority of respondents (532) did not give a recommendation. From the remaining 327, 146 made recommendations regarding the water network. Many (41) request the speedy extension of the water network, though some caution the risks in this, as the water is not set to increase. Others urge the agencies to take measures to safeguard the equal distribution of the water, looking out for water pumps or setting water meters once the WN is complete. Nonetheless, most of them (90) recommend providing more water. In other words, 29% of the valid recommendations request additional water, especially during Ramadan and the summer months. The request for more water together with the extension of the WWN shared tank outside the camp (counts 86) make the two most frequent single topics mentioned in the recommendations. Less frequent, but very pertinent is the suggestion to follow-up on the WWN works, maintenance, and response to the complaints, including more than one connection per household and avoiding shared connections. Mentioned 37 times are the recommendations on jobs and labor, mostly requesting equal opportunity on the distribution of the works. Some suggest the initiation of courses or vocational training and others suggest public improvement works (14) such as gardens or paving the main roads which could provide jobs at the same time as improving the camp. One third of the recommendations that mention jobs (9) also mention the extension of electricity hours during the day, which was mentioned a total of 33 times. Other topics with lesser frequencies still worth noting include: the creation of kindergartens (3), diversifying the topics of awareness campaigns including water availability and agency-refugee 86
cooperation. Health and safety issues such as wider soap distributions, child safety issues, street dogs and insects were mentioned one or two times each. Though each of the recommendations reflect a pressing issue for the respondent, the most frequent ones, such as water quantity increase and a solution to the WWN issues, seem to be the highest priority for most of the respondents willing to give a recommendation to the WASH partners.
Further comments or feedback As the final question, there was an open space for any further comments or feedback the 837 respondents wanted to express. The majority (526) did not provide a comment and (34) used the occasion to thank the implementing partners (Oxfam, ACTED, and JEN). Of the remaining 277 comments, most interpreted this space as a second instance to express priority action points for their household and the camps improvement. The general topics mostly coincide with the previous recommendations topics, but differ in frequency. 208 comments are related to issues of the services provided to the camps residents: of these 71 request an increase in the time electricity is available, making it the most frequent comment. Followed by water quantity and the extension of the WN with 51 mentions. 28 mentioned public space improvements including paved roads, gardens, parks, play grounds, or planting trees for shade. 16 commented on issues and improvements on the WWN, this time the request for private bathrooms on big or disabled homes prevailed over the request for tank drainage outside the camp area. Dealing with insects and pests mainly by requesting insecticide was mentioned by 13 respondents. 8 suggest education or awareness, some oriented towards women's labor opportunities, other towards children's entertainment, and others towards improving WASH practices in the community. Other services were also mentioned, such as the building of a more accessible hospital (5 times), free public transport (4 times), improvement of SWM container location and size (2 times). It’s worth noting there were 10 comments which suggested prioritizing the improvement on the way partners dealt with the complaints across all services (seriousness, speed or the overall mechanism). Outside the general topic of services, the most frequently mentioned subject is work. Particularly most comments called for the creation of new opportunities and its equal distribution. 35 requested the improvement of the allocation of leaves and the return process. In strict relation with this process is the distribution of benefits and goods, mentioned 17 times. On one side, some request special considerations with households that have one or two disabled members. On the other side, some HH express concern with possible favoritism received by certain homes. Others have more practical observation as the quantity or quality of the hygiene products distributed (soap, gas, feminine products and caravans).
87
Summary Recommendations The recommendations are divided in two. The first set, are derived directly from the findings in this report and are focused on operational and knowledge communication. The second set of recommendations is gained from this experience, and are aimed towards the improvement of future KAP surveys. These recommendations are not intended as a summary of the findings. Instead they are limited to the findings that should lead to actions by the implementing partners and the Za’atari camp community.
Water Recommendations Operational Strictly regular water deliveries and increase delivery points The perception of water quality is related to its availability and timeliness. This means that the satisfaction will most likely increase if the deliveries respect regularly scheduled timetables and the allotted daily quota reaches all the population. There is an important proportion of the camp's households (44%) that thinks they don't always receive their allotted amount of water. If we are sure as implementing partner that more than enough water is being brought in to the camp, then the issues must be limited to their distribution. Some households might be receiving in excess and other not enough. The survey results point out this might be true in particular areas further from the water distribution point and households with a disabled member. Reinforce the induction of the CFP The community focal points have experienced a decrease in approval rate by particular districts. This should be revised and reverted by new inductions for their roles. Revise the WWN technical design and implementation, Some of the most frequent complaints in this survey relate directly to issues with the design, which may be leading to possible foul smells and frequent clogging. Its revision could help future camps.
Waste Water Network (WWN) Self-maintenance should increase capacity and responsibility awareness There is a strong correlation between people that think they can maintain the WWN and the people that think they should. Though there is no evidence of causality, based on the 16% of the population that feels responsible but lacks the capacity a self-maintenance program should exploit this correlation by complementing both improvements in the capacity of the population to make repairs to the WWN and with the awareness of the responsibility. One large WWN treatment plant outside the camps perimeter Amongst the recommendations given this was systematically repeated across the survey’s answers and sample, as a solution to the problems experienced in winter with the WWN.
Solid Waste Management (SWM) If a street cleaning campaign takes place it should be Camp-wide 42% would volunteer to help clean streets around their area. While 33% would not help if the CFW program stopped. None of these have any significant disaggregation by any demographic or geographical subgroup so any motivational campaign should be camp-wide, but focused on the cleanliness in the volunteer’s immediate area to guarantee higher turn up. 88
Accountability The WASH IP's should demonstrate they take complaints seriously Only 47% of respondents perceive the implementing partners are serious when responding to complaints. The KAP survey and consequently this recommendation does not speculate on the way the implementing partners treat complaints. It limits to measures the populations perception on the matter, which may or may not be erroneous. Thus, the recommendations are aimed towards the population perceptions and not the actual complaint process. It is advisable to demonstrate to the population the way the complaints are dealt with. Increased public diffusion on the complaints resolutions and their process could revert the public perception.
Communication & Knowledge Recommendations Information to the community is mainly preferred via group sessions and flyers. This was the result from direct consultation to the respondents, with no preference by age group or other demographic subgroups. Mobile text messages were the most suggested method. Clarify desludging responsible Only 40% of the population is aware that IMDAD and UNICEF are the responsible for solving desludging issues. This is low across the camp but particularly low in the ACTED district. Improving the knowledge of this fact amongst the population could help speed up the response time in the camp. Explain the need for chlorine in the water Increase Communication efforts to explain the need for "high" chlorine concentration in the water of the camp. The main reason given for low quality was the smell and taste of chlorine in the water Inform of the low risk and costs of complaint reporting Though there is no difference between genders in the level of knowledge of complaining methods, there is a significant difference in the proportion that will actually report being dissatisfied with the staff's performance. Males are 26% more likely to report than females. Leveling this will help to improve the accountability mechanism and female issues gain a voice. The main reason which prevented reporting was lack of time and fear of repercussions. An information campaign on the low risks and cost associated with complaining might improve the rate of reporting. The Road magazine should open their articles to self-help, psychology and health issues These are the overwhelmingly most frequent subjects suggested by the community A district specific campaign to increase in fresh food management knowledge Over 40% of the households in districts 6, 9 and 11 store their food for more than 6 hours outside during summer months. Piped water network preemptive use campaign The main apprehension towards piped water network is the possibility of receiving less water due to other houses using pumps to take the water. before the implementation, it is recommended to carry on an awareness and education campaign to prevent this. WWN cluster focal points awareness campaign Only 28% of the camp is aware of the existence of WWN cluster focal point their role and the availability of repair tools for the WWN. 89
Awareness campaign dedicated to females and female-headed households Home sessions, or session child cares to engage women in the community center Women are 17% less likely to use their community center, mainly due to being busy with children and household chores. The implementing partners might find useful to address or bypass the increased HH responsibilities before attempting further engagement with females in the camp’s activities and address the following short comings on knowledge: • Females report the lower knowledge of the CFP and consequential any processes regarding the vocalization of complaints regarding delivery • Female respondents and Headed households show significantly less possibility of knowing how to contact to submit a water complaint. • Female-headed households lack proper knowledge is the water storage time, showing a significant longer storage periods. • Female respondents have a less awareness of the low water availability situation in Jordan. • Female respondents are more likely to think their HH is not responsible for their WWN maintenance. • Women report the lower knowledge of the CFP and consequential any processes regarding the vocalization of complaints regarding delivery • Female headed households have poorer knowledge of the daily allowance of water per person. • Public tank cleanliness concern is higher amongst females, future campaigns aimed to reassure of their cleanliness must set an effort to include women, of all ages and household sizes.
90
Future KAP survey Recommendations, These recommendations are pointed towards the improvement of the next year’s KAP survey, mainly focused on the sample characteristics and the form and nature of the questions asked. Reduce the number of question Concentrating on the future analysis and what to do with the results will help reduce the number of questions to the ones with higher priority and utility. It is recommended that during the design of the survey each question should: (1) express what it expect from its analysis results, (2) to whom the results will be relevant, and (3) if this actor has the channels and attributes to act or communicate on this. This inception report will help decreasing the number of questions, which would allow to increase the sample size with the same level of effort. Leading to less respondent’s fatigue, increasing reliability and confidence of the survey results. Increase District sample size This will help produce more accurate district comparisons. The current sample size is set for a camp-wise confidence level of 95% and confidence intervals of 5%. This only gives an average confidence interval of 17% for the districts, too low to identify small differences. Use GeoTag of survey software Activating the Geotag on the phones used by enumerators to take the surveys will give higher accuracy on the location of particular problems. This, in turn, might allow producing maps of problems, for example, low scoring in the satisfaction levels in one area might be explained if the wastewater network has regular problems in one intersection. Alternately it might help identify problems with particular community focal points serving one area. Consistency with past years question Changes in formats, phrasing and possible answers presented problems in the time wise comparisons. This analysis is relevant because they could identify tendencies before they become large problems. Increase in daytime range in which the survey is taken This should help revert the tendency of increasing elderly and feminization rate between respondents. This is based on the notion that youth and males are not present in the households during the survey times 9-13 hrs, leading to being underrepresented in the samples. Stratified sample by HoH gender Purposely increasing the sample size of female-headed households or other vulnerable groups of interest, such as disability. This will allow producing a finer analysis of their knowledge level attitudes and practices, allowing the Implementing Partners to better design aid packages directed at them.
91
Annex I KAP Survey 2017 Introduction questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Date Enumerator Name District # Block # No of people living in the same caravan Is the head of the household male or female? Respondent’s Sex Respondent's age group Do any members of your household (same caravan) have a physical disability that requires them to use a wheelchair, cane or crutches to move about?
Water 10. Is your water delivered from water trucks or a piped water? o If trucked: do you have a private tank ▪ if yes: How often is your private tank cleaned? ▪ If yes: who cleans your private tank? ▪ If no: public tank: How concerned about its cleanliness? 11. What do you think about the quality of water delivered in the camp o If low quality, please explain why o If other: please explain 12. Do you know who is the Community Focal Point representative for your block (this is the person that checks how much water is delivered by the trucks)? o If yes: How would you rate their performance? o If yes: Did you participate in the selection process of the CFP? 13. Do you feel that your share of water is delivered according to the schedule? 14. If piped Is the water provided to you continuous or intermittent? 15. What do you think about the quality of water you receive? o If poor: What do you do if you notice any quality issues? o If other: please explain o If poor: Has anybody tested the water quality at your house or at the water tank? 16. Do you feel that the water provided to you through the network is of better quality than the water through the tanker trucks? 17. Have you ever seen any leakages in the network? o If yes: What do you do when you see any leakage at the network? o If other: please explain o If call agency: Do you think repairs are conducted in a timely manner? 18. Do you see any health risk when there is a leakage? 19. In your block have you seen any household connections from the tap stands? o If yes: Do you have any concerns about such connections o If yes, please specify 92
o if other specify 20. How much water do you think you should receive on average per person per day? in Liter 21. Do you feel that you get 35 L of water per person per day? o if no: why not? 22. Do you have additional water storage at your house like jerry cans and buckets? o If yes: How long do you store collected DRINKING water at home before using it? o If yes tank and stored over 1 day: Why do you store DRINKING WATER before consumption it? (choose all which apply) o If other please specify o If yes tank: Do you ever clean the household water containers? o If yes: How do you clean these containers? Select all that apply o If other please specify 23. If you had a complaint about water services, who would you contact? Select all that apply o If other: specify 24. How would you submit a complaint about water delivery? o If other: please specify 25. What information have you heard about the new (2017) piped water and waste water network in Za'atari camp? o if other explain please 26. How do you think the new networks will affect life in Za’atari? 27. Do you have any concerns about these networks? o If yes, please specify 28. What is your perception of availability of water in Jordan? 29. What steps, if any does your household take to limit wastage of water within your household? Select all that apply o If other: please specify 30. How much on average does your HH spend on potable water per week?
PHE 31. Was your toilet built by AGENCY? o If yes: What do you think about the works you received? o If bad or very bad: Explain why 32. Are you fully connected (i.e. bathroom and kitchen) to the WWN? 33. How satisfied are you with the results of the WWN? 34. If not satisfied: Please explain why not 35. What difference (if any) has the WWN made to desludging and clearing blocks in your system? 36. If any answer: Please explain why 37. Have you faced any desludging issues since being connected to the network last 4 weeks? o If yes: How did you deal with it? o If other: Please explain 38. Are you aware there are WWN cluster focal points? o If respondent is a focal point: Did you receive any training on removing blocks and reporting problems? 93
o If respondent answered Yes (but I am not a focal point): Are you aware that tools were distributed to the FPs for repair work to the network? ▪ If yes: Have you ever needed to borrow the tools? ▪ If Yes: Have you ever faced any difficulty to borrow the tools? 39. Do you think that the construction works could have been implemented in a better manner? o If yes: Please explain 40. Did you feel that you had adequate information on safety around the construction works? o If no: Do you have any suggestions how this could be improved? 41. Who do you think is responsible to maintain the networks at your HH level? o If other: Who? 42. If private plumbers: Are you willing to pay for this service? 43. Do you think your HH has capability to maintain the networks at your HH level on your own? o If no: Why not? 44. Have you ever asked for agency O&M help in the past 12 months? 45. If yes: How would you rate your experience with the O&M team o If bad or very bad: Explain why
Recycling & SWM 46. Did you ever recycle or separate your waste in Syria? 47. Do you currently separate or reuse garbage in your household? 48. If yes: why do you recycle? o If other: please explain o If no: Why not? o If other: please specify 49. Do you compost or separate organic/leftover food waste? 50. Generally, how clean do you think is the area around your street? 51. If CFW camp cleaning was no longer available, how would you respond? o If other (specify) 52. How can you prevent the presence of pests (flies and rats) within your household? o If other: please specify 53. Who would/do you contact if you had a problem with the desludging service? o If other: please specify
CFW 54. Are you or is anyone in your household working with agency as a CFW? o If Yes, what job do you/they do? o If other (specify) o If yes, do you think the work offered is in line with health and safety regulations? o If not: Why not 55. Do you think agency operates a fair and equally accessible CFW programme? o If no, why not 94
56. To what extent do you feel agency treats their CFW with respect and dignity? o If low or very low why? 57. Would you find it acceptable for women at your HH to be engaged in CFW activities? o If no: Why not 58. Are you aware that agency has CFW opportunities available for women?
Community mobilization 59. How would you like to receive information on WASH programs and changes in your area? Select all that apply o If other: please explain 60. Do you ever go to the agency community centre? o If yes: What do you use the community for? o if other explain 61. Do you have any problems accessing (going to) the community centre? o if yes: please explain o specify other problems accessing 62. What other functions would you like to see the community centre used for? 63. Have you ever read any WASH article in the magazine 'The Road' 64. Are there any topics you would like information on, which are not currently available?
Hygiene promotion 65. What is the longest time (in hours) you would normally keep cooked rice for before eating during the hot summer months? 66. How can you identify diarrhea (not just a bad tummy)? 67. How can people prevent themselves and their children getting from diarrhea? Select all that apply: o If other: please explain 68. Please name 3 critical times for washing your hands (do not read options) o other critical times for washing hands 69. Which feminine hygiene products do you use during your period? Select all that apply 70. Where do you get your feminine hygiene products from? o If other: Please explain 71. Once used, how do you dispose of your feminine hygiene products? o If other: please explain 72. Have you or any members of your household taken part in any hygiene promotion activities in the last three months? o If yes: What did you learn from this activity? o Please specify o If yes: Did you/will you share this information with family/friends/neighbors? o If yes: Was it useful? o If yes: Why you are interested attending in such activities? ▪ Please specify Accountability 73. "Do you know whether it is possible to complain to agency?" 74. What complaint methods are you aware of? 95
o If other: please explain 75. Have you ever been dissatisfied with the performance or behavior with staff from AGENCY? o - If yes: Did you submit a complaint? 76. What would prevent you from submitting a complaint/giving feedback? o If other: please specify 77. How serious do you think agency is in responding to complaints and feedback? 78. Do you feel the agency is open, willing and interested in listening to you? o If not open or not at all why not? 79. To what extent do you feel informed about agency work in your district? 80. To what extent do you feel you are welcome to participate in agency projects (includes at all stages, not just being a direct beneficiary)? o if not welcomed or not at all please explain 81. To what extent do you feel well respected by agency staff? o If not respected or not at all please explain Closing Questions 82. What do you think are the major issues in your district? 83. What are your community goals for 2017? 84. Would you be willing to volunteer (unpaid) in your neighborhood/district to achieve a community goal? 85. What is your general satisfaction with the WASH work in your district? o would you like to explain why you gave this rating (optional)? 86. Do you have any recommendations for things the WASH agencies should do differently in 2017? 87. Any other comments or feedback
96
88.
Bibliography Maitland, C., & Xu, Y. (2015, June 9). A Social Informatics Analysis of Refugee Mobile Phone Use: A Case Study of Za'atari Syrian Refugee Camp. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from Comminit: http://www.comminit.com/global/content/social-informatics-analysis-refugee-mobilephone-use-case-study-zaatari-syrian-refugee-c
i - xxix There
was a significant difference at the partner areas level. Nonetheless all results of partner area analysis have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey public version. They have been remove at the petition of UNICEF and in accordance with the WASH implementing partners. ii
v
vii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water re s ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. viii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. ix There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They hav e been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. x There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xi There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xiii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petiti on of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xiv There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xv There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Prac tices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xvi There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xvii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xviii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Atti tudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xix There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water re s ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xx There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xxi There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They hav e been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xxii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xxiii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xxiv There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xxv There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petiti on of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xxvi There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xxvii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Prac tices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED. xxviii There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W ASH implementing partners JEN , Oxfam and ACTED.
xxix There was a significant difference at the partner areas level. N onetheles s allres ults of partner area analys is have been removed from the 2017 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Survey. They have been remove at the petition of U N ICEF’s water res ource engineer and at the acceptance of the W AS
97
H implementing partners JEN, Oxfam and ACTED.
