STL Needs Analysis Report on Syrian Refugees in Hatay 28 March 2013

NEEDS ANALYSIS ON SYRIAN REFUGEES IN TURKEY
A Study of Out-of-Camp Refugees in Hatay
28 March 2013
SUPPORT TO LIFE / HAYATA DESTEK DERNEĞİ
www.hayatadestek.org/ www.supporttolife.org
Contact Person: Sema Genel Karaosmanoglu
Director, Support to Life/Hayata Destek
Phone Number: +90 216 336 2262
Fax Number: +90 216 336 2925
E-mail: sgenel@supporttolife.org
Mailing Address:
atip alih okak / o uyolu sta ul urkey
Research & Assessment Team Leader: Zeynep M. Turkmen Sanduvac, M.A.

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................3
Key findings......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Most affected groups.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Most affected areas ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Most affected sectors ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Key recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 4
BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................................5
OBJECTIVE........................................................................................................................................................5
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................5
LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................................6
AREA PROFILE ..................................................................................................................................................7
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................7
Population profile ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Shelter and Non-Food Items (NFI) .................................................................................................................... 11
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)............................................................................................................ 13
Food security, nutrition and livelihoods ........................................................................................................... 15
Health................................................................................................................................................................ 16
Education .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Protection and pyschosocial well-being............................................................................................................ 17
RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................................19
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................22

2
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure #1: List of locations where the questionnaires were administered..................................................... 6
Figure #2: Map of locations where the questionnaires were administered................................................... 6
Figure #3: Rural/Urban distribution of the locations where the questionnaires were administered ............ 7
Figure #4: Household population distribution by age group and gender....................................................... 8
Figure #5: Household population distribution by age groups......................................................................... 8
Figure #6: Share of pregnant and breastfeeding women ............................................................................... 9
Figure #7: Household population distribution by occupation ....................................................................... 9
Figure #8: Reason for displacement................................................................................................................ 9
Figure #9: Reasons for going back and forth between Syria and Turkey...................................................... 10
Figure #10: Household population distribution by place of origin................................................................ 10
Figure #11: Hometown vs. current displacement place in Turkey................................................................ 11
Figure #12: Types of shelters ........................................................................................................................ 11
Figure #13: Sheltering terms......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure #14: Sheltering conditions: number of person per room .................................................................. 12
Figure #15: Non Food Items (NFI) needs....................................................................................................... 12
Figure #16: Sanitation and hygiene risk factors in the shelter locations ...................................................... 13
Figure #17: Water sources used in the shelter locations.............................................................................. 14
Figure #18: Household population needs for hygiene supplies.................................................................... 14
Figure#19: Number of meals per day............................................................................................................ 15
Figure #20: Dietary diversity of the meals .................................................................................................... 15
Figure #21: Healthcare: household population distribution according to their assistance needs................ 16
Figure #22: School attendance among the household children ................................................................... 17
Figure #23: Reasons for settling outside the camps ..................................................................................... 18
Figure #24: Future expectations of the refugees.......................................................................................... 19
TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX #1: SITUATION and NEEDS ASSESMENT QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................... 23
APPENDIX #2: BENEFICIARY IDENTIFICATION FORM .................................................................................... 31

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Shortly preceding the beginnings of violence in Syria, the Hatay province of Turkey began
experiencing a refugee influx. The refugee crisis grew especially in the summer of 2012, finally
bringing the total number of Syrian refugees presently in Turkey to more than 450,000 in over 7
provinces, concentrated along the border with Syria.
While a large number of refugees are settled in 17 camps run by the Turkish government, a larger
number is estimated to be living outside the camps. According to various sources, the number of
unregistered Syrian refugees in Hatay province is as high as 100,000 with the main caseload
sheltering in border districts. It is this out-of-camp Syrian refugee population that is the focus of this
study.
Thus far, the host community has not been severely affected by the conflict, commodity prices have
not risen as feared. On the other hand, the job market and real estate has been affected and
increasingly, in the last months host communities have been showing signs of exhaustion from the
situation as they have been hosting Syrian refugees, some for nearly two years.
Key findings
Syrian refugees in Hatay province are highly mobile, moving back and forth between Syria and Turkey
on an irregular basis. There is also movement within Turkey as many are seeking better living and
working conditions given the scarce opportunities for generating income in Hatay. The distribution
of occupations indicate that a high percentage of unskilled workers among the Syrian population
fleeing to Turkey.
Livelihood is a key concern for the e tire refugee populatio as it is limiti g refugees’ access to
available commodities and services. Many Syrian refugees are involved in non-formal economic
activity, working without any benefits and under harsh conditions. Those refugees without
registration are especially subject to such exploitation, which in turn affects the job market for the
Turkish population in Hatay and the surrounding area.
Syrian refugees living outside the camps are occupying different types of shelters in the region, which
in most cases are rented. With an average family size of 5.1, most Syrian households in Hatay are
complete with both parents living with the family. Statistics indicate that 25% of Syrian households
have either a pregnant or lactating woman in the family, or both.
Most affected groups
Although they are not large in number, refugees living in collective shelters are in more dire need of
humanitarian support compared to those living in proper housing. The collective shelters are
generally mosques, community centers, wedding halls, unfinished constructions and barns and other

4
such buildings. In addition to shelter, Syrian households living in these buildings must cope with
severe inadequacies in sanitation facilities.
Most affected areas
Except in Samandağ, border districts are hosting higher numbers of refugees compared to other
districts of Hatay. While Reyhanli is hosting the highest number of refugees among all districts in
Hatay, the others are being equally affected by the displacement crisis.
The affected sectors do not differ per district.
Most affected sectors
Syrian refugees are dependent on support from the local population, aid agencies and government
institutions to cover their basic daily needs. Due to displacement, most refugees either do not have
any regular income or have very limited resources, as a result of which food security and hygiene are
high concerns.
Improved shelter and sanitation facilities for those living in collective shelters is noted as another
affected sector due to the substandard living conditions in these shelters.
Similarly, health is a concern for many Syrians due to limited information on available services and
limited household income. Refugees have openly expressed the need for mental health support
along with an awareness of the services and legal rights they are entitled to in Turkey.
The i terruptio of their childre ’s education is another area of concern for many Syrian families.
Key priorities identified by the refugees are as follows:
- Income generation to access food
- Healthcare services and supplies
- Mental health support
- Education continuity
Key recommendations
- A detailed profiling exercise with the objectives of uncovering the immediate to mid-term needs
of the conflict-affected Syrian population in Turkey.
- Psychosocial services for those psychologically affected by the conflict
- Income support for those struggling to cover their daily basic needs
- Improvement and/or increasing the number of sanitation facilities in collective shelters
- Enabling healthcare services for Syrian refugees living outside of the camps
- Referral system for those in need of services provided by other agencies

5
- Peace building activities between the host community and refugees
- Enabling education services for Syrian refugee children living outside the camps
BACKGROUND
Since April 2011, Syrians have been crossing the border into Turkey due to internal conflict and
violence in their country. Syrian refugees officially registered by the Turkish government are being
settled into camps along the border provinces in Southern Turkey. For more than 180,000 Syrians
registered by the Turkish authorities, basic needs and services are being provided by the Disaster and
Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) and the Turkish Red Crescent.
A large number of Syrian refugees are also found outside the camps, either with host families or in
rented housing facilities mostly i the order villages a d cities of Hatay ilis Şa lıurfa, and
Gaziantep. There is no precise data on the number of unregistered Syrian refugees staying out of the
camps although various sources estimate the figure to be well over 100,000. Because of the
increasing violence in Syria, the number of Syrians entering Turkey has been expanding continusouly
since the summer of 2012. These unregistered Syrians settled outside the refugee camps are not
supported by the Turkish government and continue to survive on their own means and limited
resources, with some support from relatives and host families who have opened up their homes. In
terms of their legal status, Syrian refugees are under “temporary protectio ” y the urkish
government, the implications of which remain ambiguous.
Given its direct contact with out-of-camp Syrian refugees since September 2012, Support to Life (STL)
has taken the initiative to compile its findings on the situation and needs of unregistred Syrian
households settled in Hatay province of Southern Turkey.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this survey is to get an understanding of the Syrian refugee families in Turkey, an
analysis of their living conditions, and an identification of their basic immediate needs. This report is
available to all aid agencies for the planning of their humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees
residing outside of the camps in Turkey.
METHODOLOGY
The report here is an analysis of primary and secondary data collected over a period of five months,
between October 2012 and February 2013. Being descriptive in nature, this research combines
qualitative and quantitative tools for the collection of data, including two questionnaires, semi-
structured interviews, and direct observations. Along with face-to-face interviews with Syrian
families, STL field teams interviewed Mukhtars, local authorities, host families, local NGOs and other
key resource persons.

6
Figure #2: Map of locations where the questionnaires
were administered
Two questionnaires were used for primary data collection. One, Beneficiary Identification Form, was
a single page questionnaire conducted on 1,024 Syrian families, prepared for beneficiary
ide tificatio for L’s in-kind distributions of relief goods (Appendix #1). The other one, Household
Questionnaire, was a detailed questionnaire prepared with the objective of identifying the
displacement patterns, socio-demographic profiles and basic humanitarian needs of the Syrian
population (Appendix #2). This survey conducted on 114 households covered 159 Syrian families.
Observations of the field teams are also included in the findings presented here.
A bulk of the analysis in this report is based on this detailed household questionnaire. All members of
the STL survey team received an orientation on interviewing techniques as well as sensitivities
related to the political and ethnic situation on the ground. The questionnaire survey was
implemented in both rural and urban areas, reaching out to 14 different settlements in 4 border
districts in Hatay province of Southern Turkey. STL field teams selected areas where the refugee
population was accessible and willing to respond to the questionnaires.
LIMITATIONS
As the exact number of unregistered Syrian refugees is not known, it was not possible to conduct a
structured sampling. This is further complicated by the fact that refugees are highly mobile,
frequently changing locations, resuting in rapid changes in the population figures.
Location Frequency Percent
Altinozu Saribuk 13 11
Antakya 30 26
Baldiran 1 1
Besarslan 6 5
Guvecci 36 32
Hacipasa 9 8
Kavalcik 7 6
Kirikhan 3 3
Merkez Kirikhan 1 1
Reyhanli Kusakli 3 3
Yalankoz Kirikhan 2 2
Yayladag 3 3
Total 114 100
Figure #1: List of locations where the
questionnaires were administered

7
Figure #3: Rural/Urban distribution of
the locations where the questionnaires
were administered
Moreover, some families felt uneasy about being interviewed given the sensitivity of their situation
and their “u official” status i urkey. Some refugees did not feel comfortable sharing information,
for instance statements on adult male household members were not always accurate.
The long data collection period also undermines the accuracy of the priorities and needs identified,
as the context is highly dynamic and rapidly changing.
AREA PROFILE
According to estimations, the unregistered refugee population in Hatay is well over 50,000, in a
province with population of around 1.4 million. Hatay is an entry point for many displaced Syrians
seeking refuge in Turkey, given the relatively easier border crossing through Hatay compared to
other provinces along the border, historical and kinship relations between the host community and
the displaced community, and proximity of Hatay to conflict zones inside Syria.
Those entering Turkey from Hatay province tend to settle in border districts of Yayladagi, Altinozu,
Reyhanli, Kirikhan, Kumlu, Belen and Hassa. Some refugees have also chosen to move to Antakya
city center. The number of refugees in the remaining 5 non-border districts of Hatay is comparably
low.
According to Turkish officials, 46 different types of ammunition have been dropped onto Turkish soil
in the last six months, landing in Altinozu, Reyhanli and Yayladagi districts of Hatay. A recent attack
at Cilvegozu border gate killed 9 people.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Population profile
Through 114 questionnaires to households, the STL assessment team has in fact reached a higher
number of Syrian families. It is important to note that a household is defined as a house and its
occupants being regarded as one unit, while a family is a group of people related to one another by
blood or marriage. Given cases with more than one family per household, the STL survey team has
made contact with a higher number of families compared to households for the purposes of this
survey.
Of the 114 questionnaires in total, 77 (68%) were
administered in rural areas and 37 (32%) in urban
areas.
68%
32%
Rural
Urban

8
The survey found that up to 6 families live in a single household, with most Syrian households
consisting of single families. A single family lives in 73% of the Syrian households interviewed, while
two families are living in 16% of the doors knocked.
The survey revealed that a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 27 people live in the same household,
with an average family size of 5.1. According to data collected from Syrian respondents, most
families are complete with both parents living with the family. The number of males is slightly higher
than the number of females with 49% of the refugee population being female.
Figure #4: Household population distribution by age group and gender
It is shown in the table below that 49% of the Syrian refugee population is children and 74% of the
population is children and female adults.
Figure #5: Household population distribution by age groups
The percentage of households with one or more infant of age 0 to 12 months was 17%. In 9% of the
households surveyed, there was a pregnant woman. In 16% of the households there were
breastfeeding women, adding to a total of 25%. The percentage of households with elderly people
was 12%, while 9% of the households reported having at least one disabled person in the family.

9
Figure #6: Share of pregnant and breastfeeding women
Among the same sample group, the distribution of occupations indicate that a high percentage (44%)
of unskilled workers among the Syrian population fleeing to Turkey. 21% of those interviewed
reported having some sort of income in Turkey, stating either seasonal agricultural work such as
cotton and olive picking, catering work, or craftsmanship such as shoe repair. Of these with some
income in Turkey, 19% earn less than the minimum wage, while 3% earn a minimum wage.
Figure #7: Household population distribution by occupation
The figure below shows that while most families (90%) have fled Syria due to a threat to their lives,
10% have experienced direct loss or injury of family members and 17% of interviewed families have
stated a loss of property back home.
Figure #8: Reason for displacement
Of the interviewed 114 households, 32% stated that they were going back and forth between Syria
and Turkey. Of those that responded affirmatively, 18% stated the conflict/war as their reason for
4%
5%
22%
40%
9%
4%
16%
Public Sector
Private Sector
Qualified Worker
Non Qualified Worker
Housewife
Others
Missing

10
traveling between the two countries, while 8% stated that they were still taking care of their
agricultural land and livestock back home. A further 4% indicated commercial activities, mainly taxi
driving, buying and selling of foodstuffs like sugar and tea, and cement trade. Lastly, 3% of
households have left behind their sick and elderly and mentioned going back and forth to tender for
the family members that remained in Syria.
Figure #9: Reasons for going back and forth between Syria and Turkey
Figure #10: Household population distribution by place of origin
Statistics suggest a correlation between place of origin and displacement area chosen by Syrian
refugees in Turkey. According to the available data, those displaced from Idlib province relocate to
Altinozu district, while those displaced from Latakia relocate to Yayladagi and Syrians displaced from
Aleppo have settled in Kirikhan district.
18%
3%
4%
8%
conflict
funeral or ill
relative
commerce

11
Figure #11: Hometown vs. current displacement place in Turkey
Given this correlation, it is possible to predict the rise and fall in refugee numbers depending on the
area in which violence is worsening inside Syria.
Responses suggest that most refugees sheltering in Hatay province have been displaced from the
Northwestern border provinces of Syria, as seen in the graph below (the darker the color, the higher
number of refugees displaced from that region). However, there are still some refugees moving to
Hatay province from places like Damascus and Homs.
Shelter and Non-Food Items (NFI)
In rural areas, respondents were living mainly in 1-2 storey private houses/shelters made of
traditional construction (adobe, brick, and lath-plaster), while 33% were living in apartment flats,
which were made of stone-brick and reinforced concrete in urban areas.
Figure #12: Types of shelters
Of 159 families interviewed, nearly 80% of them are living on rent, while 20% stated living with host
families, free of charge. Rent prices have increased tremendously in the last several months and it
has become increasingly difficult to find housing in border districts and in the center of Hatay. Those
who cannot manage to find proper housing have chosen to settle in collective shelters which are
usually mosques or local wedding halls.
Frequency Percent
Private House 69 61
Apartment 37 33
Tent 1 1
Animal Barn 1 1
Others 5 4
Missing 1 1
Total 114 100

12
Figure #13: Sheltering terms
STL survey team observed shelters, especially in the rural areas, to be highly deprived. A large
number of refugees are sheltering in abandoned buildings or unfinished constructions, which lack
proper winterization. Many refugees are in need of mattresses and clothing (particularly
underwear), blankets, stoves and other essential goods. Host communities, local NGOs and
initiatives have been distributing clothing and blankets but there are still major gaps due to limited
capacities of the local response.
The fact that over 54% of Syrian families live 5 or more persons in a single room indicate a violation
of privacy and personal space. Percentages of population density in one room, as displayed below, is
proof of the lack of privacy and personal space, which increases risk of physical safety and security as
well as a risk to mental well-being.
Figure #14: Sheltering conditions: number of
person per room
Syrian refugees mentioned other risk factors regarding their shelters. The highest risk was
mentioned as being too close to the border, especially for those Syrians living with their relatives and
host families in border villages of Hatay. Weather related risks, as stated by 27% of the respondents,
are an indication of the poor insulation and quality of shelters occupied by Syrian families.
In terms of shelter and non-food items, the following are priorities identified by the Syrian refugees:
- For those living in collective shelters, better living space and conditions appropriate to family
size, adequately insulation, better privacy and improved sanitation facilities are critical.
- Clothing and underwear, mattresses, blankets and fuel for cooking and heating are the highest
priority in terms of non-food items.
Figure #15: Non Food Items (NFI) needs
37% 40%
14%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1-4 Person5-8 Person 8-14
Person
Missing

13
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)
Water supply, sanitation and hygiene appear to be more of an issue for those living in collective
shelters as sanitary facilities are adequate neither in number nor in quality to meet the needs of
those residing in such buildings. STL survey team observed that increasing the number of sanitation
facilities in collective shelters may prove difficult as most of the buildings have no room for such
additions.
Comparably, in rural areas where there is a lack of sufficient sanitation facilities, open defecation is
practiced by adults and children alike. Open defecation and limited privacy in collective shelters is an
area where improvements needs to be made. It is critical to reveal that 43% of families fear
exposure to animal excreta, while the same percentage of families have cited open defecation as a
serious risk and 38% worry about the lack of garbage collection. Other risks noted include concerns
of the safe disposal of wastewater and solid waste. All these risks indicate a serious lack of adequate
and good quality sanitation and hygiene facilities, especially in collective shelter areas.
Figure #16: Sanitation and hygiene risk factors in the shelter locations
There is a statistically significant relationship between urban residency and existence of a city sewage
system. As families move further away from the city centers, fewer infrastructure is available for the
collection and safe disposal of waste.
A water pipeline was available in 76% of the responders place of accommodation, 5% of the
respondents mentioned that they did not have enough water for drinking and/or daily consumption
purposes as shown below. Observations during the interviews revealed that those who expressed
partial supply of a water main live in rural areas and in private houses or collective shelters.
18%
25%
31%
26%
38%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Open
defecation
Children
Open
Defecation
Waste
Water
Household
Waste
No Waste
Collection
Animal
Excreta

14
Figure #17: Water sources used in the shelter locations
Different types of water sources are available in villages and towns, water supply and quality does
appear to be an issue at this time. The percentage of respondents that reported to have access to
safe water was 83%. Of those respondents, 10% mentioned that they had witnessed diarrhea in the
family along with skin and/or eye infection cases among children in the household. In 89% of the
households, it was mentioned that soap is available, while the interviewers noted that in 26% of the
cases, there was partial evidence of hand washing.
Due to income limitations, refugees find it difficult to purchase hygiene materials. Respondents
mentioning need of hygiene supplies was 98%, with the highest needs mentioned being soap,
shampoo and washing detergent. Considering the high number of women and children in the
households, it is highly probable that the limited expression of need for sanitary towels or baby
diapers/napkins could be linked to culture.
Figure #18: Household population needs for hygiene supplies
The following are the priorities identified by the Syrian refugees:
- Sanitation facilities for collective shelters are identified as top priority
- Refugees underlined the need for personal hygiene items as a priority
74% 70% 71%
22% 19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Soap Sampoo Detergent Sanitary
towel
Napkin

15
Food security, nutrition and livelihoods
A large number of families, 82%, stated that they have access to markets for their basic needs,
mainly food items while only 4% expressed that they did not have any access to such facilities.
Respondents were asked about how many times the family eats per day. Families stated that 66%
had 3 or more meals a day, signalling to a relatively high number of food secure families. However,
considering that 34% of families eat 1-2 meals a day, (including households in which only certain
family members, mostly children, eat regular meals) this points to one third of the Syrian population
living under food-insecure conditions. Many families have told the survey team that they have had
to skip meals in order to feed their children, pregnant and lactating women as well as their elderly,
sick and disabled.
Figure#19: Number of meals per day
When asked about the ingredients of their meals, 51% of families indicated having grains, mostly
wheat on their plates, while 50% mentioned eating dried food such as dried beans and chickpeas.
Only 34% mentioned including vegetables in their meals, while a meagre 3% consume fruits. Some
15% of families reported buying milk and yoghurt mainly for their children, while 34% reported
including meat in their meals. Despite the high number of meals for some families, the quantity and
quality of food and its nutritional value needs to be supported.
Figure #20: Dietary diversity of the meals
In terms of livelihoods, urban areas offer more opportunities to refugees, however, the costs in the
urban areas are higher compared to the rural settlements. Syrian refugees in the rural areas are
believed to have better access to diverse food items (mostly vegetables) but as the access to such
goods are directly linked to income, they are still facing problems of food insecurity.
Although many refugees find daily or short-term jobs to generate some income, the uncertainties
linked to their legal status restrict them from obtaining residence and work permits, resulting in the

16
exploitation of the labor force of Syrian refugees along with promoting child labor in agricultural
fields.
The following are the identified by Syrian refugees as priorities:
- Income is top priority for all interviewed families
- Food items are still a priority due to limited financial resources to access food commodities
- Clarifications on legal status and the right to work
Health
Refugees have restricted access to healthcare services due to limited information on available
services, high costs, transportation, and rejection of refugees in some public medical facilities.
Unregistered Syrian refugees have been rejected by many healthcare service providers in the last
months. However, the position of the Turkish government related to serving Syrian refugees in
public health units is changing.
There are self-established healthcare centers offering services to Syrian refugees but these are
lacking capacity in terms of space, medical equipment, and supplies. Some public and private
hospitals are welcoming Syrian refugees in addition to the self-help healthcare centers, which are
receiving support from aid agencies.
Many refugees cited illnesses as a result of poorly winterized shelters and cold weather conditions,
while the need for psychological support was requested by 7% of the interviewed Syrians. Acquired
data suggests that more than 10% of the interviewed families have one or more family members in
need of healthcare support.
Top priorities in the health sector are identified by Syrian refugees as better access to and knowledge
of healthcare services and access to drugs.
Figure #21: Healthcare: household population distribution according to their assistance needs
Education
Most refugee children have been cut from any kind of education program since their displacement.
STL surveys reveals that 73% of the households interviewed do not send their children to school or
any other education facility. Of those 16% that regularly send their children to school, all were living

17
in urban areas. During interviews with the parents, it became clear that partial attendance in schools
resulted from families being inable to consistently afford the travel costs, while some children lost
interest in school education due to language barriers.
Figure #22: School attendance among the household children
There are self-run education facilities in various districts of Hatay. Capacity, quality, transportation
problems and lack of information on these services mean that only a small portion of the population
benefits from these services. The education facilities in some refugee camps accept children living
outside the camps, however Turkish is the education language in these schools and some refugees
stated there is no sense in sending their children to Turkish schools. STL survey teams have come
across a high number of Syrian teachers willing to become involved in efforts for the education of
Syrian children.
Protection and pyschosocial well-being
The survey has revealed that 7% of Syrians interviewed have reported psychological problems after
having become refugees, however, it should be noted that cultural sensitivities may have kept
certain individuals from reporting pyschologocal distress to the STL survey teams. During the
interviews, families recited nervousness and sensitivity to noise and difficulty falling asleep, along
with many other problems for children such as fear of abandonment, wetting the bed and frequent
crying.
Syrians settled in urban and rural areas are confronted with cramped housing, arbitrarily high rent
prices, and risks of forced expulsion, all of which are distressing for the out-of-camp Syrian refugee
population in Hatay. The reluctance on the part of the Turkish government to recognize the
existence of this group of refugees adds to the lack of access to basic services; all these factors point
to a need for further attention to the protection issues of this group. Many respondents expressed
one of their greatest sources of distress as being the difficulty of getting food, the stress of how
much longer they can sustain their sources of food, constraints on generating income as well as lack
of proper shelter and sanitation facilities.
Another serious source of stress and unease, as voiced by the Syrian refugees, is the uncertainty of
their legal status in Turkey. Of the respondents, 65% expressed that they did not have passports,
16%
5%
73%
6%
Yes
Partly
No
Missing

18
while 18% mentioned having passports that were still valid, and another 10% whose passports had
expired. STL survey team received many questions on what entitlements they had and how they
could claim these rights. Of all respondents, 48% mentioned that they had not been registered by
the Turkish authorities while 39% expressed that they had been registered with the local Muhtar
only.
While 82% of the Syrian respondents expressed that they have been welcomed by the host families
and local community, 5% state otherwise. Reasons for staying outside the camps gives further clues
related to risks identified by this Syrian refugee population, as shown below.
More than 40% of the refugees stated bad living conditions in the camps as their main reason for
avoiding settlement there. This is followed by movement restrictions on Syrian refugees in and out
of the camps.
Frequency Percentage
Bad conditions in the camps 50 44%
No free entry and exit 21 18%
Physical safety and security 10 9%
Other 17 15%
Missing 16 14%
Total 114 100%
Figure #23: Reasons for settling outside the camps
The “ ad co ditio s”cited in the camps and mentioned by 44% of the respondents, includes issues of
overcrowdedness, queuing up for goods and services, poor quality infrastructure, flooding risk and
others. Of those interviewed families, 18% have indicated restricted mobility as a reason for staying
out of the camps, given the agricultrual and commercial activity still carried out by some families,
along with family members having remained back in Syria. This figure coincides with the percentage
of families that have declared going back and forth between Turkey and Syria.
Problems related to physical safety and security have been given by 9% of respondents as a reason
for choosing to stay outside the camps. Informal conversations with the Syrians interviewed led to
discussions regarding tension linked to ethnic identity as well as sexual abuse. The 15% of
respondents who had other reasons for staying outside the camps mentioned the comfort of living
with relatives and friends, as well as the fact that there were no places available had they chosen to
stay in the camps. STL staff have increasingly come across Syrian refugee families who are
considering moving to the camps but are unable to do so given the limited camp of the camps to
host all registered Syrians.
Of all respondents, 7% expressed that they did not have any hope to return to their homeland,
creating additional psychological stress for the Syrian refugee families. More than 40% of
interviewed refugees stated that they hope to return to Syria, while 20% said they would return if
the current regime falls. More than 10% suggested they would go back as soon as peace prevails.

19
Figure #24: Future expectations of the refugees
Identified priorities by Syrian refugees for psychological well-being are as follows:
- Mental support for those with traumas related to the war in Syrian is a high priority for a large
number of refugee families
- Information on their legal status and rights is essential
RECOMMENDATIONS
The data presented in this report was collected and compiled to given an insight on the situation of
out-of-camp Syrian population in Hatay and to bring recommendations for improving the living
conditions of Syrian refugees in Turkey. The recommendations presented here are directed to the
provincial directorates of the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) of the Turkish
government, local government authorities, and civil society organizations, both national and
international.
Shelter and Non-Food Items (NFI)
With nearly 80% of the population living in rented housing and many families struggling to pay
increasing rents, rental assistance programs could greatly benefit a large number of families.
Additionally, taking into consideration the statistics on average family size per household, the need
for finding additional housing options is clearly also a great need.
As the most affected group of Syrian refugees, for those living in collective shelters, better living
space and conditions appropriate to family size, adequately insulation, better privacy and improved
sanitation facilities are critical.
In terms of non-food items, Syrian refugees have voiced the need for clothing and underwear,
mattresses, blankets, kitchen utensil sets and fuel for cooking and heating as the highest priority.
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)
With concerns like exposure to animal excreta, open defecation and lack of garbage collection and
considering that the numbers of out-of-camp refugees is rapidly increasing, concerns of better water
supply, sanitary facilities and hygiene will only continue to mount. Indicators of partial hand washing

20
were indentified by STL teams to be occurring in 23% of the families and 98% of respondents
mentioned the need for hygiene supplies such as soap, shampoo and washing detergent.
Improving existing sanitation facilities and increasing the number of sanitation facilities in collective
shelters is a key recommendation while also continuing provision of consumable hygiene materials,
both personal and communal.
Food security, nutrition and livelihoods
STL survey signals the need to improve access to a greater variety and quantity of foodstuffs. With
one third of the Syrian population living under food-insecure conditions, commodity vouchers for
work programs or in-kind food distributions could greatly benefit the Syrian refugee population in
Hatay.
Sample menus for pregnant, breastfeeding women and babies would be useful and informative in
addition to an education program concerning malnutrition issues should be prepared. More
research is also needed on dietary diversity but clearly the quantity and quality of food and its
nutritional value needs to be supported.
Income generaion is identified by almost all interviewed Syrian refugees as a top priority.
Clarifications on the legal status of Syrian refugees and their right to re ide and work in Turkey would
greatly benefit their ability to earn an income for improved access to the most essential goods of
food and hygiene.
Health
New born babies, pregnant and lactating women are groups that need special attention among the
Syrian refugee population. Figures indicate that almost all mothers with children under age one are
breastfeeding their children. Pregnant women have no plans as to where they will be giving birth, as
many have not yet seen a doctor for a medical examination.
Given this situation, maternal and child health care arise as critical issues, especially vaccination of
infants and young children. Aid agencies working or planning to work in the region in sensitizing and
providing trainings on maternal and child health would greatly benefit the Syrian refugee population.
Given the lack of knowledge on the medical services available to the refugee population, Syrians
need to be directed to these facilities and services, which can be done with the establishment of
referral systems. Income support would ease difficulties in transportation to health units and access
to drugs and medication. Furthermore, access to healthcare services in public hospitals should be
advocated.

21
Education
In many cases, partial attendance to school results from Syrian families being unable to consistently
afford to pay for the travel costs, while some children lose interest in school education due to
language barriers. It is recommended that informal community based schools with Syrian teachers
are established and existing schools are supported. Additionally, there is a need for pre-school
education and child friendly spaces.
The Minumum Standards: Preparedness, Response and Recovery Handbook (INEE MS) resource is
available in both Turkish and Arabic, and could prove immensely helpful with regards to the
education related concerns of out-of-camp and in-camp Syrian refugees in Hatay.
Protection and psychosocial well-being
A variety of problems were reported as points of psychological stress for Syrian family members
residing in Hatay. Cramped housing, risks of forced expulsion, difficulty getting food, constraints on
generating income and a lack of proper shelter and sanitation facilities also contribute to the mental
distress of the Syrian refugee population.
In this regard, psychological support services such as neighbor-to-neighbor programs could be highly
beneficial as a community based approach to psychosocial care for the trauma affected population.
Psychosocial support and psychological counseling for heavy cases of post-trauma stress disorder
and further research into sex abd gender based violence, along with cases of child soldiers would also
help in identifying risks and enabling the development of programs to combat these risks.
Another serious source of stress and unease, as voiced by the respondents, is the uncertainty of their
legal status in Turkey. Particularly in urban areas, Syrians are trying to find solutions regarding their
registration in Turkey, passport problems and many other related issues. Legal counseling and/or
exposition and directives to civil society organizations and legal institutions is crucial.

22
CONCLUSIONS
With months and years in Turkey as a refugee, many Syrians living outside the camps are depleting
their resources and becoming more dependent on aid agencies. With the steady increase in the
numbers of Syrian refugees in Turkey, responding to the needs outlined in this survey report will only
become more imperative in the coming months.
The lack of a structured coordination among the various aid agencies, local authorities and other
organizations present on the ground in Hatay results in the poor communication of gaps and needs.
STL has observed in some provinces the provincial Governorate taking the lead in establishing
coordination and communication mechanisms. Similar arrangements should be made possible by
and for those working in Hatay province to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the aid
provided to Syrian refugees outside the camps.
Despite the presence of a high number of international NGOs on the ground in Turkey, the
ambiguous legal framework for these organizations is still making it difficult for aid agencies to plan
their humanitarian assistance within and through Turkey.

23
APPENDIX #1: SITUATION and NEEDS ASSESMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
(conducted on 159 families in 114 households)
Interviewer Name & Surname:
1. Respondent Name & Surname:
2. Date:
3. Duration (minutes):
4. Location:
5. Address (Cleary specify):
6. Contact Person (if necessary):
7. Contact Person Phone # ( if necessary):
(headman, landlord, neighbour, etc.)
Introduction Sentence (for interviewer):
Good day! My name is ________. We are here on behalf of Hayata Destek Dernegi. We are aware
that you, your family, your friends are in troubled days. We are sorry for the conflict situation in your
country.
We would like to interview with you, which will lasted around 40 minutes. I am sorry that I do not
know your language. Our translator (tra slator’s ame) will help us during our meeting.
We will e aski g you several questio s for u dersta di g your a d your family mem er’s situatio
regarding shelter and non-food materials, wat-san facilities, health and psychological situation. This
info will be used for planning humanitarian aid service improvements or further studies of services.
We do not use the information about you as giving your name and contact info. Individually gathered
info will be evaluated all together. Universities, other humanitarian aid organisations, researchers
may use the information you provide us.
You may refuse to answer any question or choose to stop the interview at any time. However, we
hope you will collaborate with us on this study.
Do you have any questions about the study? Do I have your agreement to proceed?
Thanks.

24
1. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA & SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE
Family Profile
1. Number of families/ family members settled in the shelter/house?
1. Families # :
2. Please specify the family members
2.1
Male/
Female
2.2
Pregna
nt
2.3 Breast
Feeding
2.4
Disabled
1.hearing
2. seeing
4.physical
5. mental
disabled
2.5
Profession
in Syria ?
1. Public
2. Private
3. Qualified worker
4. Housewife
5. Non qualified worker
6. Unemployed
7. ( please specify)
2.6
Any income
work in Turkey
(Specify)
If not, go to
Q4.
2.7
Special Notes
1.New born baby ( 0-6)months
2. Baby (7-11) months
3. Small Children (1-4)
4. Children 5-18
5. Adult 19-64
6. Elder 65+

3. If, family has any income; total income of family in Turkey (monthly)?
3.1 Less than Minimum Wage 3.2 Minimum Wage 3.3 Over than Minimum Wage
4. Do you have any aid from any organization? (dry food, hygiene package, etc.)
4.1 Yes if yes please mark : . co ti uous How ma y times? ….. 2. disco ti uous
4.2 No
5. When did you leave Syria?
5.1
less than two weeks
5.2
1 -3 months
5.3
4-6 months
5.4
7-12 months
5.5
over 1,5 years
6. What was your reason for leaving Syria?
6.1 loss/ injury of
family members
6.2 thread of
life(conflict)
6.3 loss of
property (house, workplace,
job, etc.)
6.4
Others (please specify)
7. Do you or your family members have a chance go back and forth between Syria and Turkey?
1. No
2. Yes
7.1 If Yes, please specify the reason:
7.1.2 trade
(buying/selling,
transportation, etc.)
7.1.3 check the
house/property
7.1.4. visit family members
in Syria
(sick, elder, disabled, etc.)
7.1.5. others
(please specify)…
(observe the conflict, etc)
2. SHELTER & NFIs
1. Type of shelter?
1. 1 private
house
1.2 apartment 1.3. tent 1.4. animal
barn
1.5. others
(please specify)…
2. Ownership of the shelter (staying situation)?
2.1.Staying with
host family
(free of charge)
2.2.Staying
with host
family (with
charge)
2.3. Tenant 2.4.
Private house,
given by a
relative.
2.5.
Landlord
2.6.others
(please
specify)…
3. Determine the population density in one room in the shelter?
3.1. Family Members # in one room (average):
4. Identify risk factors?

26
4.1. rain 4.2.extreme
temperatures
4.3.
topog
raphy
4.4. soil
conditions
4.5.drainage
contamination
4.6. close
to the
border
4.7. others
(please specify)…
5. Potential problems (dispossess from the house) related to shelter / landlord, host family?
1. No
2. Yes
3. May be
5. f Yes or May e please explai ; depe ds o …
6. Potential security threats?
1. No
2. Yes
3. May be
6.1 If Yes or May be please explain; how to whom etc …
7. Need for shelter materials and NFIs.
1. No
2. Yes
3. May be
. f Yes or May e please explai …
8. NFIs: Availability and access to:
Need of NFIs Yes Partly No
1. Clothing (reflect on the prevailing climatic conditions).
2. Mats, blankets.
3. WASH NFI (shampoo, soap, cleaning materials).
4. Kitchen utensils (pots, pans, etc.).
5. Cooking and heating fuel (which type of fuel?)
6. Other NFI needs (bednets, etc.)?
3. WASH
Environmental health conditions – please look for signs first, if necessary get information from
the headman, etc. or fill in below items.
1. Unsafe hygiene and weak/absence of sanitation infrastructure practices?
3.1.
open
defecation
3.2. children
open
defecation
3.3.
waste
water/
drainage
3. 4
solid
waste
3.5
lack of
waste
collection
3.6.
animal
excreta
3.7.
medical/
industrial
waste
3.8.
others,
(please
specify)…
2. Disease transmitting vectors.
1. Mosquitos
2. Houseflies
4. Rodents
5. Others (please specify)

27
3. The exist system for the waste contained and disposed of?
3.1. sewage system
(municipality)
3.2. septic tanks 3.2. drilling &
burry
3.3. others,
(please specify)…
4. Is the continuous city water line available at the shelter?
1.Yes
2.No
4.1 If Yes, please specify; what is the water supply?
4.1.1. the distribution line
from a village tanker
4.1.2. well water 4.1.3. cistern 4.1.4. others,
(please specify)…
5. Is the quantity of water enough for using and drinking for each family member?
1. Yes
2. Partly
3. No
5.1 If No, please write down that how the water quantities are not enough for using and
drinking? (Please write down the respondent description sentence as it is)
5.1.1 for drinking 5.1.2. for using
6. Is the water safe for drinking and using?
1. Yes
2. No
7. Please check these in order to understand the contamination of water?
7.1 is there any diarrhea ( frequently
occurred cases)?
7.2 Is the water clear/ brilliant display?
8. Are there any children with diarrhea and/or skin and eye infection?
1.Yes
2.No
8.1 If yes,
please specify the
number of children in HH with
1.Diarrhea_#
2.Skin infection_#

28
diarrhea and/or skin and eye
infection in the past 7-8 days?
3.Eye infection_#
9. Is soap readily available?
1. Yes
2. Partly
3. No
10. Please check the hygiene practices: Evidence of hand washing practice and use of soap?
(evidences e.g.: appearance of nails, general appearance from top to the head, smell of
his/her, etc.)
1. Yes
2. Partly
3. No
11. Need for basic hygienic/cleaning supplies?
1. No
2. Yes. If yes,
please explai …
1.
2.
3.
4.
4. FOOD & NUTRITION
1. Is there access to markets for buying some food?
1. Yes
2. Partly
3. No
2. Do people have the equipment/ to prepare meals (water, fuel, cooking utensils, etc.)?
1. Yes
2. Partly
3. No
2.1 If No, please specify Items required for preparing meals?.....
3. Do people have food preparation materials; flour, sugar, salt, dry food, etc.?
1. Yes
2. Partly
3. No
3.1 f No please specify items required for prepari g food…
4. Do people have food storage materials availability?
1. Yes
2. Partly
3. No

29
4.1 f No please specify items required for prepari g food….
5. How many times do family members eat a day?
1. 0
2. some family members partly less eat, vulnerable groups eat
3. 1-2
4. 3-4
5. 5+
6. Please ask for describe the strongest/ proper meal consist of as an example?
Please write down :
6.1
grain, wheat
( bread,
cookies, etc.)
6.2
dryfood
( chickpea, dry
bean, broad
bean
6.3
vegetable
6.4
fruit
6.5
milk,
yogurt
6.6
meat
6.7 Others
(please
specify)…
5. HEALTH
1. Any specific health problems among the family members AFTER coming to Turkey?
2. Any higher number than usual of the following symptoms:
1. diarrhea
2. high fever
3. coughing
4. skin problems
5. vomiting
6. loss of consciousness
3. Access to medical services- any need of these?
1. No
2. Yes
. f Yes please specify; where/ how…
6. PROTECTION
1. Any specific violence did you come across AFTER coming to Turkey?
2. Are there a y security threats? Please specify…
3. What are the mai copi g strategies of the refugees? Please specify…
4. Do the children in the family attend school?
1. Yes
2. Partly
3. No
5. Have you ever been formally checked with the Turkish police/ gendarme/ etc?

30
1. Yes
2. No
5. f Yes please specify…
6. Are you facing directly any problems with the authorities or other groups?
1. Yes
2. No
6. f Yes please specify…
7. How has the host community reacted to your arrival? Please specify?
7. GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. Do you have any hope to get back to your home/town in Syria?
1. No
2. Yes
. f Yes Please specify: depe ds o …..
2. What reasons do you prefer to stay outside of the camp?
1. Bad
infrastructure
conditions
2.No free
exit and
entry
3.Sexual
abuse/harassment
4.Security/
ethnicity
5.Others(please
specify)
3. Do you have your passport?
1. No
2. Yes
3.1 If Yes, Is it still in expire date?...
1. No
2. Yes
4. Do you have any ID card?
Are you registered with the Turkish authorities?
1. No
2. Yes
5.1 If No, please specify, what is the reason?.....
6. What do you think that you would come across with in near future?
Relief Package 1. Yes 2. No
Thank you for your cooperation.
Interviewer evaluation:

31
APPENDIX #2: BENEFICIARY IDENTIFICATION FORM
(conducted on 1,024 households)
Location / Date:
Interviewer:
1.Respondant Name (if willing to provide) Address (if willing to provide)
Respondant Phone (if willing to provide)
Hometown Date of entry to Turkey
Contact Name Contact Phone
3. Winterization
( ) Need for winter clothes? ( ) Need for carpets?
( ) Need for a stove? ( ) Need for bed/matress?
( ) Is there a hole for stove? ( ) Need for blankets?
4. Type of Shelter :
( ) Need for kitchen utensils?
5. Education # School-aged children
2. Families # Family members #
M F
Disabled ( ) Pregnant
( ) Breast feeding
( ) Medical Assistance
0-5
6-18
18-65
65 +

32
( ) Are they going to school? ( ) Payment for school?
6.Priority ) stove ( ) winter clothes ( ) others
( ) carpet ( ) mattress

STL Needs Analysis Report on Syrian Refugees in Hatay 28 March 2013

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to STL Needs Analysis Report on Syrian Refugees in Hatay 28 March 2013

Similar to STL Needs Analysis Report on Syrian Refugees in Hatay 28 March 2013 (20)

More from Zeynep M. Turkmen Sanduvac_ztscompany

More from Zeynep M. Turkmen Sanduvac_ztscompany (6)

STL Needs Analysis Report on Syrian Refugees in Hatay 28 March 2013