MULTI SECTORAL NEEDS

ASSESSMENT IN HOST COMMUNITIES

– Preliminary findings

OBJECTIVE

General Objective:

To inform evidence-based strategic planning of humanitarian response activities by the

ISCG, sectors, and sector partners, through the provision of up-to-date, relevant and

comparable information on the multi-sectoral needs of host community populations

across areas hosting refugees in Cox’s Bazar District, Bangladesh.

Specific Objective(s):

1. Provide a comprehensive evidence base of multi-sectoral needs among host

community populations, including:

• Comparison between affected Unions and Upazilas

• Comparison at Union level between host community populations directly

and indirectly affected by the refugee influx

2. Provide a common dataset to inform reporting on 2018 JRP and development of

2019 sector strategies.

METHODOLOGY

Design: Indicators selected by sectors, reviewed and refined by

REACH with support from NPM/ACAPS.

Target population: All Bangladeshi communities within Teknaf and

Ukhiya Upazilas.

Household survey approach:

• Stratified random sample producing data generalisable to the

population of each Union at 95% confidence level and 6% margin

of error, and of each Upazila at 95% confidence level and 3%

margin of error

• Approximately 262 interviews per union, total 2873.

• Aimed for 50/50 balance between male and female respondents

• Sample designed to allow correlation of key findings according to

distance from camp

Data collection team:

• 38 REACH enumerators and 21 NPM enumerators conducted

the surveys.

• Male enumerators surveyed male respondents and females

surveyed female respondents.

METHODOLOGY

The following sectors were covered in the assessment:

• WASH

• Education

• Health

• Nutrition

• Protection

• Shelter NFI

• Food Security Livelihoods

• Communication with communities

METADATA / BIODATARespondent gender

Gender of household head

51%

49%

Ukhiya

Female Male

58%

42%

Teknaf

Female Male

55%

45%

Total

Female Male

14% 17% 16%

86% 83% 84%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Female Male

Age and gender composition of surveyed households

• Average age of respondents was 36.6 in Teknaf years and 37.2

years in Ukhiya

• Average household size is 5.7 in Teknaf and 5.5 in Ukhiya.

• 25% lactating women and 7% pregnant women.

Males Females

4% Aged 60+ 2%

16% Aged 25-59 17%

7% Aged 18-24 8%

8% Aged 12-17 8%

10% Aged 5-11 9%

6% Aged 0-4 5%

WASH – Water

Of households reporting access to an improved drinking water

source, % that report it was reliable*

INDICATOR: % of households with access to improved reliable drinking water source

Only 1% in Teknaf and 0% in Ukhiya reported having access to

unimproved source of water: surface water, unprotected dugwell and

unprotected springwell.

2% in Teknaf Sadar reported using surface water, 1% in Whykong and

Teknaf Paurashabha

Water source Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Tubewells / borehole /

hand pump89% 83% 86%

Piped water tap /

tapstand into settlement

site

11% 12% 11%

Protected dug well 0% 4% 2%

86% 87% 86%

11% 11% 11%

3% 2% 3%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Always/year-round Intermitently (predictable) Intermitently (unpredictable)

% of households by primary water source

* This question was only asked to the 99% of respondents who reported improved sources of

water as their primary water source

WASH – Water

* Respondents could select more than one option

INDICATOR: % of households reporting having enough water for

drinking, cooking, washing, and bathing

INDICATOR: % of households having problems related to access to

water

30% of households reported having problems collecting water, (29% in

Teknaf and 32% in Ukhiya)

79%

21%

Ukhiya

Yes No

72%

15%

6% 4% 2% 1%

69%

14%6% 5% 3% 3%

70%

14%

6% 5% 3% 2%

5 minutes 10 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes 30 minutes > 30 minutes

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

82%

18%

Teknaf

Yes No

81%

19%

Total

Yes No

6% in Teknaf and 3% in Ukhiya reported taking 30 and

more than 30 minutes to and from water source.

INDICATOR: Time required for one water collection journey,

including travel in both directions and queuing

% households reporting problems collecting water, by problem*

Problems Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Water source is too far 16% 19% 18%

Path to water source is too steep 6% 6% 6%

The source is available some times of the day 7% 6% 7%

Going to the source/collecting water is

dangerous 3% 4% 4%

Water tastes bad 11% 7% 9%

Water smells bad 6% 3% 4%

Water doesn’t look good 6% 4% 5%

Other 0% 0% 0%

Wash – Water

INDICATOR: % of households who practice water treatment

* Respondents could select more than one option.

10%

90%

Ukhiya

Yes No

15%

85%

Teknaf

Yes No

13%

87%

Total

Yes No

INDICATOR: % of households with soap in the household

74% 72% 73%

23%23% 23%

3% 5% 4%

Teknaf Ukhiya Total

Yes, seen soap Yes, didn’t see soap No

% of households reporting use of different water treatment

practices*

Ukhia Teknaf Total

Aquatabs 0% 1% 0%

PUR sachets 0% 0% 0%

Boiling 1% 1% 1%

Cloth filters 5% 8% 6%

Household filters 4% 6% 5%

Solar Disinfectant 0% 0% 0%

WASH – Sanitation

INDICATOR: % of households who use a functional

family/household latrine

INDICATOR: % of households reporting facing problems with

accessing latrines

* Respondents could select more than one option

88%

89%

89%

10%

8%

9%

2%

3%

2%

Teknaf

Ukhiya

Total

Open Defecation Communal Latrine Household Latrine

30%

70%

Total

Yes No

% of households reporting problems accessing latrines, by

problem*

25%

75%

Teknaf

Yes No

35%

65%

Ukhiya

Yes No

Problems Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Latrine is too far away 4% 4% 4%

Too many people using latrine 10% 8% 9%

Latrine is not clean 11% 9% 10%

Insufficient water at the latrines 3% 5% 4%

Bad smell/many flies 9% 6% 7%

Open defecation around latrine 5% 2% 3%

Not private (i.e. people can see

inside) 13% 7% 9%

No separation between men

and women 4% 4% 4%

Route to the latrine is not safe 3% 1% 2%

Latrine is not safe 14% 9% 11%

No lighting 4% 4% 4%

Other 1% 0% 0%

WASH – Sanitation

INDICATOR: % of households facing environmental sanitation problems

39%

48%

44%

18%

29%

24%

20%

27%

24%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Trash/solid waste Stagnant water Human faeces

% of households reporting visible presence of solid waste, stagnant water or human faeces within 30

metres of their shelter during the 30 days prior to assessment

WASH – Hygiene

INDICATOR: % of households who have knowledge of at least 3 of the 5 critical times of handwashing

58% households in Teknaf and 60% in Ukhiya, respondents were

able to name at least 3 of the 5 critical times for handwashing

• Female respondents in Teknaf reported before eating, after

defecation and before cooking as the 3 most important times for

hand wash at 55%, 54% and 36 % respectively.

• Male respondents in Teknaf reported before eating, after

defecation and when hands look dirty as the 3 most important

times for hand wash at 39%, 39% and 19% respectively.

• Female respondents in Ukhiya reported before eating, after

defecation and before cooking as the 3 most important times for

hand wash at 44%, 44% and 33 % respectively.

• Male respondent in Ukhiya reported before eating, after

defecation and when hands look dirty as the 3 most important

times for hand wash at 48%, 47% and 27% respectively.

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Critical times

Before eating 93% 94% 93%

Before cooking/meal preparation 58% 52% 55%

After defecation 91% 93% 92%

Before breastfeeding 12% 10% 11%

Before feeding children 13% 16% 15%

After handling a child's stool/changing a

nappy/ cleaning a child's bottom14% 17% 16%

Other times

Before prayer 43% 32% 37%

When hands look dirty 50% 37% 43%

When hands feel dirty 24% 17% 20%

Don’t know/ prefer not to say 0% 1% 1%

% of households where respondent named different handwashing

times*

WASH– Hygiene

^ Respondents could select more than one option

INDICATOR: % of households reporting women facing problems with accessing menstrual hygiene materials*

26%

70%

4%

Teknaf

Yes No No consent

28%

65%

7%

Ukhiya

27%

68%

5%

Total% of households reporting problems accessing menstrual hygiene

material, by problem^

* Questions on menstrual hygiene management were only asked of

female respondents, by female enumerators. Respondents were asked

for consent prior to discussing this topic, with 5% not providing consent. A

total of 1533 respondents provided answers for this section.

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Not enough available in market 4% 5% 4%

Preferred type not available 4% 4% 4%

Too expensive 19% 18% 19%

Other needs are prioritized 17% 15% 16%

Other 0% 0% 0%

Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer 0% 0% 0%

EDUCATIONINDICATOR: % of children, by highest grade achieved, by gender

Males Females

65% Overall 72%

72% Ukhiya 83%

59% Teknaf 64%

Males Females

16% Overall 13%

19% Ukhiya 18%

14% Teknaf 8%

% of individuals aged 12-24 reported to have completed primary school (graduated

from grade 5)

% of individuals aged 18-24 reported to have completed secondary school (graduated

from grade 12)

EDUCATION

* Formal education includes government-run schools, Aliah madrassahs (madrassahs teaching government-certified curriculum), and private schools.

^ Respondents were asked if each child had attended formal education during the 2018 academic year.

Males Females

65%

Aged 5-11

71%

72% 79%

61% 65%

60%

Aged 12-17

65%

60% 69%

60% 62%

23%

Aged 18-24

19%

18% 20%

27% 19%

⬛ Overall

⬛ Ukhiya

⬛ Teknaf

INDICATOR: % of children currently attending formal education, by age and gender*^

EDUCATION

* Nonformal education includes NGO schools, madrassahs other than Aliah madrassahs (and hence not government certified), and vocational training

courses.

^ Respondents were asked if each child had attended nonformal education during the 2018 academic year.

Males Females

22%

Aged 5-11

23%

21% 19%

13% 25%

7%

Aged 12-17

6%

5% 4%

9% 7%

2%

Aged 18-24

2%

1% 3%

3% 1%

⬛ Overall

⬛ Ukhiya

⬛ Teknaf

INDICATOR: % of children who report attending nonformal education, by age and gender*^

EDUCATION

* Questions were only asked if respondent households contained boys/girls of primary school age (aged 5-11)

^ Respondents could select more than one option

% of households reporting barriers to sending boys to primary

school*

% of households reporting barriers to sending girls to primary

school*

14%

86%

Ukhiya

Yes No

13%

87%

Teknaf

Yes No

16%

84%

Ukhiya

Yes No

14%

86%

Teknaf

Yes No

14%

86%

Total

Yes No

15%

85%

Total

Yes No

INDICATOR: % of households reporting barriers in accessing education, by age and gender

% of households reporting barriers to sending boys and girls to primary

to school, by barrier*^

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Gender Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Facilities are too far 12% 12% 8% 10% 10% 11%

Safety concerns at or on the

way to facilities 7% 7% 5% 7% 6% 7%

Services are too expensive 4% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6%

Services are overcrowded 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Staff are insufficient or poor

quality 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Facilities do not have adequate

infrastructure 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Facilities lack adequate

materials 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Users face discrimination or

bad behavior from service staff 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Children are needed to support

family tasks 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Parents do not believe it is

appropriate for them to attend 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

EDUCATION

* Questions were only asked if respondent households contained boys/girls of secondary school age (12-17)

^ Respondents could select more than one option

% of households reporting barriers to sending boys to

secondary school*

% of households reporting barriers to sending girls aged to

secondary school*

INDICATOR: % of households reporting barriers in accessing education, by age and gender

% of households reporting barriers to sending girls and boys to

secondary school, by barrier*^

15%

85%

Ukhiya

Yes No

15%

85%

Teknaf

Yes No

19%

81%

Ukhiya

Yes No

16%

84%

Teknaf

Yes No

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Gender Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Facilities are too far 12% 15% 9% 9% 10% 12%

Saftey concerns at or on the

way to facilities 5% 7% 5% 7% 5% 7%

Services are too expensive 6% 11% 11% 10% 9% 10%

Services are overcrowded 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Staff are insufficient or poor

quality 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Facilities do not have

adequate infrastructure 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Facilities lack adequate

materials 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1%

Users face discrimination or

bad behaviour from service

staff 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Children are needed to

support family tasks 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

Parents do not believe it is

appropriate for them to attend 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2%

Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

17%

83%

Total

Yes No

15%

85%

Total

Yes No

EDUCATION

INDICATOR: % of households reporting receiving training on

child rights and the importance of education

4%6%

5%4%6%

5%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Child rights Importance of education

18%

82%

Ukhiya

Yes No

13%

87%

Teknaf

Yes No

15%

85%

Total

Yes No

% of households reporting receiving distributions from formal

schools in the 6 months prior to assessment

Only 5% households in total reported receiving training on child

rights and importance of education in the past 6 months

* Respondents could select more than one option

% of household reporting receiving different materials at

formal learning centres in the 6 months prior to assessment*

Households with children aged 5-11

Households with children aged 12-17

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Health and Hygiene/WASH kit 3% 2% 2%

Winterization kit 1% 2% 1%

School supply- books, stationary,

uniform, food20% 12% 16%

Other 1% 1% 1%

Don’t know 0% 0% 0%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Health and Hygiene/WASH kit3% 1% 2%

Winterization kit 1% 2% 2%

School supply- books, stationary,

uniform, food 19% 12% 15%

Other 1% 1% 1%

Don’t know 0% 0% 0%

HEALTH

INDICATOR: % of households with children under 5 in which all

children under 5 have an immunisation card

91% 89%92%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

INDICATOR: % of households with children under 5 with all children

reported to be sleeping under a mosquito net the night before data

collection

90%87% 89%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

INDICATOR: % of households with individuals with a disability orchronic disease

28%

25%

30%

Overall

Ukhia

Teknaf

HEALTHINDICATOR: % of households with children under 5 reported to have

been ill with diarrhoea in the two weeks prior to data collection

INDICATOR: % of children born in the past year who were

delivered at home

13%

17%

16%

Ukhiya

Teknaf

Total

Of children under 5 with diarrhoea in the last two weeks prior to data

collection, % who received treatment*^

* This question was only asked about the 16% of (n=257) of children who were reported to have been ill with

diarrhoea in the two weeks prior to data collection

^ Respondents could select more than one option

62%68%

53%

TotalTeknafUkhia

87%81% 84%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

INDICATOR: % of pregnant women reported to have attended an

NGO or Government clinic at least once since the start of their

pregnancy to get advice or treatment related to the pregnancy

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Gender of child MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

Yes from a health care

provider 68% 75% 60% 56% 64% 65%

Yes, at home 28% 18% 30% 31% 29% 25%

None 8% 10% 14% 16% 11% 14%

HEALTH

INDICATOR: % of households reporting individuals

with an illness serious enough to require medical

treatment in the 30 days prior to data collection

57%55% 56%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Of individuals who sought treatment, % accessing different treatment sources**^

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

Yes, sought treatment 65% 77% 62% 74% 63% 75%

No, didn’t seek treatment 35% 23% 38% 26% 37% 25%

INDICATOR: Of individuals reporting to have had an illness serious enough to

require medical treatment in the 30 days prior to data collection, % for whom

treatment was sought, by gender*

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

NGO clinic 5% 7% 3% 3% 4% 5%

Government clinic 25% 27% 28% 25% 26% 27%

Private clinic 48% 49% 48% 48% 48% 51%

Pharmacy or drug shop in the

market44% 38% 37% 32% 40% 36%

Traditional healer 3% 1% 0% 4% 2% 3%

* This question was only asked about the 56% of individuals who had been ill

** This question was only asked about individuals who had been ill, sought treatment

^ Respondents could select more than one answer

HEALTH

INDICATOR: % households reporting challenges in

accessing medical facilities

40%42% 41%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Yes

% of households reporting challenges in accessing medical facilities, by

challenge*

* Respondents could select more than one option

Barriers Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Health facilities are too far 32% 34% 33%

Services are infrequent 4% 3% 3%

Treatment unavailable 7% 6% 7%

Services are overcrowded 8% 9% 9%

Staff are insufficient or poor quality 2% 2% 2%

Facilities lack adequate materials (drugs, medical supplies

etc.)

2% 2% 2%

Don't know where to go 0% 0% 0%

Not permitted to go/ safety concerns 0% 1% 1%

Too expensive 21% 23% 22%

Don't trust doctors 1% 0% 1%

Users face discrimination or bad behavior from service

staff

2% 1% 2%

Other 1% 0% 0%

HEALTH

% households with members who have sought health services

from any facilities that was built in response to the Rohingya

influx in 2017

* This question was only asked to the 75% of respondents

who had not attended facilities built for the Rohingya influx

^ Respondents could select more than one option

25% 26% 25%

72% 72% 72%

3% 2% 3%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Yes No Don’t know

% of HH that were visited by community health workers in the 30

days prior to data collection (visitor from health unit)

13% 13% 13%

86% 86% 86%

1% 1% 1%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Yes No Don’t know

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Don’t know about these services 39% 42% 41%

Services are too far 35% 29% 32%

Services are not available to

host community23% 22% 22%

Prefer the services that already

exist41% 36% 39%

Of households not using facilities built for Rohingya influx, %

reporting reasons for non-use*

NUTRITION

* This question was only asked to female respondents, by female enumerators

^ Respondents could select more than one option.

INDICATOR: % of households where women of reproductive age

report awareness of appropriate sources of support for infant and

young child feeding*^

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Doctors 73% 74% 74%

Midwife/ Nurse 22% 17% 19%

Older relatives (grandmother,

mother, mother-in-law)21% 21% 21%

Traditional healer 2% 3% 3%

Other mothers in the neighborhood 8% 5% 6%

Friends 0% 1% 1%

Don’t know 2% 2% 2%

INDICATOR: % of households where all children 0-24 months were

put to the breast within one hour of birth*

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

Within 1 hour 58% 53% 59% 49% 58% 50%

In the first day 33% 39% 33% 39% 33% 39%

After the first day 8% 8% 8% 10% 8% 9%

NOTE: Data on exclusive breastfeeding was collected, but requires

additional processing and cross-checking, and have therefore not been

included in this presentation

Overall, 52% of children aged 0-24 months were reported put to the

breast within one hour of birth. However, there were marked

differences according to gender of the child.

PROTECTIONINDICATOR: % of women between the age of 20-25 who are

married

• 45% of women in Teknaf and 44% in Ukhiya between the age of

20-25 years reported being married

• 18% men in Teknaf and 14% in Ukhiya between the age of 20-25

years reported being married.

29% 30% 30%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

INDICATOR: Of women between the age of 20-24 who are married,

% married before the age of 18

INDICATOR: % households with individuals with a disability or

chronic disease

25%30% 28%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

INDICATOR: % of persons of concern with disabilities who receive

services for their specific needs*

36%43% 40%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

INDICATOR: % of women, girls, youth and adolescents receiving

employability and life skills opportunities

• Only 1% male within the age group 18-24 and 25-59 years

reported attending vocational training in total.

• 0% women in total reported attending any vocational training. * This question was only asked about individuals reported to have a disability or chronic

illness, and phrased as follows: “Is this person currently accessing any treatment or

support for this disability or illness?”

PROTECTIONINDICATOR: % of households by perceived levels of hospitality towards displaced population

* Respondents could select more than one option

20%

13%10%

57%

14% 14% 13%

59%

17%13% 12%

58%

Everyday Once a week Once a month Never

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Type of interaction* Ukhiya Teknaf Total

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

Social interactions (visiting

their house, having meals

together) 3% 2% 5% 7% 4% 4%

Buying goods or services from

them 16% 10% 17% 18% 17% 15%

Selling goods or services to

them 9% 4% 7% 5% 8% 4%

Working for them 5% 2% 5% 3% 5% 2%

Hiring them to work for me 24% 7% 18% 4% 21% 5%

Renting property to them 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Casual interactions (speaking

to strangers on the street) 43% 15% 32% 14% 37% 15%

None 10% 1% 10% 4% 10% 3%

% of households reporting different levels of

interaction with Rohingya refugees

% of households reporting different types of interaction with Rohingya

refugees, by gender of respondent

0%

13%

6%1%

80%

1%

18%

5%1%

75%

0%

16%

5%1%

78%

Very good Good Bad Very bad No relationship

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

% of households reporting having different types of

relationships with Rohingya refugees

PROTECTIONINDICATOR: % of households by perceived levels of hospitality towards displaced population

*Respondents could select more than one option

Reasons for very unhappy, unhappy attitude* Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Competition for services and utilities 72% 72% 72%

Cultural differences 27% 25% 26%

Unfair distribution of support/services 31% 28% 30%

Competition for resources (example: food, firewood) 65% 60% 62%

Competition for jobs 51% 40% 45%

Threat of crime 63% 52% 57%

Other 2% 0% 1%

Don't know 0% 0% 0%

Prefer not to answer 0% 1% 0%

20%

30%

38%

12%

0%

14%

30%

40%

16%

0%

17%

30%

40%

13%

0%

Very unhappy Unhappy Neither happy orunhappy

Happy Very happy

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

% of households reporting different attitudes to the

presence of Rohingya refugees in their communities

Of households who reported being unhappy or very unhappy with

the presence of Rohingya refugees in their communities, % who

gave different reasons

PROTECTION

INDICATOR: % of households reporting the presence of community-

based protection mechanisms*

* Respondents could select more than one option

88%85% 86%

12%14% 13%

0% 1% 1%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Yes No Don’t know/Prefer not to answer

INDICATOR: % of households reporting feeling secure in their

current location

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Health 17% 18% 18%

Education 13% 18% 16%

Safety and Security 9% 17% 14%

Preparing and responding

to natural disasters9% 15% 13%

Supporting people with

disabilities5% 5% 5%

Protecting children 4% 4% 4%

None 66% 51% 61%

Other 2% 4% 3%

Question: Are you aware of any groups or committees of community

members in your location that are working on any of the following issues?

PROTECTION – Child ProtectionINDICATOR: % of households reporting the presence of at-risk children

Households were deemed to contain at-risk children if they reported

the presence of at least one child that was separated,

unaccompanied, at risk of early marriage, or involved in child labour.

For separated and unaccompanied children, respondents were

asked if any new members under the age of 18 had joined the

household in the past 6 months (excluding births and marriages), and

if so what their relationship to the head of household was. If children

were related to the head of the household, they were categorised as

separated; if not, they were categorised as unaccompanied.

For children at risk of early marriage, respondents were asked if

there was anybody in the household under the age of 18 who was

married or about to get married.

15%

2%

0%

5%

9%

14%

1%

0%

4%

8%

17%

2%

0%

6%

10%

At-risk children(any)

Separated children Unaccompaniedchildren

Children at risk ofearly marriage

Children involvedin child labour

Total Ukhia Teknaf

PROTECTION – Child ProtectionINDICATOR: % of households reporting presence of safety risks to boys and girls in their communities*

Risk Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Violence within home 10% 5% 8% 6% 9% 5%

Violence in the community 20% 6% 18% 4% 19% 5%

Child labour 26% 2% 22% 2% 24% 2%

Child marriage 10% 44% 9% 48% 10% 46%

Risk of recruitment by armed group/ forces 22% 1% 24% 2% 23% 2%

Risk of kidnapping 18% 33% 23% 36% 21% 35%

Risk of detention 19% 5% 27% 6% 23% 6%

Risk of sexual abuse/ violence 2% 40% 1% 43% 2% 42%

Psychological distress or trauma 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10%

Lack of registration of newborn babies 7% 4% 7% 5% 7% 4%

Natural disasters or hazards 8% 4% 7% 4% 7% 4%

Don't know / no answer 31% 32% 28% 26% 30% 29%

Other 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2%

* Respondents could select up to three options

PROTECTION – Child ProtectionINDICATOR: % of households who report the presence of children exhibiting behavioral changes that relate to

symptoms of distress in the past 30 days*^

Child Distress Symptoms Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Withdrawn from family and friends 3% 3% 3%

Angry or aggressive outbursts 6% 8% 7%

Changes in appetite or eating habits 10% 9% 10%

Headaches 18% 16% 17%

New or recurrent bedwetting. 7% 8% 8%

Nightmares or sleep disturbances 11% 14% 12%

Upset stomach or vague stomach pain. 10% 12% 11%

New or recurring fears (fear of the dark, fear of being alone, fear of strangers) 3% 3% 3%

Clinging, unwilling to let you out of sight 3% 3% 3%

Excessive crying 4% 7% 6%

Going back to behaviours present when a younger age 1% 2% 2%

Startle easily 4% 9% 7%

Substance abuse 3% 3% 3%

None 57% 65% 61%

* Respondents could select more than one option

^ Options were read out to respondents

PROTECTION – Gender-Based Violence*INDICATOR: % of women with final say on specified household

decisions (question only asked to female respondents)

Whether or not to use a method to avoid having children? Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Respondent 10% 9% 10%

Husband/ Partner 30% 29% 30%

Respondent and husband/partner jointly 41% 41% 41%

Someone else 0% 0% 0%

Respondent and someone else jointly 0% 0% 0%

Decision not made/ Not applicable 13% 16% 14%

INDICATOR: % of women who report they are allowed to move freely

to specified places (question only asked to female respondents)

Market

Health Center

Neighbours

home

Whether or not you should work to earn money? Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Respondent 10% 8% 9%

Husband/ Partner 41% 44% 43%

Respondent and husband/partner jointly 24% 21% 22%

Someone else 1% 1% 2%

Respondent and someone else jointly 1% 4% 3%

Decision not made/ Not applicable 16% 18% 17%

16%

50%

29%

5%Total

14%

51%

31%

4%

Teknaf

Alone Not Alone Never No consent

18%

48%

27%

7%

Ukhiya

27%

63%

3%7%

21%

73%

3% 4%

24%

68%

3% 5%

51%37%

5%7%

55%38%

3% 4%

53%38%

4% 5%

* Questions on GBV were only asked of female respondents, by female

enumerators. Respondents were asked for consent prior to discussing

this topic, with 5% not providing consent. A total of 1533 respondents

provided answers for this section.

PROTECTION – Gender-Based ViolenceINDICATOR: % of women that can identify a person to depend on

for specified help (question only asked to female respondents)INDICATOR: % women that report controlling the money needed to

buy specified items (question only asked to female respondents)

74%

18%

7%

Ukhiya

71%

24%

4%

Teknaf

Yes No No consent

73%

21%

5%

Total

Give you shelter for a few nights if you need it?

74%

18%

7%

Ukhiya

71%

24%

4%Teknaf

Yes No No consent

73%

21%

5%

Total

Give you financial support if you need it?

Items Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Yes NoDon’t

buyYes No

Don’t

buyYes No

Don’t

buy

Vegetables or

fruits 40% 37% 16% 48% 32% 16% 44% 34% 16%

Clothes for

yourself 35% 48% 10% 40% 46% 11% 38% 47% 10%

Any kind of

medicine for

yourself

33% 45% 15% 37% 47% 12% 35% 46% 14%

Toiletries for

yourself like

(shampoo,

soap etc)

33% 44% 16% 38% 48% 16% 35% 45% 16%

PROTECTION – Gender-Based ViolenceINDICATOR: % of men with specified attitude on gender roles in family life (question only asked to male respondents)*

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Agree Disagree Depends Agree Disagree Depends Agree Disagree Depends

The important decisions in the family should

be made only by the men of the family. 51% 34% 3% 50% 34% 5% 50% 34% 4%

If the wife is working outside the home, then

the husband should help her with household

chores.

63% 19% 6% 66% 18% 5% 65% 19% 6%

A married woman should be allowed to work

outside the home if she wants to.13% 64% 11% 13% 69% 8% 13% 67% 10%

The wife has a right to express her opinion

even when she disagrees with what her

husband is saying.

9% 58% 21% 14% 54% 22% 12% 56% 21%

A wife should tolerate being beaten by her

husband in order to keep the family together. 32% 44% 13% 34% 47% 9% 33% 46% 11%

It is better to send a son to school than it is to

send a daughter.8% 77% 2% 15% 74% 1% 12% 75% 2%

Women should have a say in important

decisions in the community. 33% 40% 14% 41% 37% 12% 37% 39% 13%

* Questions on gender attitudes were only asked of male respondents, by male enumerators.

Respondents were asked for consent prior to discussing this topic, with 11% not providing

consent. A total of 1146 respondents provided answers for this section.

11%

43%

33%

13%

23% 24%

39%

14%17%

33%36%

14%

Jhuprie Kutcha Semi pucca Pucca

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMSINDICATOR: % of households by shelter type

In Bangladesh, housing is classified into four categories

according to structure type and the materials used:

1) Jhuprie (temporary): are shacks made from branches, bags,

tarpaulin, jute, etc.

2) Kutcha (temporary): made of mud, bamboo, wood and

corrugated iron sheets (CIS) as roofs

3) Semi-pucca (semi-permanent): where walls are made partially

of bricks, floors are made from cement, and roofs from

corrugated iron sheets.

4) Pucca (permanent): with walls of bricks and roofs of concrete.

• Overall, only 9% of households reported receiving training on how to protect

their shelter from floods or wind.

• 8% in Ukhiya and 10% in Teknaf reported receiving training on wind.

• 7% in Ukhiya and 9% in Teknaf reported receiving training on flood.

INDICATOR: % of households that report receiving training on how to

protect their shelter from natural hazards in the 6 months prior to data

collection, by type of hazard (flood/wind)

SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS

INDICATOR: % of households that report owning a solar light

INDICATOR: % of households that report being connected to

the electricity grid

66%

74%71%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Of households that report being connected to the grid, %

reporting average electricity availability per day in the 30 days

prior to data collection*

Primary fuel for cooking Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Firewood 81% 73% 76%

LPG/ Gas cylinder 17% 25% 22%

Biogas 0% 0% 0%

Induction 0% 0% 0%

Dried leaf/ hay 2% 2% 2%

INDICATOR % of households reporting use of different fuels for

cooking

Average electricity availability Ukhiya Teknaf Total

More than 6 hours 84% 75% 79%

Less than 6 hours 15% 25% 21%

Don’t know 1% 0% 0%

24% of households in both Teknaf and Ukhiya reported having a

working solar light.

* This question was only asked to the 71% of respondents who reported their households

were connected to the grid.

SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMSINDICATOR: % of households reporting most urgently needed non-food items, by item*

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Solar lamp 44% 36% 40%

Portable lamp/torch 6% 9% 8%

Kitchen set 42% 43% 43%

Floor/roll mat 10% 12% 11%

Cooking stove 61% 50% 55%

Blanket 39% 49% 44%

Mosquito net 9% 14% 12%

Children clothes 3% 7% 5%

Male clothes 1% 3% 2%

Female clothes 2% 4% 3%

Radio 1% 1% 1%

Umbrella 0% 0% 0%

Fuel 10% 10% 10%

Latrine/bathroom 14% 7% 10%

Tubewell 13% 6% 9%

Other 15% 13% 14%

* Respondents could select up to three options

SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMSINDICATOR: % of households reporting security of tenure

91% 89% 90%

7% 8% 7%2% 3% 3%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Yes, I own the land. No, I don’t own the land. Its co-owned.

78%80% 79%

22%19% 20%

0% 1% 1%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Yes No Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer

% of households reporting ownership of their plot of land or

house

Of households who report ownership of their plot of land or

house, % who report holding the deed to it

SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMSINDICATOR: % of households reporting security of tenure: questions were asked to households that reported not owning land

.

1%

4%

3%

5%5% 5%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Pay rent Hosted

17% 16% 17%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

56%60% 58%

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

% of households who reported renting or being hosted

on their plot of land or house

Of households who report renting (n=90), % who hold a written

agreement with the landlord

Of households who report renting (n=90), % who report being

afraid of eviction

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODSINDICATOR: % of households by primary food source

Reported main source of food Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Own production 4% 5% 4%

Market 96% 92% 94%

Hunting/gathering 0% 2% 1%

Work or barter for food 0% 1% 1%

Months Ukhiya Teknaf Total

1 month 0% 0% 0%

2 months 0% 1% 1%

3 months 3% 1% 2%

4 months 2% 3% 3%

5 months 1% 5% 3%

6 months 33% 19% 25%

7 months 2% 1% 1%

8 months 10% 11% 11%

9 months 12% 5% 8%

10 months 9% 5% 7%

11 months 1% 3% 2%

12 months 27% 46% 37%

INDICATOR: Sustainability of self produced food source

* Question was only asked to respondents who reported own production as primary source

of food

Of households reporting own production as a primary food

source (n=126), % who report their self-produced food can sustain

them for specified periods*

4%

22%

36%

27%

11%5%

22%

33%30%

10%4%

22%

35%29%

10%

Significanlyimproved

Somewhatimproved

Has not changed Somewhatdeterioirated

Significantlydeterioirated

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS

INDICATOR: % Households by reported main source of income

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Non-agricultural casual labour 12% 12% 12%

Agricultural/fishing casual labour 14% 15% 14%

Domestic work 14% 11% 12%

Petty trade / street vending 4% 5% 4%

Small business 28% 28% 28%

Large business 5% 6% 6%

Skilled wage labour 39% 28% 33%

Fishing 3% 17% 11%

Remittances from abroad 10% 13% 12%

Handicrafts/artisanal work 3% 4% 3%

Agricultural production and sales 20% 13% 16%

Livestock rearing 6% 6% 6%

Savings 1% 0% 1%

Other cash assistance 1% 1% 1%

Assistance from relatives and friends 2% 2% 2%

Gathering and selling firewood or other

natural resources 2% 2% 2%

INDICATOR: % of households reporting change in economic status

within the past 12 months

INDICATOR: % of households reporting change in cost of living

within the past 12 months

26%

53%

17%

3% 1%

27%

52%

15%

5%1%

27%

52%

16%

4% 1%

Significanlyincreased

Somewhatincreased

Has not changed Somewhatdecreased

Significantlydecreased

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

FOOD SECURITYINDICATOR: Average household Coping Strategies Index

(CSI) score

Overall average household CSI was 8.8 (out of a possible 56)

• Average CSI in Ukhia was 8.1

• Average CSI in Teknaf was 9.3

This assessment used the “reduced” CSI (rCSI), which measures coping

behaviours in the 7 days prior to the assessment in response to inadequate

food or insufficient money to buy food. Coping behaviours measured by the

rCSI include:

1. Eating less preferred foods

2. Borrowing money/food from friends or relatives

3. Limiting portions at mealtimes

4. Limiting adult food intake

5. Reducing number of meals per day

Overall frequency distribution of household CSI scores

FOOD SECURITY

8% 8% 8%

30%35% 32%

63%57% 60%

Teknaf Ukhia Overall

Poor Borderline Acceptable

INDICATOR: Household Food Consumption Score (FCS)

The frequency weighted diet diversity score or “Food

consumption score” is a score calculated using the

frequency of consumption of 9 different food groups

consumed by a household/individual during the 7

days before the survey.

Based on the score they receive, households are

categorised into food consumption groups indicating

different levels of dietary diversity. Bangladesh-

specific thresholds were used to make these

calculations (guidance note here).

% of households falling into poor, borderline and acceptable food consumption

groups based on household FCS

COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMUNITIES

• 66% of households in Teknaf reported receiving early warning signals

from the mosque loudspeaker, followed by cyclone preparedness

volunteer at 24% and word of mouth 21%.

• 59% of households in Ukhiya reported receiving early warning signals

from mosque loudspeakers, followed by word of mouth at 20% and

television at 21%.

• 77% in Teknaf and 74% in Ukhiya chose mosque loudspeaker as the

most preferred way of receiving early warning sign in future.

*Respondents could select more than one option.

^ Channels reported by less than 2% of households are not presented in this table

INDICATOR: % of households with awareness of early warning

mechanisms

82%

18%

Ukhiya

Yes No

85%

15%

Teknaf

Yes No

84%

16%

Total

Yes No

Information

channelsUkhiya Teknaf Total

TV 29% 24% 27%

Face-to-face

conversation79% 80% 79%

Newspaper 9% 8% 9%

Radio 1% 3% 2%

Internet 10% 9% 10%

Facebook 10% 10% 10%

Mobile phone call 44% 37% 40%

Loudspeaker/megaph

one announcements 40% 39% 39%

Community leaders 7% 5% 6%

Community meetings 2% 2% 2%

Don’t know/Prefer not

to answer4% 3% 3%

% of households reporting access to different means of

communication/information provision

% of households who reported receiving early warning messages

prior to the arrival of Cyclone Mora (2017)

% of households reporting main ways of accessing information in

the past 30 days*^

* Respondents could select more than one option.

INDICATOR: % of households reporting different information

needs*

Ukhia Teknaf Total

Finding missing people 4% 9% 7%

The security situation here 12% 13% 13%

How to register for aid 14% 14% 14%

How to get water 15% 15% 15%

How to get food 8% 9% 9%

How to get shelter/accommodation/shelter

materials 12% 13% 13%

Information about nutrition 8% 6% 7%

Food prices 9% 7% 8%

Local crop/livestock prices 10% 7% 8%

How to get cooking fuel/firewood 17% 10% 13%

The weather/natural hazards 10% 11% 10%

How to get healthcare/medical attention 24% 26% 25%

How to replace personal documentation (e.g.

birth certificate, ID) 5% 4% 4%

How to get access to education 10% 8% 9%

How to find work 16% 17% 17%

How to get more money/financial support 31% 25% 28%

Info about the aid agencies they are receiving

aid from 9% 5% 7%

INDICATOR: % of households reporting most preferred ways of

providing feedback about services in their area

Ukhiya Teknaf Total

Speak face to face with service providers 24% 27% 26%

Speak face to face with community leaders 74% 68% 71%

At a community meeting 37% 32% 35%

Call a helpline 3% 4% 3%

Submit a complaints form 1% 2% 1%

Use a suggestion box 2% 2% 2%

Use social media 3% 4% 4%

Send an SMS 0% 1% 0%

Other 1% 0% 1%

Don't know 7% 9% 8%

COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMUNITIES

NEXT STEPS

1. Clean dataset available by 20 December.

2. Summary analysis data tables with indicators broken down by Union and

gender of respondent available by year-end.

3. Development of need indices with ACAPS in January.

4. Publication of Upazila and Union factsheets early February.

5. Report by March, including comprehensive additional analysis (e.g.

correlations of key indicators by distance from camp).