THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE POOR
Findings from Poverty Pockets Survey in Jordan
(Based on Household Expenditure and Income Survey 2010)
5
Copyright © 2012 reserverd for United Nations United Nations Development Programme,
Department of Statistics, and Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation – Jordan.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without prior permission for United Nations Development Programme, Department of
Statistics, and Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation - Jordan.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE POOR “Findings from Poverty Pockets Survey in
Jordan”
Prepared by United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Ministry of Planning and
International Cooperation
The Deposit Number at the National Library (41016/11/2012)
Author assumes full legal responsibility for the content of his work and did not reflect this
workbook for the opinion of the Department of the National Library
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the report is the work of an
independent team of authors sponsored by UNDP.
6
Foreword
Jordan has done remarkably well in the fight against poverty especially given its limited
resources and income as well as the economic shocks that it had to endure due to regional and
global political as well as economic upheavals. By the 1980s, poverty had been reduced to
discrete pockets, and the first national report on pockets of poverty was published in 1989.
However, studies of poverty have so far measured poverty in terms of a money-metric caloricintake based poverty line. Non-monetary poverty indicators, i.e. social aspects of poverty that
include attitudes, perceptions, concern about living conditions and quality of life, social
interaction, access to quality health and education and efficient and equitable social safety nets
protection did not receive as much attention. To redress this situation, the National Agenda 20062015, in its Social Welfare Theme, highlighted the need to “Develop a clear understanding of the
root causes and characteristics of poverty”. In 2011, Ministry of Planning and International
Cooperation (MOPIC) and Department of Statistics (DOS) with technical support of UNDP and
other stakeholders launched a social data pilot survey to measure vulnerability risk and social
exclusion.
This report documents the findings of the social data pilot survey. On the macro level, it analyses
the shifts of pockets above/ below the poverty threshold and determinants of change in poverty
incidence during 2006-2008. It confirms the relationship between change in poverty incidence
and four determinants at the local (governorate) level: inflation in food prices, change in
unemployment rates, change in the ratio of transfer income to total income, and growth of
livestock holdings. On the micro level, the study compares the behavior of households in and
outside poverty pockets with respect to food security and living standards; labor market
dynamics; Income Status, income shocks and precautionary savings; access to transportation;
access to health and care for the disabled; access to quality education for children; social
exclusion and time-use of households; and formal and informal cash transfers.
The results of this study will be helpful in developing regular surveys on the social indicators of
poverty. It is also the first step towards identifying observable permanent/temporary macro or
micro shocks that caused negative shifts, or in the case of positive shifts, identifying favorable
7
external macro conditions or replicating good practices. This will contribute significantly to the
formulation of social policy and a new poverty reduction strategy.
Minister of Planning and International Cooperation
Dr. Jaffar Abed Hassan
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Dr. Sajjad Akhtar, UNDP consultant for his remarkable efforts in
analyzing the data of social data pilot survey and in drafting this report. Special thanks to the
team of MOPIC and DOS in providing the consultant the needed information and data and their
valuable contribution in revising and editing this report. Namely, from MOPIC: Dr. Mukhallad
Omari, Director of Policies and Strategies Directorate, and Zein Soufan, Head of Social Studies
Division. From Department of Statistics (DOS), Mr. Kamal Alsaleh, technical assistant to the
director general, Abdel-Fatah Jaradat, Head of Poverty Division, Maha Dawas, Senior
Statistician, and Dr. Ahmed Abu Haidar, Social and Poverty issues onsultant for general director.
From UNDP Jordan, we would like to thank Ms. Majida Alassaf, Program Manager, Mohammad
AlBatayneh, Project Manager of “Support to poverty analysis and monitoring” project, Yara
Mubaidin and Nour Maria, Poverty Programme Associate those contribute in drafting this report,
provide their remarkable notes and supervising the whole process of producing this report.
Funded by:
9
Table of Contents
THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE POOR .................................................................................................. 5
Findings from Poverty Pockets Survey in Jordan .......................................................................................... 5
Foreword....................................................................................................................................................... 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 9
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 10
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 16
A Macro View .............................................................................................................................................. 17
A Micro View: Poverty Vs Non-Poverty Pockets ......................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 19
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 19
1.1 Background to the Study................................................................................................................... 19
1.2 Sampling and Description of Social Data Pilot Survey ...................................................................... 21
1.2.1 A methodological caveat............................................................................................................ 22
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 24
UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF POVERTY POCKETS: ........................................................................ 24
A MACRO VIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 24
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2 Profiling of Poverty Pockets during the Decade 2000-2010 ............................................................. 25
2.3 Modeling the Change in Poverty Incidence between 2006-08: Results from an Exploratory and
Stylistic Exercise ...................................................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 33
FOOD SECURITY AND LIVING STANDARDS.................................................................................................. 33
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 33
10
3.2 Hunger and Living Standard Indicators ............................................................................................. 33
3.3 Poverty Vs Non-Poverty Pockets: A Comparative View of Food Security ........................................ 34
3.3.1 Inter-district variations among poverty pockets ....................................................................... 35
3.4 Communication Network and Food Security .................................................................................... 35
3.4.1 Inter-district variations among poverty pockets ....................................................................... 36
3.5 Comparative View of Living Standards ............................................................................................. 37
3.5.1 Inter-district variations among poverty pockets ....................................................................... 39
3.6 Perceptions about Adverse Situations .............................................................................................. 40
3.6.1 Inter-district variations .................................................................................................................. 42
3.7 Correlation Analysis of food security and living standards Indicators .............................................. 43
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Labour Market Dynamics ............................................................................................................................ 46
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 46
4.2 Employment Status and Decent Job Indicators ................................................................................ 47
4.3 Job-Search Strategy........................................................................................................................... 49
4.4 Reasons for Refusing to Work........................................................................................................... 50
4.5 Inter-District Profile of Poverty Pockets ........................................................................................... 50
4.6 Correlations between labour indicators ........................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 53
INCOME STATUS, INCOME SHOCKS AND PRECAUTIONARY SAVINGS ........................................................ 53
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 53
5.2 Main Source of Income and its Regularity ........................................................................................ 53
5.3 Inter-District Profile of Poverty Pockets ........................................................................................... 56
5.4 Correlations between income status indicators and income shocks and precautionary savings .... 57
CHAPTER 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 59
11
ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................... 59
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 59
6.2 Access to and Availability of Public Transportation: A Comparative View ....................................... 59
6.3 Inter-District Variations..................................................................................................................... 61
6.4 Correlations of Public Transportation Indicators .............................................................................. 62
CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................................................. 63
ACCESS TO HEALTH AND EXTENT, CARE OF THE DISABLED ........................................................................ 63
7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 63
7.2 Access to Health Services: A Comparative View ............................................................................... 63
7.3. Inter-District Highlights .................................................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 8 .................................................................................................................................................. 68
ACCESS TO CHILDREN’S QUALITY EDUCATION ........................................................................................... 68
8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 68
8.2 Access to Quality Education: A Comparative View ........................................................................... 68
8.3 Inter-District Profile .......................................................................................................................... 71
8.4 Correlations betweem enrollment and education obstacles ........................................................... 72
CHAPTER 9 .................................................................................................................................................. 74
SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND TIME-USE PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................. 74
9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 74
9.2 Time Use Profile of Households: Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Pockets ................................................. 74
9.3 Social Cohesion ................................................................................................................................. 75
CHAPTER 10 ................................................................................................................................................ 81
FORMAL AND INFORMAL UNCONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS.................................................................. 81
10.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 81
10.2 Households in Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Pockets: A Comparison ................................................... 81
12
10.3 Pocket-wise Profile of Access to Social Safety Net ......................................................................... 85
CHAPTER 11 ................................................................................................................................................ 87
POLICY RELEVANCE AND WAY FORWARD .................................................................................................. 87
11.1 Two Caveats for Policy Implications ............................................................................................... 87
11.2 Policy Relevance.............................................................................................................................. 88
11.3 Prioritizing Policy and Program Interventions ................................................................................ 90
11.4 The Way Forward: Some Suggestions............................................................................................. 91
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 94
ANNEX 1: MODELING DATA FROM PILOT SOCIAL POVERTY POCKET SURVEY ........................................... 95
ANNEX 2: Pocket-Wise Profile of Social Indicators ..................................................................................... 99
13
List of Tables
Table 1: Distribution of Households by Districts/Governorates ................................................................. 23
Table 2: Profile of Poverty Trends............................................................................................................... 26
Table 3: Pockets in the Range of 20-30% Poverty Incidence ...................................................................... 28
Table 4: New Entrants: Poverty Status in 2006 and 2008 .......................................................................... 29
Table 5: Regression Results......................................................................................................................... 32
Table 6: Affordability and Quality of Food (Percentage) ............................................................................ 34
Table 7: Travel Time to Food Stores (Percentage) ...................................................................................... 36
Table 8: Living Standards Indicators (Percentage) ...................................................................................... 38
Table 9: Districts with Percentage of Households that can rarely or Never Afford these Services............ 39
Table 10: Perceptions about Adverse Situations (Percentage) .................................................................. 41
Table 11: Perception on Socio-Economic Conditions of the Community (Percentage) ............................. 42
Table 12: Comparison of Households' Living Standards with Others (Percentage) ................................... 42
Table 13: Correlations among Indicators .................................................................................................... 44
Table 14: Correlations among Indicators .................................................................................................... 45
Table 15: Employment Status and Decent Work (Percentage) .................................................................. 47
Table 16: Job-Search Methods and Constraints to Employment (Percentage) .......................................... 49
Table 17: Correlations ................................................................................................................................. 52
Table 18: Correlations ................................................................................................................................. 52
Table 19: Income Status (Percentage) ........................................................................................................ 54
Table 20: Income Type, Likelihood of Income Shock, Adequacy of Precautionary Savong (Percentage) .. 57
Table 21: Correlations ................................................................................................................................. 58
Table 22: Access, Use, Mode to/of Public Transportation, and Travel Time to Stops (Percentage) .......... 61
Table 23: Correlations ................................................................................................................................. 62
Table 24: Access to Health Facilities (Percentage) ..................................................................................... 64
14
Table 25: Disability and Access to Health (Percentage).............................................................................. 66
Table 26: Access to Quality Education (Percentage) .................................................................................. 69
Table 27: Identification of Sub-Districts...................................................................................................... 72
Table 28: Correlations ................................................................................................................................. 73
Table 29: Profile of Quality Time Spent by the Father (Percentage) .......................................................... 76
Table 30: Frequency of Invitation to Family by Head of Household (Percentage) ..................................... 77
Table 31: Frequency of Invitation to Friends by Head of Household (Percentage) .................................... 78
Table 32: Frequency of Social Visits by Purpose (Percentage) ................................................................... 79
Table 33: Socio-Economic Background/Status of Friends (Percentage) ..................................................... 80
Table 34: Formal and Informal Safety Nets and Cash Transfers (Percentage) ........................................... 82
Table 35: District-Wise Summary Matrix of Indicators in Social Dimensions ............................................. 93
Table 36: Table 1.A, Regression Results...................................................................................................... 96
Table 37: Table 1B, Regression Results ....................................................................................................... 97
Table 38: Table 1C, Regression Results ....................................................................................................... 98
15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Poverty Report based on Jordan’s Household Expenditure and Income Survey of 2008
indicated that at the national level poverty headcount measured by poverty line of JD 680 per
capita per year went up marginally from 13.0 in 2006 to 13.3 percent in 2008. However, a more
worrisome finding was that number of poverty pockets (defined as districts/sub-districts with
25% population or more below the national poverty line) increased from 22 poverty pockets in
2006 to 32 poverty pockets in 2008.
Poverty assessment and measurement based on money-metric caloric-intake based poverty line is
in vogue at the national level since 1973. The first Report on Poverty Pockets was published in
19891. However, documentation of non-monetary poverty indicators, social aspects of poverty
that include attitudes, perceptions, concern about living conditions and quality, social interaction,
access to quality health, education and efficient and equitable social safety nets protection has
lagged behind the surveys on monetary measures of poverty. Among the many initiatives the
Social Welfare Theme of National Agenda 2006-2015 advocated for implementation to reduce
poverty, it highlighted the need to “Develop a clear understanding of the poverty root causes and
characteristics”. Thus a focus on social aspects through mapping “Unmet Basic Needs” will
complement economic aspects of poverty captured via poverty profiling.
Incorporating social dimensions of poverty into assessment of poverty and designing
interventions, can only be undertaken once ‘social risks’ are captured and documented at the
household level. Thus MOPIC and DOS with technical support of UNDP and other stakeholders
launched a supplementary social data pilot module survey in the first half of 2011 to measure
vulnerability risk and social exclusion. The main objective of this report is to document the
findings from the social data pilot module survey and contribute to formulation of social policy
and new poverty reduction strategy.
The pilot survey was conducted in 15 districts/sub-districts spread over 6 governorates of the
Kingdom. Based on HEIS 2008, out of these sub-districts, 8 are classified as persistent poverty
pockets, and 5 are classified as fluctuating. As control group for comparison, 2 persistently Nonpoverty districts are chosen for the pilot survey. For the purpose of analysis in this bench-mark
1
Al Sqour et al, 1989, Pockets of Poverty in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Social Development
16
report, out of these 15 sub-districts, 12 are classified as poverty pockets and 3 as Non-poverty
pockets. The numbers of households covered in the pilot survey are 1123, of which 37 percent
are from non-poverty pockets
A Macro View
Macro analysis of entry-exit behavior of pockets into/from the poverty threshold and
determinants of change in poverty incidence during 2006-2008 is undertaken with 36 pockets as
the benchmark. In line with the observation that majority of poor population is clustered around
the poverty line of JD 680 per person per year, the poverty pockets with the poor population in
the range 20-30% (5% above and below the officially set threshold of 25%) are identified for the
year 2002, 2006 and 2008. They are the most likely candidates for entry into and exit from the
threshold in the short-term, or being stuck within this range for a long time. The poverty pockets
in this range increased from 8 in 2002, 10 in 2006 to 14 in 2008. New entrants are possible as in
the period 2006-2008 when 14 new sub-districts entered the threshold due to macro and/or micro
shocks facing the economy. During 2006 and 2008, Jafer, Athruh, Dliel, and Arjan moved
around this range while the rest of districts were new entrants in 2002, 2006 and/or 2008. Seven
pockets, i.e. Arhab, Mafraq, Taiba, Ein Basha, Areed, Sahab and Muwaqqar experienced an
increase of more than 5 percentage points in incidence in a period of two years, with poverty
incidence ranging from a minimum of 8.4 to a maximum of 28.6%. These need to be studied
more closely for any observable permanent/temporary macro or micro shocks. Two districts, i.e.
Qasr fell from 22.4 to 0% and Arjan experienced a decline from 29.7 to 20.8%. These two
districts are candidates for identifying for any favorable external macro conditions or for
replicating good practices for poverty reduction.
In analyzing and comparing the poverty incidence of 14 poverty pockets that entered the
threshold in 2008 in relation to their status in 2006, the findings are as follows: Only 3 out of the
14 pockets were just below the poverty threshold in 2006. Two of these 3 moved just above the
threshold in 2008, while one experienced a dramatic increase, i.e., Shouneh Janoobiieh as its’
poverty incidence increased from 22.3% in 2006 to 40.2% in 2008. In 2006 all the other pockets
were between half and third the limits of the 25% threshold and 7 of these districts came just
above the threshold in 2008. They must have experienced mild economic and/or non-economic
17
shock. Five of the remaining must have experienced severe shock as the post-2008 incidence was
much higher than the threshold.
Using a limited set of data available at the governorate and pocket level, a simple modeling
exercise is undertaken to understand the determinants and quantify their impact on the changing
poverty incidence during 2006-08. More than 60 percent of the variation in the change in poverty
incidence of 36 poverty pockets is explained by 4 determinants: i) food inflation rate during
2006-2008 at the governorate level, ii) change in unemployment rate during 2006-08 at the
governorate level, iii) change in ratio of transfer income to total income at the pocket level from
2006-08, iv) growth rate of livestock holdings, i.e., cattle and goats during the 2 year period.
The findings further confirmed the casual empiricism and a priori hypothesis with respect to a)
inflation, poverty pockets that experienced higher inflation also had higher poverty incidence in
2008, b) the higher the unemployment rate at the governorate level the higher the poverty
incidence at the pocket level, c) the lower the ratio of transfer to total income the higher the
poverty incidence, and d) higher the growth of livestock holdings during the period the higher
the poverty incidence. This last result is contrary to the priori results as livestock represents
growth in wealth as well as more investment.
A Micro View: Poverty Vs Non-Poverty Pockets
Food Security and Living Standards
Regarding affordability of 3 meals a day and quality of food, the percentages of households in
poverty was higher than in non-poverty pockets. In both poverty and non-poverty pockets around
34 and 46 percent of households respectively are food insecure as they cannot always afford 3
meals a day for their families. Moreover households in poverty pockets performed worse in
travel time to food outlets (a proxy for access). Similarly the households in poverty pockets
performed worse in terms of percentages in 8 out of 9 indicators for ranking the concerns related
to living conditions (proxies for vulnerability) including environment and crime.
Labour Market Dynamics
The percentage of all households and by number of employed in poverty pockets was higher for
decent job indicators such as health insurance and social security. However the percentage of
18
households with one or more job-seeker was higher in poverty pockets than in non-poverty
pockets. Majority of households in poverty pockets relied on social networking and application
to ministries rather than media or other official specialized institutions for job search. The three
main reasons for households in poverty pockets to refuse work, irrespective of type of household
(w/o, with job seeker, w/o disabled) was distance, mismatch of qualifications and
sickness/disability.
Income Status, Income Shocks and Precautionary savings
As expected the proportion of households in poverty pockets with salary and wages as the main
source of income is marginally lower than for households in non-poverty pockets.
Correspondingly the percentage for former pockets is higher for retirement and National Aid
Fund. The percentage of households earning from private activity in poverty pockets is half that
of households from non-poverty pockets. In contrast to a priori expectations, the results indicate
that income source is irregular and less stable for a lower percentage of households in poverty
pockets. In addition a higher percentage of households in poverty pockets consider an income
shock in the next 6 months to be unlikely, as compared to households in non-poverty pockets.
However a much higher percentage of households have no savings irrespective of number of
earners in poverty than in non-poverty pockets.
Access to Puplic Transportation
The access is measured by frequency of availability of public transport, frequency of use of
transport and mode of transport. In terms of availability, and time to nearest bus stop on foot
higher percentage of households in non-poverty pockets have access, and the use is more
frequent. Public transport as the main mean of transport is used by a fewer percentage of
households in poverty pockets than in non-poverty pockets. Incidentally the private cars and
taxi/mini-bus is used by a greater number of households in poverty rather than in non-poverty
pockets.
Access to Health and Care of Disabled
Households in poverty pockets have better access to health centers, while households in nonpoverty pockets have better access to government hospitals. In line with the use of private car as
19
a more popular mode of transportation by the households in poverty pockets, a higher percentage
use it to travel to health services. Contrary to a priori expectations, lack of health insurance as a
constraint to access is only faced by 5% of households in poverty pockets as compared to 22
percent by their counterparts in non-poverty pockets. Even distances and appointment delay are
mentioned more frequently by households in non-poverty rather than poverty pockets. The
complaint of poor services is equally mentioned by both types of pockets.
Smaller percentage of households in poverty as compared to the non-poverty pockets report the
presence of disabled person under 18 years old in the household (1.9% and 4.8% respectvley).
The percentage profile of various persons providing care to the disabled is very similar except in
case of mother/father. A much higher percentage of households in non-poverty pockets have
identified mother/father as the primary care giver. More households in poverty pockets with
disabled face access constraints to public institutions while more households in non-poverty
pockets face constraints related to the education of the disabled.
Access to Children’s Quality Education
Around 50% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets identified the following
obstacles as slightly and very severe in the education of their children: Bad Public Utilities, Bad
Quality of Education, Lack of Discipline, and Discrimination between Students. In all the above
indicators, the percentage of households in poverty pockets was slightly lower than households
in non-poverty pockets. In addition about 50% of households in non-poverty pockets identified
the following obstacles as slightly and very severe in the education of their children: smoking in
school, crime and violence in school, crowded classrooms, peer pressure and crime around
school. In comparing the quality of education in his/her residential areas with other areas, a
higher percentage of households in poverty as compared to non-poverty pockets were satisfied
and regarded the quality as identical.
Social Exclusion and time-use of Households
Various indicators on time spent by the head of household/father with various types of social
groups, i.e., family, near and distant relatives, neighbors, friends and acquaintances, the
invitations extended to family vs friends and visits to these social groups for various types of
20
occasions unambiguously revealed a high degree of social inter-action and non-exclusion among
the households in poverty pockets as compared to households in non-poverty pockets. Moreover
the percentage of households in poverty pockets were nearly double than the percentage of
households in non-poverty pockets whose friends had disabilities. Thus households in poverty
pockets gave more social opportunities to the disabled to live a more socially inclusive lifestyle
in the society.
Formal and Informal Unconditional Cash Transfers
The percentages of households in both types of poverty pockets are similar with respect to
reliance on various social groups for care in times of health shock, cash loan and financing for
unexpected expenditures. These percentages range between 50-85 percent. The proportion of
households in poverty and non-poverty pockets that rely on institutions (religious, state and
private) range from a low of 0.2 percent for care in health emergency to a high of 17.4 percent in
case of obtaining a cash loan. Nearly 75% and 85% of households in poverty and non-poverty
pockets respectively either don’t need aid and/or not eligible for aid. The percentage of
households in poverty pockets availing NAF facilities is 3 times of proportion of households in
non-poverty pockets (17.8% vs 6.3%). The proportion of households with irregular income
seeking aid and those who consider the loss of income as strong possibility seeking aid is
consistent with each other and between 20 and 26 percent in poverty pockets. The percentage of
households in poverty pockets benefiting from institutions involved in providing elderly and
children care, vocational training and business counseling are in single digits and similar to the
proportions of households in non-poverty pockets.
If one further summarizes the above findings, in general, households in poverty pockets are
better-off in terms of food security, provision of health insurance, social security, more regular or
stable income (as a higher percentage of households in poverty pockets have their main source of
income from NAF and pension), more positive or less pessimistic outlook about expected
income shock, higher access to public transportation (but less frequent use), better access to
health centers (not to government hospitals), and access to quality health services. Though more
than 50% of households in both pockets identified Bad Public Utilities, Bad Quality of
21
Education, Lack of Discipline, Discrimination between Students as obstacles to quality education
of their children, the percentages of households in poverty pockets was lower. As indicated by
various indicators of social inclusion and interaction, i.e., invitations, visits and time spent with
family, social support for seeking employment and dependence on informal social safety nets for
various emergency needs, again the households in poverty pockets scored better than their
counterparts in non-poverty pockets.
Indicators where households in poverty pockets performed worse than in non-poverty pockets
are: access to food outlets in the market, perception on concerns about quality of living
conditions and unemployment, as percentage of households with number of job-seekers is
higher. Higher percentage of households in poverty pockets refused work because of distance,
sickness/disability and mismatch of qualifications. They are worse-off in terms of build-up of
financial capital as the percentage of households in poverty with zero and inadequate savings to
meet a months’ expenditure is twice of households in non-poverty pockets. The extent of zero
and/or inadequate saver households remains below the percentage of households in non-poverty
pockets irrespective of number of earners and regularity/irregularity of incomes. A marginally
lower percentage of households in poverty pockets apply for aid as nearly 18% of them are
already receiving support under NAF.
In summary one characteristic from the above findings that distinguishes households in poverty
from households in non-poverty pockets is that households in poverty pockets perform better on
many of non-economic (perceptions about shocks/quality/access) factors and social aspects of
deprivation, while continuing to perform poorly in traditional economic indicators, e.g.,
employment, financial savings and concerns about the quality of living conditions.
These
tentative findings in the former case are partly a function of an effective formal social safety net
work including health insurance, social security, pensions and NAF that is already in place since
last many years and an informal social network established for centuries in isolated villages in
far flung areas of the desert regions as well in low income localities in larger cities/towns.
Findings in the latter case are related to their limited capacity to earn adequate incomes and
thereby reduce their vulnerability into slipping into poor living conditions.
22
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
The Poverty Report based on Jordan’s Household Expenditure and Income Survey of 2008
indicated that at the national level poverty headcount measured by poverty line of JD680 per
capita per year went up marginally from 13.0 in 2006 to 13.3 percent in 2008. However, a more
worrisome finding was that number of poverty pockets (defined as districts/sub-districts with
25% population or more below the national poverty line) increased from 22 in 2006 to 32 in
2008. In line with the share in total population, Amman governorate (39.5%) is home to 24.6%
of the total poor population, though only 8.3% of its population is below the poverty line.
Together Amman, Irbid and Zarqa, the three most densely populated governorates in Jordan have
around 57% of persons living under the poverty line. Given the intensity of push and pull factors
in historical rural-to-urban migration in Jordan, the increase in poverty pockets remain a
possibility in the future.
Poverty assessment and measurement based on money-metric caloric-intake based poverty line is
in vogue at the national level since 1973. The first Report on Poverty Pockets was published in
19892. However, the need for information on “social aspects of poverty relative to deprivation
and in order to better target areas and groups with high deprivation when making policy and
programmatic decisions….” was explicitly recognized in the National Strategy formulated in
20023. The emphasis in social aspects including risks, vulnerability and social exclusion was
further reinforced in the Social Welfare theme of National Agenda 2006-2015. Among the many
initiatives it advocated for implementation to reduce poverty, it highlighted the need to “Develop
a clear understanding of the poverty root causes and characteristics”. Thus a focus on social
aspects through mapping “Unmet Basic Needs” will complement economic aspects of poverty
captured via poverty profiling.
2
3
Al Sqour et al, 1989, Pockets of Poverty in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Social Development
Poverty Alleviation for a Stronger Jordan (may 2002), MOSD
19
While a holistic view adopted by Amartya Sen regards poverty as “Severe Capability
Deprivation and Entitlement Failure”, in an operational and narrow sense poverty can be
regarded as a basic needs deprivation. The capability of a person to acquire income enhances his
chances of acquiring basic needs. In turn, the capability to earn income is enhanced by access to
health services, access to educational services and access to credit. Apart from fulfillment of
material needs, the poor have also expressed desire for a) Cultural Identity, b) Social belonging
c) Organizational capacity, d) Respect and dignity, e) Political participation and accountability of
governmental structures and f) emotional integrity, i.e., freedom from fear and anxiety.
Another dimension of the poverty profile of Jordan is that the majority of poor are clustered just
above and below the poverty line with only a small proportion of the poor significantly and
chronically below it. Thus the policy makers have to think differently about the poor. Depending
on the type and level of risks experienced by the vulnerable (near poor) and marginally poor (just
below the poverty line) population, a different policy mix will have to be evaluated and adopted,
that is in line with policy mixes` applied in other middle income countries. Correspondingly a
different policy mix is called for to address the multiple needs of the chronically poor and those
at risk of social exclusion.
Incorporating social dimensions of poverty into assessment of poverty and designing
interventions, can only be undertaken once ‘social risks’ are captured and documented at the
household level. Thus MOPIC with technical support of UNDP and other stakeholders launched
a supplementary social data pilot module survey of 15 pockets in the first half of 2011 to
measure vulnerability risk and social exclusion. The main objective of this report is to document
the findings from the social data pilot module survey and contribute to formulation of social
policy and new poverty reduction strategy in the following ways:
a) In conjunction with HEIS 2010 data, the 15 pilot survey districts will provide a broad set
of statistical descriptors for the identification of common characteristics shared by
poverty pockets which distinguish them from non-poor or non-persistent districts.
b) Add relevant indicators to complement the Living Standards Index (LSI)
c) Support a shift from the current money-metric caloric-intake based poverty line to a more
differentiated poverty line or lines that are more compatible with LSI.
20
d) Support MOPIC’s Social and Economic Productivity Unit in the comparative analysis of
multi-factor poverty risk and vulnerability.
e) As pointed out by Executive Development Program 2011-13, this report will modestly
and partially meet the challenge of “Poverty is not being addressed in a multidimensional and comprehensive manner”.
1.2 Sampling and Description of Social Data Pilot Survey
The Pilot Survey provides a module compatible with the sampling frame of the Household
Expenditure and Income Survey 2010 (HEIS 2010) in selected districts and sub-districts. It is
designed to produce analytical social data which will deepen the understanding of poverty across
and within these districts and sub-districts, both as a stand-alone and in conjunction with the data
produced by HEIS 2010. The pilot survey is divided into several modules related to labour
market indicators including decent work, access to health, access to education and availability of
social and public goods, social connections, social welfare services, cash transfers and time use.
It has also been designed for stand-alone use to expedite the analysis of the data in order to
design policy interventions, programs and projects for the poor.
The pilot survey was conducted in 15 districts/sub-districts spread over 6 governorates of the
Kingdom during the first half of 2011. Based on HEIS 2008, out of these sub-districts, 8 are
classified as persistent poverty pockets, and 5 are classified as fluctuating. As control group for
comparison, 2 persistently Non-poverty districts are chosen for the pilot survey. For the purpose
of analysis in this bench-mark report, out of these 15 sub-districts, 12 are classified as poverty
pockets and 3 as Non-poverty pockets4. The poor population in these 12 poverty pockets
constituted 8 percent of total poor population in the Kingdom in 2008. Moreover, majority of
sampled sub-districts can be classified as small towns/villages as the total population of each
sub-district ranged from 5675 (Al-Rweished) to 23472 (Ghoue Esafi). A detailed time profile
4
Three out of the 4 pockets chosen as fluctuating were poverty pockets in 2 out of the three periods, i.e., 2002, 2006
and 2008 and also above the 25% dividing line in 2008, thus the 3 are grouped as poverty pockets. Hashemiya was
non-poverty pocket in 2 out of 3 periods and also non-poverty pocket in 2008, thus it is included as non-poverty
pocket. Since this survey is the first of its kind in Jordan, the 4 fluctuating poverty pockets are bench-marked into
poverty/non-poverty and fluctuations in terms of ‘social risks and exclusions’ and other characteristics can only be
traced in subsequent surveys.
21
and analysis of these pockets as part of 22 pockets in 2006 and 32 pockets in 2008 is presented in
the next chapter. The numbers of households covered in the pilot survey are 1123, of which 37
percent are from non-poverty pockets. The proportion of non-poverty pockets is 20% (3 out of
15).
The primary sampling unit of the pilot survey is the household and consists of households who
are already participating, or have participated (depending on the date that the pilot survey was
conducted), in HEIS 2010. Since HEIS 2010 takes the household as its main unit of analysis, the
household characteristics are at the core of the pilot survey. The sampling method follows the
HEIS 2010 sampling frame in selecting the households and interviews one person from the
participating households which are identified by their unique IDs in the HEIS 2010. Since the
survey is a pilot survey conducted in only selected districts and sub-districts, the sample size is
not nationally representative. Because the sampling frame follows HEIS 2010, the pilot survey is
representative at the district level.
Table 1 gives the distribution of households across districts and their classification as poverty
and non-poverty pockets.
1.2.1 A methodological caveat
It is to be noted that 15 poverty pockets for the pilot social survey were selected on the poverty
incidence in 2008. The primary sampling unit i.e., households for this pilot survey (conducted in
2011) are part of the just completed national level HEIS 2010 and filtered specifically for this
pilot survey5. This raises three sampling and methodological issues: a) whether the poverty or
non-poverty pockets chosen on the basis of 2008 HEIS still retain the same status in HEIS 2010
as in 2008. Even if they still have the same status, the poverty incidence may have improved/
deteriorated or remained unchanged within those poverty pockets6, b) the proportion of poor and
non-poor households within these two types of poverty pockets in the pilot survey will remain
unknown till the finalization of results of HEIS 2010 and up-dating of the poverty line for 2010,
c) the poverty status of individual households may have also changed between HEIS 2010 and
when the pilot survey was conducted i.e. 2011.
5
Selecting and tracing the households on the basis of HEIS 2008 is difficult operationally, and even then there is no
guarantee that individual households retained the same poverty status in 2011 as in 2008.
6
This particular issue will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.
22
Table 1: Distribution of Households Sample by Districts/Governorates
Districts
No. of Households
Poverty/Non-Poverty
Governorate
Al-Azraq
54
Poor
Zarqa
Salhiyyeh
62
Poor
Mafraq
Dair El-Kahf
57
Poor
Mafraq
Hoasha
64
Poor
Mafraq
Al-Rweished
59
Poor
Mafraq
Borma
62
Poor
Jarash
Ghour Essafi
56
Poor
Karak
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
53
Poor
Karak
Mraighah
60
Poor
Ma’an
Husseiniyyeh
60
Poor
Ma’an
Wadi Arabah
58
Poor
Aqaba
Quaira
63
Poor
Aqaba
Total Poverty Pockets
708 (63%)
Russeifa
301
Non-Poor
Zarqa
Hashemiyyeh
56
Non-Poor
Zarqa
Qasr
58
Non-Poor
Karak
Total Non-Poverty Pockets
415 (37%)
Total
1123
23
CHAPTER 2
UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF POVERTY POCKETS:
A MACRO VIEW
2.1 Introduction
Many middle income countries that have relatively low incidence of poverty at the national level
as in the case of Jordan, still have poverty pockets, i.e. spatial/geographical enclaves either in the
form of villages, desert oasis, large low income localities within metropolitan cities or in the
suburbs, whose poverty incidence is much higher than nationally or adjoining contiguous areas.
In-depth study of these poverty pockets from various socio-economic angles, including intertemporal profiling and continuous monitoring, and devising specific interventions can yield huge
pay-offs in terms of reducing overall poverty incidence in the country, sense of deprivation
among the poorest of the poor and strengthening social and political cohesion and thereby sense
of well-being in the country.
Poverty analysts, project and program interventionists face the following kind of challenges in
dealing with the poverty pockets in the country: How do you identify a poverty pocket? Should it
be based on a quantitative number of incidences? What should be the cutoff for that incidence to
be classified as a poverty pocket? Twenty-five or thirty-five percent of the respective population
to be below the poverty line as a cut-off point? Can this benchmark be changed as the poverty
incidence changes nationally or even within the poverty pockets? Should one identify a poverty
pocket by a combination of quantitative incidence plus other living standards measures such as
environmental and social exclusion indicators? Overtime the exit and entry of poverty pockets
into a quantitative even subjective threshold also poses challenges for the researchers. What
economic and non-economic factors determine their entry or exit or even a re-entry over time?
What determines the changes in poverty incidence within a poverty pocket in the short, medium
and long-run? In absence of detailed macro data at the pocket level and only household data to
rely on, the search for determinants of changing poverty incidence is even more challenging. As
empirical based evidence on the dynamics of poverty pockets is still evolving and vary by the
region, many of the above theoretical and empirical challenges are being gradually addressed.
24
2.2 Profiling of Poverty Pockets during the Decade 2000-2010
Table 2 gives the poverty incidence of pockets that are classified as poverty pockets in 2002,
2006 and 2008. For the year 2008 it includes 4 that exited the list in 2008 (they were in the list in
2006 and/or in 2002) and 10 more that entered the benchmark incidence of more than 25%
population below the poverty line in 2008. Moreover, it also includes the incidence profile of 3
pockets chosen as a control group for the social survey of non-poverty pockets.
25
Table 2: Profile of Poverty Trends 2002, 2006, 2008
Governorates
Sub-Districts
%
2002
Mafraq
Al-Rweished
Sub-Districts
%
2006
73.3
Sub-Districts
%
STATUS
2008
Al-Rweished
73.7
Al-Rweished
65.0
PP/Pilot
Khalidia
36.1
Khalidia
39.4
PP
Salhiyyeh
48.2
Salhiyyeh
42.8
Salhiyyeh
38.1
PP/Pilot
Dair El-Kahf
35.2
Dair El-Kahf
34.5
Dair El-Kahf
35.3
PP/Pilot
Badia Shamalia Gharibia
28.3
Badia Shamalia Gharibia
33.6
PP
Hoasha
36.1
Hoasha
32.8
PP/Pilot
Balama
31.5
Balama
28.5
PP
Hoasha
Um Jmal
31.6
34.6
Um Jmal
15
Um Jmal
46.5
PP/Fluc
Um Quttein
12.7
Um Quttein
39.6
PP/Fluc
Arhab
16
Arhab
27.9
PP/Fluc
Mafraq
8.4
Mafraq
27.0
PP/Fluc
Sama Al Serhan
28.1
Mraighah
41.3
Mraighah
27.1
Mraighah
48.4
PP/Pilot
Jafr
46.0
Jafer
26.6
Jafer
25.7
PP
Husseiniyyeh
46.9
Husseiniyyeh
10.3
Husseiniyyeh
37.0
PP/Pilot/Fluc
Athruh
23.1
Athruh
27.7
PP/Fluc
Wadi Arabah
53.5
Wadi Arabah
62.5
Wadi Arabah
69.3
PP/Pilot
Deisa
44.4
Deisa
41.0
PP
Quaira
36.0
Quaira
46.6
Quaira
37.6
PP/Pilot
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
26.7
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
45.4
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
44.1
PP/Pilot/Fluc
Ghour Essafi
34.3
Ghour Essafi
52.8
Ghour Essafi
40.8
PP/Pilot
Qatraneh
35.6
Qatraneh
33.2
PP
Mujeb
44.5
Mujeb
9.5
NPP/Fluc
Qasr
22.4
Qasr
0
NPP
Borma
29.1
Borma
32.2
PP/Pilot
Tafileh
Basira
31.9
Basira
31.4
PP
Irbid
Shouneh Shamalia
31.4
Shouneh Shamalia
28.6
PP
Taiba
9
Taiba
25.7
PP/Fluc
Al-Azraq
13.4
Al-Azraq
42.3
PP/Pilot/Fluc
25.9
PP/Fluc
Ma’an
Aqaba
Karak
Qasr
17.9
Jarash
Zarqa
Mazar Shamali
25.4
Al-Azraq
40.3
Beerain
42.3
Dliel
52.2
Dliel
23.4
Dliel
Hashemiyyeh
29.0
Hashemiyyeh
13.1
Hashemiyyeh
14
NPP/Fluc
Russeifa
22.6
Russeifa
19.2
Russeifa
8.4
NPP
PP=Poverty Pocket in 2008, NPP=Non-poverty pocket in 2008, Pilot=Included in Pilot Poverty Pocket Survey, Fluc=Fluctuating
26
Table 2.2 (cont’d) Profile of Poverty Trends 2002, 2006, 2008
Balqa
Shouneh
Janooubieh
27.1
Shouneh
22.3
Janoubieh
Shouneh
Janoubieh
40.2
PP/Fluc
Ein Basha
17.5
Ein Basha
25.2
PP/Fluc
Madaba
Areed
18.3
Areed
26
PP/Fluc
Ajloun
Arjan
29.7
Arjan
20.8
NPP/Fluc
Kufranja
36.9
Kufranja
15.2
NPP/Fluc
Sahab
14.2
Sahab
28.6
PP/Fluc
Muwaqqar
16.6
Muwaqqar
26.1
PP/Fluc
Um Alrasas
26.2
Um Alrasas
24.8
NPP/Fluc
Dair Alla
27.6
Amman
Um Rasas
26.6
AL Jiza
32
PP=Poverty Pocket in 2008, NPP=Non-poverty pocket in 2008, Pilot=Included in Pilot Poverty Pocket Survey, Fluc=Fluctuating
As mentioned earlier, one of the characteristics of poverty in Jordan is that large majority of the
poor are clustered around the poverty line of JD 680 per capita annualy. In this majority many
could be ‘transitorily poor’ or ‘transitorily vulnerable’ as they may be sensitive to the fluctuating
macro conditions (income/employment/agriculture/livestock positive and negative shocks) in the
economy. Thus these households constantly keep moving up or below the poverty line and are
documented as such in accordance with the timing of the HEIS. A small percentage of the poor
are chronically poor and call for a different set of interventions spread over longer time frame to
raise them permanently above the poverty line.
Following a similar line of reasoning, we identify the poverty pockets whose 20-30 percent of
the population is below the poverty line (Table 2)7. The purpose is two folds: They are the most
likely candidates to slip into poverty or rise above the poverty threshold in the coming years. The
results of HEIS 2010 will provide an empirical evidence of this transitory phenomenon among
the poverty pockets. Secondly, to identify whether the pockets have entered into this narrow
range by a small or dramatic (negative or positive) change in poverty incidence from the
previous period? In case it is a dramatic negative change it presents a formidable challenge for
policy interventions. In case it is a dramatic positive change in poverty incidence of the identified
7
5% above or below the 25% threshold defined for the existence of a poverty pocket.
27
poverty pocket, it is a case study for identifying good practices (meso, micro and macro) that
reduce poverty.
Table 3: Pockets in the Range of 20-30% Poverty Incidence
Year
2002
2006
2008
Number
8
10
14
Sama Al Serhan(28.1%),Ghour
Shamalia Gharibia (28.3%),
Balama (28.5%),Arhab (27.9%), Mafraq
El-Mazara’ah (26.4%) Mazar
Mraighah (27.1%), Jafer
(27.0%), Jafer (25.7%).Athruh
Shamali (25.4%), Hashemiyyeh
(26.6%) Athruh (23.1%), Qasr
(27.7%),Shouneh Shamalia (28.6%),
(29.0%), Russeifa (22.6%)
(22.4%), Borma (29.1%),Dliel
Taiba (25.7%), Dliel (25.9%), Ein Basha
Shouneh Janooubieh (27.1%)
(23.4%), Shouneh Janooubieh
(25.2%), Areed (26.0%), Arjan (20.8%),
Dair Alla (27.1%) Um Rasas
(22.3%), Arjan (29.7%), Um
Sahab (28.6%), Muwaqqar (26.1%), Um
(26.6%)
Rasas (26.2%)
Rasas (24.8%)
Districts/SubDistricts
The number of poverty pockets in the range of 20-30% of population has gradually increased
from 8 in 2002, 10 in 2006 to 14 in 2008. The historical entry and exits pattern of these poverty
pockets alongwith magnitude of change is as follows: i) Only Um Rasas has been moving in this
narrow range during all the 3 periods, ii) In addition, during 2006 and 2008, Jafer, Athruh, Dliel,
and Arjan have been moving around this range while the rest of districts have been new entrants
in 2002, 2006 and/or 2008. The incidence of poverty in these 4 sub-districts moved in the narrow
range of 20.8-29.7%, iii) Seven pockets, i.e. Arhab, Mafraq, Taiba, Ein Basha, Areed, Sahab and
Muwaqqar experienced an increase of more than 5 percentage points in incidence in a period of
two years, with poverty incidence ranging from a minimum of 8.4 to a maximum of 28.6%.
These need to be studied more closely for any observable permanent/temporary macro or micro
shocks, v) Borma increased its poverty incidence from 29.2% in 2006 to 32.2% in 2008, v) only
two districts, i.e. Qasr fell from 22.4 to 0%, Arjan (29.7% to 20.8%), and Kufranja (36.9% to
15.2) experienced a decline in its poverty rates. These districts need to be studied for any
favorable external macro conditions or identification of good practices for poverty reduction.
Another interesting inquiry is that how far the poverty pockets that entered into the poverty
threshold in 2008 were away from it in 2006? In all there were 14 entrants with 4 exits. Thus the
net addition of 10 poverty pockets in 2008. Table 4 compares the poverty status of 14 entrants in
2006 and 2008.
28
Only 3 out of the 14 pockets were very just below poverty threshold in 2006. Two moved just
above the threshold in 2008, while one experienced a dramatic increase, i.e., Shouneh Janoobiieh
and its’ poverty incidence increased from 22.3% in 2006 to 40.2% in 2008. In 2006 all the other
pockets were between half and one third the limits of the 25% threshold and 7 of the districts
came just above the threshold in 2008. They must have experienced mild economic and/or noneconomic shock. Four of the remaining must have experienced severe shock as the post-2008
incidence was much higher than the threshold.
Table 4: New Entrants: Poverty Status in 2006 and 2008 (%)
District/Sub-District
2006
2008
Um Jaml
15.0
46.5
Al-Azraq
13.4
42.3
Shouneh Janooubieh
22.3
40.2
Um Quttein
12.7
39.6
Husseiniyyeh
10.3
37.0
Sahab
14.2
28.6
Arhab
16.0
27.9
Athruh
23.1
27.7
Mafraq
8.4
27.0
Muwaqqar
16.6
26.1
Areed
18.3
26.0
Dliel
23.4
25.9
Taiba
9.0
25.7
Ein Basha
17.5
25.7
DOS, Report on Poverty Status in Jordan 2008
The above pattern of trends in the incidence of poverty within these pockets and easy entry and
exit of pockets from poverty line threshold, as well entry of new pockets, renders the task of
speculating the number of new entrants or exits in 2010 quite challenging. However out of 12
poverty pockets chosen for the sample survey, 8 have been consistently poverty pockets (with
more than 30% of the population below the poverty line). Thus they can be expected to remain
29
with this status even in 2010/2011. Only, Al-Azraq, Husseiniyyeh and Mraighah have shown
wide swings during the last two periods8. Given that overwhelming of districts in the pilot social
survey consistently appear as poverty pockets and their incidence is far above the 30% threshold,
the chances of being a non-poverty pocket in 2010 are fairly slim. However wide swings by the
remaining 3 poverty pockets (if they move out in 2010) can slightly bias the results for the poor
households. This observation should serve as a caveat for reaching some unambiguous findings
from both types of households.
2.3 Modeling the Change in Poverty Incidence between 2006-08: Results from
an Exploratory and Stylistic Exercise
This exploratory exercise is largely circumscribed by the available data at the governorate and
individual pocket level. The sample chosen for modeling is 36 poverty districts that include 32
identified in 2008 and 4 exits in 2008. Three non-poverty districts used in the pilot social survey
are excluded from the modeling exercise. The objective is to identify and quantify the impact of
selected macro determinants of changes in the poverty incidence of pockets during 2006-2008,
based on the available data. The change in poverty incidence during 2006-08 (DIFFPVT) for
these 36 pockets is explained by the following 4 determinants: 1) Inflation rate during 2006-08 at
the Governorate level. Two variants of the inflation rate was experimented, CPI and food
inflation (INFLFD), 2) Change in the unemployment rate at the Governorate level between 2006
and 2008. Three variants were experimented, male, female and total unemployment rates
(DIFFTTUNT), 3) Difference in 2006 and 2008 ratios of average transfers to average total
income at the pocket level obtained from HEIS 2010 (DIFRATIO), and 4) Aggregate growth rate
of cattle and goat livestock between 2006 and 2008 (GRTHCATLE+GRTHGOAT).
A priori, the higher the food inflation at the governorate level in 2008, the greater the chances of
poverty pocket in its jurisdiction to slip to a higher poverty incidence.
The higher the
unemployment in a governorate in 2008 as compared to 2006, the more the chance that pocket
will have higher poverty incidence in 2008. If the difference between the two ratios of transfer
incomes is negative, i.e. the ratio is higher in 2008 compared to 2006 the smaller the incidence of
poverty in 2008. In case of livestock holdings the short and medium term relationship between
8
Borma another sample survey pocket increased its incidence slightly from 29.1 in 2006 to 32.2 percent in 2008.
The chances of it experiencing wide positive swings between 2008-10 remain weak.
30
changes in poverty incidence and growth rates of livestock holdings is far more complex and
guided by extent of past investment, sale, purchase, birth and household consumption of the
livestock. A priori it is difficult to hypothesize the direction of the relationship.
Using a simple single equation regression technique to model the above relationship we obtain
the results in Table 5 the results of estimating the simple and stylistic model are mostly
consistent with the a priori hypothesis. The variation in two year differences in poverty rates of
pockets explained by these 4 determinants is 63.4 percent. Other statistics such as Durbin
Watson and F-statistics indicate a reliable model and estimates. A) The model indicates that a
one percentage point increase in food inflation increases the poverty rates of the pockets by 1.77
percentage points and this determinant is statistically significant at the 90 percent level.
Experimenting with overall inflation rate as a determinant gave overall weak statistics and
consequently was dropped. B) A one percentage point drop in the total unemployment rate at the
governorate level between the two periods lowered the poverty rate by 2.3 percentage points. Indirectly it indicates a substantial scope for initiating employment generation programs to reduce
poverty.
In an experimental version, reducing female unemployment also reduced poverty
significantly; however its impact magnitude was 2/3rd of the final version. C) The 2 year
difference in the ratio of transfer income to total income has the correct sign, and is statistically
significant. At the aggregate level, the HEIS 2010 indicated that this ratio was almost stagnant at
21 percent in both the periods. However in governorates where the ratio in 2008 was higher than
in 2006, the model predicts that poverty incidence in 2008 in those sub-districts should be lower.
D) The growth in the livestock holdings of households had a significant impact on the changes in
poverty status of the districts between the two periods. If the growth of livestock holdings was
positive between the two periods it increased poverty incidence in 2008 relative to 2006.
Following transmission is plausible: Livestock holdings are an indicator of past investment as
well current wealth, but in order to maintain that wealth, they require continued investment in
form of supply of water, fodder and grazing land. Lower capacity to continually invest due to
rising prices or other natural causes can ultimately reduce this stock of livestock accumulated
from the past and increase poverty subsequently. It is also to be noted that poverty incidence is
based on consumption levels. The above results find support in the following findings of World
Food Program (2008) Report, “Lack of liquidity, fodder prices and lack of suitable place were
31
the most reported hindering factors by animal breeders…….Areas most affected are Mraigha,
Moujib, Wadi Arabah, Al-Rweished, Khalidya and Deisi….Almost 88% of the households who
changed their consumption pattern said they reduced overall quantity of food”.
Table 5: Regression Results
Dependent Variable: PVTDIFF
Method: Least Squares
Sample (adjusted): 4 36
Included observations: 33 after adjustments
Convergence achieved after 43 iterations
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
35.7
29.1
1.23
0.233
INFLNFD
-1.77
0.972
-1.82
0.0829
DIFFTTUNT
2.36
0.848
2.78
0.0109
DIFRATIO
-0.718
0.201
-3.57
0.00171
GRTHCATLE+GRTHGOAT
-0.0604
0.012
-5.05
4.69E-05
DUM822
26.8
4.69
5.7
9.74E-06
AR(1)
-0.869
0.256
-3.4
0.0026
AR(3)
0.628
0.199
3.16
0.00454
AR(2)
0.138
0.303
0.455
0.654
MA(1)
1.3
0.347
3.73
0.00116
MA(2)
0.337
0.349
0.966
0.344
Adjusted R-squared
0.634
Mean dependent var
-4.76
S.E. of regression
8.71
F-statistic
6.55
Durbin-Watson stat
1.97
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000122
DUM822=Dummy Variable for 2 extreme values, AR(1), AR(2)=Autoregressive terms, MA=Moving Avg
32
CHAPTER 3
FOOD SECURITY AND LIVING STANDARDS
3.1 Introduction
The Kingdom has made remarkable progress in reducing hunger among its population in the last
two decades. Since 1992 the proportion of population below extreme poverty line (food poverty)
has fallen from 6.6 percent to 0.25 percent in 20089. In terms of current prices the food poverty
line stands at JD 1664.4 per year for an average household size of 5.7 members.
In terms of
absolute numbers, only 15,000 persons or 1.9 percent of the total poor in the Kingdom were
facing some level of hunger in 2008, as compared to 32,000 persons (or 4.5% of total poor) in
2006.
3.2 Hunger and Living Standard Indicators
Though quantitatively, the progress achieved by the Kingdom needs to be emulated by many
countries in the middle income range, yet it may hide considerable variations across governorates
and sub-districts within the kingdom10. Moreover the incidence of hunger may vary between
poverty and non-poverty pockets within governorates.
Food security embodying the 3
components, i.e., Food Availability, Food Access and Food Absorption is a well recognized
indicator of food security in a country. Among the above 3 elements of food security, the social
survey made attempts to qualitatively capture the food access element by asking the household
respondent about the frequency of providing a) three meals a day, b) meat, chicken, fish twice
weekly and c) vegetables and fruit twice weekly. Moreover it also asked questions on other
living standard indicators such as household’s affordability to provide school supplies to
children, undergo dental checkups of children, provision of medical supplies and travel for gettogethers and invitations to friends and families. These same set of indicators are also collected
for households whose members (one or more) are seeking jobs in the market, thus indirectly
assessing the risks to food security and living standards in households with unemployed persons.
Table 6 and 7 summarizes the percentages for each indicator by poverty and non-poverty
classification for both types of households.
9
It is also called ‘Abject poverty’ in some of the government documents.
It ranges from 0 percent in Madaba, Zarqa, Ajloun, Tafileh to 2.3 percent in Jarash
10
33
Table 6: Affordability and Quality of Food (Percentage)
Indicators
All Household
Household members
seeking jobs
Poverty
Non-Poverty
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Always
63.7
53.9
49.1
54.8
ii. Rarely
4.7
3.3
6.3
6.6
iii. Never
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
i. Always
45.2
34.2
40.1
31.0
ii. Rarely
14.2
8.2
13.1
14.0
iii. Never
0.6
0.5
1.4
1.5
i. Always
54.7
47.9
48.7
45.3
ii. Rarely
8.8
6.7
8.6
9.9
iii. Never
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.0
a. Afford three meals a day
b. Provision of meat, chicken, fish at least twice a week
c. Vegetables and fruits at least twice a week
3.3 Poverty Vs Non-Poverty Pockets: A Comparative View of Food Security
We highlight the main findings from Table 6 as follows:
a) Between 55-64% or more of sampled households in poverty and 48-54% in non-poverty
pockets are able to provide their families always with 3 meals a day as well as vegetables
and fruits twice a week11.
b) Between 34-45% of households are always able to provide protein food to their families
at least twice a week, as compared to 0.5-0.6% of households who are never able to
provide with this frequency.
c) A higher percentage of households in poverty pockets (all households) as compared to
households in non-poverty pockets are always able to provide 3 meals per day (63.7% vs.
53.9%), protein diet (45.2% vs. 34.2%) and vegetable and fruits (54.7% vs. 47.9%). In
case of households with unemployed members, households in non-poverty pockets are
11
If we equate food availability, a component of food security with 3 meals a day the pilot social survey shows that
nearly 36 % of households in poverty pockets are food insecure.
34
better in ensuring 3 meals as compared to households in poverty pockets, although the
percentages of all three indicators are lower as compared to all households. Income
support or subsistence level farming may be one of the many reasons for less food
deprivation among poverty households.
d) The percentages of households in non-poverty pockets that rarely provide 3 meals,
protein diet or vegetables/fruit are lower or almost equal as compared to households in
poverty pockets.
3.3.1 Inter-district variations among poverty pockets
i) In terms of affordability and provision of food, Quaira district has the highest percentage of
all households that ensure 3 meals a day (88.1%), meat diet (76.0%) and fruit and vegetables
twice a week (79.9%). Ghour Essafi (33.0%), Wadi Arabahh (19.4%) and Al-Rweished
(24.5%) have the lowest percentage of households that are food secure in terms of access to 3
meals a day, access to meat protein and vegetables and fruits respectively12. The above
findings also suggest that there is considerable variation in terms of affordability/access to
food among the poverty pockets.
ii) In case of households with members seeking jobs, the percentage of households in Quaira
district, who can afford 3 meals a day, meat diet, fruit and vegetables twice a week is even
higher than all households. The lowest percentage for corresponding indicators is recorded in
Wadi Arabahh (14.2%) and Al-Rweished (12.7%).
3.4 Communication Network and Food Security
One indicator of access to food apart from affordability is how near or far the food supply is to
the location of the households. The survey captures the time taken for the member of household
to travel to nearest milk, vegetable/fruit and tea/coffee shop. The time taken also depends on
mode of transportation used and type and availability of road net work. Poor usually rely on
public transport and in rural areas/desert the road network may be dilapidated or non-existent,
thus increasing the travel time. Table 7 shows the percentage of households with various time
slots for visit to these 3 types of food outlet.
12
Detailed inter-district tables A.1.-A.9 for this chapter are given in the Annex
35
As expected a higher percentage of households in non-poverty pockets have faster access to
these food outlets than households in poverty pockets, either because of faster mode of
transportation, better road network or they are living in urban areas/cities, where the distances
are smaller due to large number of shops. Between 14-18% of households in poverty pockets as
compared to 1-2% of households in non-poverty pockets have to spend more than 30 minutes to
reach these outlets. Thus households in poverty pockets are less food secure.
Table 7: Travel Time to Food Stores (Percentage)
Indicators
All Households
Poverty
a. Time taken to reach nearest milk shop
b. Time taken to reach nearest vegetable and fruit shop
c. Time taken to reach coffee/tea shop
NonPoverty
i. ≤ 15 min.
55.0
75.7
ii.16-20 min.
16.7
9.5
iii. 20-30 min.
14.6
13.7
iv. > 30 min.
13.7
1.0
i. ≤ 15 min.
44.3
70.6
ii.16-20 min.
17.9
12.1
iii. 20-30 min.
19.0
15.2
iv. > 30 min.
18.0
1.1
i. ≤ 15 min.
53.7
73.0
ii.16-20 min.
15.1
10.0
iii. 20-30 min.
14.8
15.0
iv. > 30 min.
16.3
2.0
3.4.1 Inter-district variations among poverty pockets
Among the 12 poverty pockets largest percentage of households in Quaira spend more than 30
minutes of travel time to milk shop (43.1%), fruits and Vegetables shop (53.4%) and coffee and
tea (53.3%). In contrast they are more food secure (in terms of affordability) than any of the
other districts.
The presumption is that due to peculiar geographical location along with
subsistence agriculture this district is more self-reliant and less connected and dependent on the
market goods. The other districts with large percentage of households spending more than 30
minutes to food outlets are: Dair El-Kahf (28.4%), Al-Rweished (24.5%) and Husseiniyyeh
36
(21.8%). Among these 3 districts, Al-Rweished’s low food security can be linked to poor
accessibility in terms of distance.
3.5 Comparative View of Living Standards
We highlight the main findings from Table 8 as follows:
a)
Percentage of households in poverty as compared to non-poverty pockets that can
always afford to pay for clothes, shoes (28.4 vs. 18.2%), keeping home warm (45.3 vs.
40.5%), paying bills regularly (50.6% vs. 34.6%), conduct children’s dental check-up
(20 vs. 15.2%), purchase needed medicine (51.3 vs. 36.7%), buy school supplies (38.2
vs. 24.4%), even travel for family get-togethers (15.0 vs. 9.3%) and invite them over
for meals (18.8% vs. 9.1%).
37
Table 8: Living Standards Indicators (Percentage)
Household members
All Household
a. Buying needed clothes and shoes
b. Keeping home warm
c. Paying bills regularly
3
d. Children's dental check-up
e. Purchase of medical devices
4
f. Purchase of needed medicines
g. Purchase of school supplies5
h. Travel for family get-together
i. Friend/family invited once a month
seeking jobs
Poverty
Non-Poverty
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Always
28.4
18.2
21.9
14.4
ii. Sometimes
44.7
53.1
42.6
48.6
iii. Rarely
26.0
28.2
33.6
35.5
iv. Never
0.8
0.5
1.8
1.5
i. Always
45.3
1
40.5
32.7
2
38.2
ii. Sometimes
iii. Rarely
28.6
40.6
29.4
39.9
7.8
18.2
8.7
20.7
iv. Never
1.2
0.5
1.2
0.0
i. Always
50.6
34.6
40.7
25.6
ii. Sometimes
30.4
41.2
32.8
48.4
iii. Rarely
18.4
22.9
26.5
22.8
iv. Never
0.4
1.2
0.0
3.2
i. Always
20.0
15.2
21.0
10.6
ii. Sometimes
17.8
20.5
16.5
15.6
iii. Rarely
17.4
18.1
23.1
23.1
iv. Never
10.6
8.1
8.3
7.7
i. Always
3.5
6.4
2.1
5.7
ii. Sometimes
4.8
10.3
6.7
14.5
iii. Rarely
8.3
5.2
11.1
4.4
iv. Never
9.5
11.2
14.2
14.2
i. Always
51.3
36.7
51.8
40.2
ii. Sometimes
37.2
49.7
33.7
46.7
iii. Rarely
10.5
12.1
12.3
10.2
iv. Never
0.6
0.9
0.9
3.0
i. Always
38.2
24.4
40.0
20.8
ii. Sometimes
20.1
20.2
18.7
18.4
iii. Rarely
5.5
16.1
6.2
15.5
iv. Never
0.3
0.7
0.0
3.0
i. Always
15.0
9.3
12.4
13.9
ii. Sometimes
20.7
23.6
14.0
20.9
iii. Rarely
30.2
30.6
39.1
32.2
iv. Never
17.52
31.3
12.0
28.7
i. Always
18.8
9.1
16.5
9.9
ii. Sometimes
33.6
35.7
31.8
31.0
iii. Rarely
36.1
34.3
37.5
36.7
iv. Never
11.2
18.7
13.6
18.6
1.
17.1% non-response, 2. 28% non-response, 3. Non-response ratio: ranged from 31.1% to 43%,
4.
Non-response ranged from 61.3 % to 74%, 5. Non-response ranged from 35% to 42.3%
38
b) Correspondingly the percentage for households in non-povertyr pockets that can afford
to pay sometimes or rarely for these goods and services is higher.
c) The percentage of households in non-poverty pockets who can afford to pay for
medical devices is higher than for households in poverty areas (6.4 vs. 3.5%).
3.5.1 Inter-district variations among poverty pockets
Table 9 identifies the districts with highest percentage of households that cannot afford the goods
and services related to medium and long-term well-being of households. Households in poverty
pockets of Quaira, Husseiniyyeh, and Al-Rweished have the highest percentages in maximum 3
out of the 9 indicators listed in the Table 9.
Table 9: Districts with Percentage of Households that can rarely or Never Afford these
Services
indicator
a. Buying needed clothes and shoes
Sub-district
%
Husseiniyyeh
48.3
Ghour Essafi
42.1
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
41.8
b. Keeping home warm
Al-Rweished
33.0
c. Paying bills regularly
Wadi Arabahh
48.4
Mraighah
33.7
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
33.1
Al-Rweished
50.4
Ghour Essafi
41.6
Quaira
47.7
d. Children's dental check-up
e. Purchase of medical devices
f. Purchase of needed medicines
g. Purchase of school supplies
h. Attending family get-together
i. Inviting friends over meals
39
Al-Rweished
34.2
Husseiniyyeh
51.2
Quaira
47.7
Al-Rweished
34.2
Borma
18.6
Wadi Arabahh
17.4
Al-Rweished
70.9
Borma
67.9
Wadi Arabahh
59.6
Borma
63.0
Quaira
55.0
Wadi Arabahh
53.5
3.6 Perceptions about Adverse Situations
The sense of overall well being, optimism and happiness occurs when the capabilities are
translated into material well-being and is also relative to the perceived well-being of others in the
communities/villages and towns. But the sense of well-being is to some extent influenced by the
state of mind. Even if a family is materially poor but if they are less prone to worrying about
expected or speculate less about adverse situations that are likely to happen to them or about
surroundings, or even may be less competitive they may be even happier than the non-poor.
However what determines this more optimistic frame of mind is far more complex than the few
indicators documented in the pilot social survey. Another aspect about well-being is expressing
concern (not equivalent to being worried) at least for sustainable issues like pollution and crime.
It indicates the households’ awareness about the issues affecting the well-being of communities
and may ultimately translate into more involvement for resolving them at the community level.
Table 10 gives the percentage of households by the degree of concern they have on various
material and non-material deprivations. The findings are as follows:
a) Between 23%-60% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets are very concerned
and concerned about the lack of sufficient incomes, hunger and unexpected spending on
health. In other words there is a high sense of insecurity whether they will be able to
cope with these adverse situations. The proportion of households in poverty pockets
expressing concern is slightly higher than the corresponding percentages for households
in the non-poverty pockets.
b) Between 1/4th-1/3rd of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets are very concerned
and concerned about a) diseases resulting from poor sanitation, crime, air and water
pollution.
Table 11 gives the respondent’s response to perception of the percentages of poor and rich
residing in his community. More than 60% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets
assess that 40-80% are poor in their communities. Correspondingly more than 50 percent of
households perceive that nearly 0-20 percent are rich residents.
40
When comparing their standard of living with others in the neighborhood and village, between
50-60% of households in both poverty and non-poverty pockets regard it similar, but when it
comes to comparing with the national living standards, between 78-85% regard it as worse.
Table 10: Perceptions about Adverse Situations (Percentage)
indicator
a. Lack of sufficient income
b. Hunger
c. Unexpected spending on health
d. Lack of housing
e. Diseases resulting from poor sanitation
f. Crime
g. Air-pollution
h. Water pollution
i. Drought
41
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Very concerned
58.4
49.9
ii. Concerned
16.0
21.2
iii. Slightly concerned
8.8
13.6
iv. Not concerned
16.8
15.3
i. Very concerned
28.3
23.3
ii. Concerned
18.8
20.9
iii. Slightly concerned
11.9
16.9
iv. Not concerned
41.0
39.0
i. Very concerned
35.0
32.5
ii. Concerned
24.3
27.3
iii. Slightly concerned
14.4
19.8
iv. Not concerned
26.3
20.5
i. Very concerned
15.0
19.1
ii. Concerned
7.6
11.0
iii. Slightly concerned
2.9
13.8
iv. Not concerned
74.5
56.1
i. Very concerned
12.8
11.6
ii. Concerned
13.6
21.7
iii. Slightly concerned
11.4
26.8
iv. Not concerned
62.3
39.9
i. Very concerned
20.3
16.0
ii. Concerned
11.0
21.9
iii. Slightly concerned
9.9
26.6
iv. Not concerned
58.9
35.3
i. Very concerned
19.3
12.9
ii. Concerned
15.6
19.6
iii. Slightly concerned
12.7
34.5
iv. Not concerned
52.4
32.9
i. Very concerned
27.7
15.9
ii. Concerned
17.7
23.1
iii. Slightly concerned
7.4
31.9
iv. Not concerned
47.2
29.1
i. Very concerned
12.2
5.8
ii. Concerned
11.6
7.6
iii. Slightly concerned
7.5
16.4
iv. Not concerned
68.6
70.2
Table 11: Perception on Socio-Economic Conditions of the Community (Percentage)
Poverty
Non-Poverty
0-20%
9.2
6.1
21-40%
12.8
15.2
41-60%
33.1
34.5
61-80%
29.8
38.3
81-100%
15.1
6.0
0-20%
52.2
53.1
21-40%
23.0
29.4
41-60%
16.1
13.7
61-80%
5.9
3.7
81-100%
2.9
0.1
a. Proportion poor
b. Proportion rich
Table 12: Comparison of Households' Living Standards with Others (Percentage)
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Better
14.4
27.1
ii. Similar
61.5
54.5
iii. Worse
24.1
18.4
i. Better
10.4
16.9
ii. Similar
53.4
51.2
iii. Worse
36.2
31.9
i. Better
2.3
8.1
ii. Similar
12.2
13.7
iii. Worse
85.4
78.2
a. Households in the neighborhood
b. Households in the village
c. Households in the country
3.6.1 Inter-district variations
More than 70 percent of households in the poverty pockets of Al-Rweished, Ghour Essafi and
Borma are very concerned about lack of sufficient incomes. Slightly above 70% of households in
the poverty pocket of Al-Rweished are very concerned about unexpected spending on health. A
42
comparatively high percentage of households in Wadi Arabahh and Mraighah are very concerned
about air and water pollution and droughts/floods.
3.7 Correlation Analysis of food security and living standards Indicators
Inability to provide adequate food and/or a balanced diet to the family can be due to economic
and non-economic reasons. The main reason is low income, followed by access specifically for
far flung villages and towns, where the supply chains are weak and erratic. As information on
household’s income was not documented in this stand alone survey, the percentage of
households ranking (i.e., always, sometimes, rarely and never) the affordability of 3 meals is
linked with their degree of concern on hunger and lack of sufficient income. In other words, the
question we explore is: Is the percentage of households in poverty pockets low ranking on
frequency of meals/vegetables, fruits low correlated with the percentage of households that are
very concerned with lack of income, or hunger. For consumption of vegetables we also explore
the relationship with travel time to vegetable/fruit shop.
Investing money and time in children’s health and education is an investment in future and
reduces inter-generational poverty. The percentage of households in poverty pockets on
frequency of children’s dental check-up and provision of book supplies are correlated with
households ranking of constraints and obstacles for such an investment. Table 13 and 14 gives
the correlations among these indicators.
Correlations of frequency of affordability (in terms of sometimes plus rarely) of 3 meals and
vegetables/fruits with perception about hunger and lack of sufficient income is low and in most
cases statistically not significant. The statistically significant correlation of consumption of
vegetables and fruits with low income perception and hunger suggest that income elasticity of
expenditure on these items at least in far flung areas is high, most likely due to high prices in turn
due to high transportation costs, weak scale economies and erratic supplies. Moreover travel
time is not related to their low consumption.
Significant and high correlations of percentage of households who rarely have children’s dental
checkup with lack of treatment suggest absence of dental clinics in the poverty pockets. When
the percentages of 3 rankings are combined, it is the concern about lack of income and
43
unexpected spending on health that are significantly correlated with dental check-ups. In all
likelihood, degree of concern on unexpected expenditure on other ailments and chronic
conditions leads to low priority to children’s dental check-up.
The aggregate percentages of households reporting sometimes and rare provision of book
supplies for children is correlated again with perception of sufficient income and obstacles to
education. In this case, lack of sufficient income is the main reason for inadequate provision of
book supplies. In addition the concerns on use of drugs, smoking and crime and violence around
school are the main impediments for parents to invest in the quality education of their wards.
Table 13: Correlations between food security and living standards Indicators
Indicator
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
+ rarely
+ Rarely + Never
Affordability of 3 meals a day
Very Concerned about Hunger
0.27
0.444
Lack of sufficient Income
0.287
0.205
Very Concerned about Hunger
0.336
0.556*
Lack of sufficient Income
0.364
0.462**
Travel time to Shop
-0.245
0.085
Vegetables & Fruits twice a week
Children's Dental Check-up
Lack of sufficient Income
0.061
0.169
0.531**
Unexpected Spending on Health
0.012
0.043
0.671***
No health Insurance
-0.105
-0.152
-0.057
Far Distance
0.163
-0.148
-0.151
Absence of Specialist Doctor
0.031
-0.072
0.285
Absence of family Doctor
-0.279
0.365
-0.195
Working hours in the health Center
-0.246
-0.537**
-0.267
Poor Services
0.045
-0.033
-0.088
Cost of Visiting a Doctor
-0.018
-0.052
0.003
Delay in appointment
0.103
0.071
-0.052
Nobody to look after the house
0.032
0.559**
0.249
Cannot take leave from Work
0.415
0.162
-0.058
-0.608***
-0.427
-0.222
Do not know where to go
The Lack of Treatment
*** Sig. at 95%, ** Sig. at 90%. * Sig. at 85%
44
Table 14: Correlations between Indicators
Provision of Book supplies to Children
Concerned
(Sometimes + Rarely)
Very Concerned &
Concerned
Lack of Sufficient Income
0.492**
0.631***
No Teachers Available
-0.297
0.019
Bad quality of Education
-0.116
-0.005
No Specialized Teachers
-0.175
-0.005
Poor public Utilities
-0.227
-0.051
Crime and violence in the school
-0.312
-0.395
Drugs in the School
-0.311
-0.631***
Smoking in the School
-0.249
-0.505**
Lack of Discipline
-0.142
-0.303
Peer Pressure
-0.36
-0.352
Discrimination between Students
-0.062
-0.289
Overcrowding in Classroom
-0.361
-0.377
Access to schools
-0.027
-0.268
Crime and violence around school
-0.426
-0.619***
*** Sig. at 95%, ** Sig. at 90%. * Sig. at 85%
45
CHAPTER 4
Labour Market Dynamics
4.1 Introduction
From a planners and policy makers perspective, the complexity and working of labour markets
whether national, sub-regional or at local level has always posed a formidable challenge. On the
demand side are relevant investments to match the skill set of the population and selection
procedures and remuneration scales adopted by the public or private sector employers. The
quality of supply side is constrained by the type and level of education programs available,
methods adopted for job search, individual and household motivation to seek job and economic/
non-economic constraints faced by the job seekers. In spite of the complexity of the job market
and growing share of younger population, the Kingdom has done fairly well in generating
employment as compared to the other Middle Eastern economies. However lot more needs to be
done in order to make the labour markets flexible to changing demand and supply conditions in
the economy.
Total unemployment rate fell slowly from 17.1 percent in 1991 to 14.8 in 2005 and further fell
rapidly to 12.9 percent in 2009. Similarly female unemployment rate fell by 10 percentage points
in the last 2 decades from 34.1 to 24.1 percent. The decline in male unemployment was slower in
the same period and managed to fall from 14.5 to 10.3 percent. Disappointingly, youth (15-24
age brackets) unemployment rate more than doubled from 12.1 to 27.0 percent during the last 2
decades. Due to rapid increase in population, the employment to population ratio has remained
stagnant around 33-35 percent between 1991 to 2009.
The emphasis of the social pilot survey is to indirectly assess the coverage of ‘decent jobs’ i.e.,
extent of jobs that carry health insurance, social security and pension benefits. Moreover it
documents the various job search methods adopted by the households and qualitative constraints
46
faced by job seekers. The objective is to gain a better understanding of the job market from the
supply side for policy and program intervention.
4.2 Employment Status and Decent Job Indicators
Table 15 gives a summary view of percentages of households reporting on various qualitative
indicators.
Table 15: Employment Status and Decent Work (Percentage)
Indicator
Poverty
Non-Poverty
a. Percentage of job-seekers
25.6
14.9
i. No job-seeker
75.0
84.1
ii. 1 job seeker
18.7
12.2
iii. > 1 job-seeker
6.3
3.8
Health insurance
75.6
38.4
Social security
75.7
42.1
i. zero employed
45.6
57.9
ii. 1 employed
39.4
33.4
iii. > 1 employed
15.0
5.4
i. zero employed
44.6
57.9
ii. 1 employed
41.2
35.7
iii. > 1 employed
15.2
6.4
i. No one
65.5
74.5
ii. One
33.6
24.7
iii. more than one
0.9
0.7
b. Percentage of households with
c. Percentage of employed covered by
d. Percentage of households covered by health insurance with
e. Percentage of households covered by social security with
f. Percentage of households receiving pension
47
We note the following:
a) The percentage of job seekers in poverty pockets is twice the national unemployment rate
and is near to the female unemployment rate13. A higher percentage of households in
poverty pockets have 1 or more job-seekers (25.0%) as compared to households in nonpoverty pockets (16.0%).
b) Nearly 75 percent of employed in households in poverty pockets are covered by health
insurance and social security as compared to the coverage of less than 40% for the nonpoverty pockets. One needs to look into the industry and occupational status of the
employed in these households to understand this strange finding. In a sense it is better
that although poverty pockets may have lower incomes, the safety net is stronger. This
pattern is reinforced once the households are classified by number of employed persons
with health/social security.
c) Again the percentage of households with one pensionable job is higher for households in
poverty than households in non-poverty pockets. Higher percentage of households with
non-pensionable jobs is related to the nature and type of occupation as well employment
status of employed persons.
13
Since none of the indicators in the survey are gender-specific, the possibility that this rate reflects predominantly
the female unemployment rate in poverty pockets cannot be entirely ruled out.
48
4.3 Job-Search Strategy
Table 16 gives the percentage of households adopting different strategies to search for a job
during month prior to the survey.
Table 16: Job-Search Methods and Constraints to Employment (Percentage)
Indicator
Poverty
NonPoverty
a. All households
i. Newspaper
18.6
44.6
ii. Use of internet
2.7
20.3
iii. Application to ministries
48.5
35.0
iv. Social support (family and relatives)
58.1
52.2
v. Application to the Ministry of Labor
7.6
22.5
vi. Application to the Civil Service Bureau
5.2
17.1
vii. Application to the private
39.1
55.1
b. Reasons for refusing work
Reasons for refusing job opportunity
Households w/o
Households with
Households w/o
job-seekers
job-seekers
disabled
Poverty
NonPoverty
Poverty
NonPoverty
Poverty
NonPoverty
i. Distance
31.6
47.1
35.0
21.4
33.3
30.3
ii. Poor public transportation
13.5
0.0
-
0.0
-
-
iii. Public transportation cost
-
-
0.0
44.6
-
-
iv. Sickness/disability
40.1
0.0
-
-
20.1
0.0
v. Disapproved by the family
19.6
0.0
-
-
9.8
0.0
vi. Mismatch of qualification
-
-
49.3
24.9
24.6
16.3
vii. Cultural/traditional aspect
12.1
0.0
-
-
-
-
viii. Car not available
-
-
-
-
6.8
0.0
ix. High oil price
-
-
-
-
0.0
29.3
The main findings are highlighted as follows:
a) Majority of households in poverty pockets rely on social networking (relatives, friends,
past employers) followed by applications to ministries to search for jobs. Households in
non-poverty pockets rely on direct applications to the private sector followed by social
networking and newspapers. The differences in educational level of 2 types of poverty
49
pockets may be one of the main reasons (not the only one) for these differences in jobsearch process.
b) One should also note the huge difference in the use of internet and applications to labour
ministry between the proportions in poverty and non-poverty pockets.
4.4 Reasons for Refusing to Work
Reasons for refusing to work are complex. They can be social, economic or skills mismatch.
Household with no job-seekers may also contain job-seekers who have given up on seeking jobs
since they are disillusioned by the search process. There may be households with active jobseekers but still refusing to work until they can get a job to their liking. Presence of disabled
family member may be one reason for refusing to work, especially by females. The lower half of
Table 17 gives the distribution of reasons for respondent or any household member to turn down
a job or not apply for a job. They are classified into 3 types of households: i) Households without
job-seekers, ii) households with job-seekers and iii) households without any disable member.
The main findings are as follows:
a) Households without active job seekers indicate sickness/disability (40.1%) followed by
distance as the main reason for refusing to work. Nearly 1/5 of employment age
individuals refuse to work because it is disapproved by the family (most likely it is the
females). Another 12% refuse to work because of cultural/traditional aspects.
b) Nearly 50% of active job seekers refuse to work because of mismatch of qualifications
with another 35% citing distance as a reason for refusing to work14.
c) Once the disability factor is removed, then sickness/disability reason is quoted by only
20.1 percent of households (last column of table 16). Distance followed by mismatch of
qualifications appears as strong reasons for refusing to work.
4.5 Inter-District Profile of Poverty Pockets
The relevant tables in annex identify the following districts with extreme values on these
indicators15:
14
15
One needs to be sure that whether these job seekers are unpaid family workers or not.
Inter-district indicators for this chapter are given in Annex as Tables B.1-B.9.
50
a) Husseiniyyeh and Ghour Essafi at 42.9% and 34.9% have the largest percentage of jobseekers among the 12 districts.
b) Households in sub-Districts of Al-Rweished and Al-Azraq have the lowest numbers of
employed covered by Health Insurance and Social Security.
c) In job search methods households in Wadi Arabahh and Al-Rweished do not refer to
newspapers.
d) Only households in 3 districts, i.e., Mraighah, Al-Azraq and Hoasha out of 12 sampled
poor districts use Internet for job search.
e) Out of 12 poverty pockets, households in 6 districts (Wadi Arabahh, Al-Rweished,
Mraighah, Quaira, Husseiniyyeh and Ghour Essafi) have never filed job applications with
Ministry of Labor.
f) Households in 5 districts (Wadi Arabahh, Ghour El-Mazra'ah, Ghour Essafi, Salhiyyeh,
Quaira have never filed job applications with Civil Service Bureau.
g) Wadi Arabah (12.8%), Mraighah (7.1%), Salhiyyeh (13.6%) and Dair El-Kahf (0.0%)
have the lowest percentages of households filing job applications with private sector
institutions.
4.6 Correlations between labour indicators
Is the employment status or the quality of decent work reflects in increasing concern about the
lack of sufficient income? How is the various job-search methods adopted by job-seekers impact
on the magnitude of job-seekers in poverty pockets?
Do the percentage of job-seeking
households in poverty pockets rise with the percentage of households refusing to work because
of distance or mismatch of qualifications? Correlations in Table 17 quantify the extent of bivariate relationship among these aspects of job market and income concerns. The correlations
are low as well statistically not significant in most cases. However in poverty pockets where
majority of households use friends and family contacts, apply directly to ministry of labour, or
civil service bureau, the percentage of job seekers tend to be low as the correlation magnitudes
are high and statistically significant. Thus suggesting that government institution along with
social networking reduces unemployment.
51
Table 17: Correlations between lack of sufficient income indicator (very concerned) and
labour indicators
Lack of sufficient income (very concerned)
One member is a job seeker + more than one member is a job seeker
-0.077
No members are covered by health insurance
0.221
No members are covered by social security
0.243
*** Sig. at 95%, ** Sig. at 90%. * Sig. at 85%
Table 18: Correlations between methods for searching for jobs and labour indicators
Percentage of job seekers
Responding to the newspaper advertisements
-0.233
Using the internet
-0.125
Submitting employment application directly to the ministries
-0.197
Family and friend help or the support of previous (or current) employer
-0.524**
Submitting employment application directly to the Ministry of Labor offices
-0.564**
Submitting employment application directly to the Civil Service Bureau
-0.447*
Submitting employment application directly to the private institution
0.383
Distance
-0.041
The job description does not match the applicant qualification
-0.06
Presence of disabled persons under 18 + above 18 (all)
-0.100
*** Sig. at 95%, ** Sig. at 90%. * Sig. at 85%
52
CHAPTER 5
INCOME STATUS, INCOME SHOCKS AND PRECAUTIONARY
SAVINGS
5.1 Introduction
Low and uncertain income stream is one of the main reasons for being chronically poor and also
slipping into poverty frequently. Low incomes in turn retard the capacity to save in
financial/physical assets as well invest in the education of children thus initiating a vicious cycle
of inter-generational poverty among the households.
Real GDP growth rate of the Kingdom during 1999-2003 ranged between 2-3.5%. It almost
doubled during the period 2004-08 between 5.1-6.3% before slowing down in 2009 and 2010 at
2.4 and 3.0 percent respectively. Average annual family incomes grew from JD 4732 (USD
6665) in 2000 to JD 6606 (USD 9304) in 2009, an increase of 39.6 percent. Discounting for
inflation rates during the period it gives an increase of 4.6% in the real incomes of households
during the period.
5.2 Main Source of Income and its Regularity
Some sources of income are more stable in level and timing. Thus one can plan expenditure and
savings. These are income from salary and wages, retirement income/pensions and to some
extent support from National Aid Fund. Income from self-employment, home-based work and
internal transfers (informal social safety net) are more uncertain in volume and timing. As many
of the poor are involved in informal sectors, their incomes are likely to be irregular in timing as
well fluctuating in levels. Table 19 gives the distribution profile of households by main source of
income (defined as source of income that has the biggest percentage share in the total household
income). It also gives the distribution of households by number of earners and frequency of
remuneration.
We note the following:
a) Income from salary and wages has the highest percentage share in the total income for
more than 50% households in both types of pockets. As expected the percentage of
53
households in poverty pockets is marginally less than in non-poverty pockets (55.5%).
Next in importance for households in poverty pockets is retirement income (26.8%),
followed by cash transfers from National Aid Fund as main source of income for 11.9%
households16. Compared to households in poverty
pockets, a higher proportion of
households in non-poverty pockets have private projects (12.4%) and a smaller
proportion with retirement income (19.2%) as the main source of income
b) Given that around 75% of households rely on salary and wage income and retirement
income, more than 75% of households have regular monthly income. This percentage is
even higher for households in poverty pockets than households in non-poverty pockets
and increases with the number of earners. Correspondingly the proportion of households
with irregular income declines with increase in number of earners. The trend in
proportion of households with other frequencies, i.e., daily, weekly, quarterly,
seasonal/annual shows an inverted U-shaped pattern with the number of earners. As the
number of earners increase, the timing frequency of income accruals vary, may be
because other members are employed in the informal sectors or have non-permanent
second job.
Table 19: Income Status (Percentage)
Indicators
a. Income sources
Poverty
i. Salary and wages
Non-Poverty
50.3
55.5
ii. Private project
6.4
12.4
iii. Retirement income
26.8
19.2
iv. Internal transfers
4.1
6.5
v. National Aid Fund
11.9
3.8
b. Regularity of
All Households
income
Poverty
i. Monthly
89.8
ii. Irregular
iii. Other frequencies
NonPoverty
Earner = 1
Poverty
76.3
89.7
3.6
5.0
6.5
18.7
16
NonPoverty
Earners > 1
Poverty
NonPoverty
73.9
94.8
83.3
2.7
4.6
1.9
2.2
7.6
21.5
3.3
14.4
It is not clear whether retirement income only includes pension income or it is aggregate of income earned from
assets built up during working life.
54
Table 20 gives the data on household’s perceptions of likelihood of an income shock in the next
six months. It also gives results of adequacy of precautionary savings, with the number of
earners and regularity of income.
The main findings are as follows:
a) Around 70 percent or more of households in both types of pockets think that an income
shock is not likely in the next 6 months. This is consistent with the regularity of income
and source of income percentages in the previous table. Here again the percentage of
households in poverty pockets with more confidence in their income stream is higher
than the percentage of households in non-poverty pockets. This surety in absence of
shock rises with the number of earners in both types of households. The percentage of
households who think that an income shock is very or somehow possible declines with
number of earners in both types of pockets.
b) Majority (around 70%) of households in poverty pockets have no savings. This
proportion falls slightly as number of earners increase. However around 1/3rd of
households in non-poverty pockets report that they have no savings. Surprisingly this
proportion rises to 50 percent with more than 1 earner in case of households in nonpoverty pockets. Roughly 1/5th and 1/3rd of households in poverty and non-poverty
pockets have precautionary savings to meet their expenditure for less than a month. Here
again the proportion of such families is inversely related to number of earners.
c) The question whether the adequacy of savings/ is related to the regularity of incomes is
answered in the next set of numbers. The proportion of zero saver households is higher
for both types of pockets for irregular income earners, which also dramatically increases
for households in the non-poverty pockets from 37.5 to 70.5 percent. Correspondingly the
proportion of households with savings less than one month of expenditure is lower for
irregular than regular income recipients.
d) Whether the presence of a disable person in a household lowers its capacity to earn
regular income and does it vary by type of household and number of earners? This is
correlated in the next two set of questions in the table. For the households in poverty
pockets, the presence of disable person lowers its capacity to earn regular income
55
compared to households without disable person irrespective of number of earners.
Moreover for households in poverty pockets the daily, weekly, quarterly accrual of
earnings also increases with the presence of disable persons.
e) For households in non-poverty pockets the relationship between the presence of a disable
person, no of earners and regularity of income is not as unambiguous as in the case of
households in poverty pockets.
5.3 Inter-District Profile of Poverty Pockets
i) The lowest proportion of households receiving income from salary and wages belong to
districts of Al-Rweished (37.6%) and Quaira (35.4%). Husseiniyyeh (2.4%) and Hoasha (2.9%)
have the lowest proportion of households receiving income from private projects. Income from
retirement accrues to the highest percentage of households in Quaira (45.2%) and Hoasha
(47.9%)17. Also highest proportions of households in Quaira (12.9%) among the 12 districts are
dependent on internal transfers. National Aid Fund recipient households are the highest in AlRweished (46.2%) and Ghour Essafi (20.1%).
ii) Among the 12 poverty pockets, Ghour Essafi has the highest proportion of households with
irregular income. Households in Borma (17.7%), Al-Azraq (14.5%) and Al-Rweished (12.2%)
are dependent on mix of income accruals such as daily, weekly, every 3 months and seasonal.
iii) Nearly 28% and 15% households in Salhiyyeh and Ghour El-Mazra’ah respectively see a
high possibility of losing their income in the next 6 months.
iv) All the responding households in Al-Rweished, Husseiniyyeh and Dair El-Kahf do not have
any financial savings. Sixty-one percent of households in Wadi Arabahh have savings less than
one month of expenditure.
v) The relationship between adequacy of precautionary savings, irregular vs. regular income and
number of earners at the district level is the same as observed for all households in both types of
pockets.
17
Pocket-wise indicators for this chapter are given in Annex C.1-C.6.
56
Table 20: Income Type, Likelihood of Income Shock, Adequacy of Precautionary Savong
(Percentage)
All Households
Poverty
NonPoverty
Earner = 1
Poverty
NonPoverty
Earners > 1
Poverty
NonPoverty
a. Income shock
i. Very possible
10.8
15.1
9.9
15.1
9.1
2.7
ii. Possible somehow
7.4
15.0
7.1
17.8
5.9
8.5
iii. Not possible
81.9
69.9
83.0
67.0
85.1
88.8
b. Adequacy of precautionary saving
i. Less than a month
20.4
38.7
22.4
36.4
19.6
28.1
ii. Greater than 1 month
5.4
25.0
2.5
27.1
10.7
21.0
iii. No saving
74.2
36.3
75.0
36.5
69.6
50.9
c. Adequacy of precautionary saving
Monthly
Poverty
i. Less than a month
Irregular
NonPoverty
19.6
26.7
ii. More than a month
5.2
iii. No savings
75.2
Poverty
Non-Poverty
12.9
10.2
35.7
5.0
19.1
37.5
82.2
70.7
d1. Regularity of income (No. of earner = 1)
With disable persons
Poverty
NonPoverty
w/o disable person
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Monthly
82.9
84.5
90.2
72.9
ii. Irregular
4.8
3.9
2.5
4.7
iii. Other frequencies
12.3
11.5
7.3
22.4
i. Monthly
92.3
89.1
95.0
82.6
ii. Irregular
0
10.9
2.0
1.2
iii. Other frequencies
7.7
0
2.9
16.2
d2. Regularity of income (No. of earner > 1)
5.4 Correlations between income status indicators and income shocks and
precautionary savings
To what extent the concern about lack of sufficient income is related to the type of income
accrual or its regularity is quantified in the correlations estimated and shown in Table 21. The
analysis indicates that the concerns about insufficiency of income among households in poverty
57
pockets largely stem from irregular incomes. The higher the proportion of households in poverty
pockets with irregular incomes, the greater the proportion reporting a higher degree of concern.
However lack of savings apparently is widespread among all the households in poverty pockets,
irrespective of timing of accrued income. Perception of insufficient income is only weakly
related with presence of disabled person, even after accounting for irregular income.
Table 21: Correlations between lack of sufficient income and its types with perception
(very concerned)
Lack of sufficient income (very concerned)
Income generated from wages and salary
-0.405
Income generated from private project
0.351
Income from retirement
-0.138
Income generated from internal transfers
-0.099
Income received from National Aid Fund
0.410
Irregular income of households
0.486*
No savings (all households)
0.617**
No savings (income regularity – monthly)
0.549**
No savings (irregular income)
0.699**
Incapable persons’ regularity of income (earn=1) + irregular income
0.031
*** Sig. at 95%, ** Sig. at 90%. * Sig. at 85%
58
CHAPTER 6
ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION
6.1 Introduction
Transportation network of an economy is the vein that keeps the economic activity at an efficient
and effective speed. At a micro level, it links cities with towns and desert oasis. It links markets
to production centers and individual communities to jobs, and other social services. The poor in
the far flung areas may have poor access to public transportation and/or road network and thus
may be discouraged to produce for the market, access jobs, or avail government services to
improve health and education. Limited social travel may further isolate communities and reduce
knowledge sharing, leading to chronic impoverishment.
The kingdom has around 80,000 Sq. Km of paved roads and highways. Since 2002, the Ministry
of Public Works and Housing started implementation of its 25 year plan that aims to complete an
extensive road network around the kingdom. This includes building ring roads around major
cities and development areas such as Amman, Salt and Irbid. Investments on road improvement
and development are expected to reach more than USD 1.8 billion within the coming 25 years.
6.2 Access to and Availability of Public Transportation: A Comparative View
The pilot social survey included questions on the availability and use of public transportation as
well as the mode of travel used by the respondents. Table 22 compares these indicators
households in for poverty and non-poverty pockets.
We note the following:
a) More than 40 percent of households in poverty pockets report that public transportation is
available daily and 18% percent respond that at least it is available every hour. Thirty
percent of households in non-poverty pockets indicate that it is available daily and only
6.5% report that it is available at least every hour.
59
b) The pattern of use of public transport differs significantly between households in poverty
and non-poverty pockets. More than 50% of households in non-poverty pockets use it
daily, as compared to 1/5th of households in poverty pockets. More than 1/4th of
households in poverty pockets use it once/twice a week as compared to 1/5th by the
households in non-poverty pockets. More than 1/5th of households in poverty pockets use
it once or twice a month as compared to 8.9 percent of households in non-poverty
pockets.
c) Nearly 80% of households in non-poverty pockets can walk to the public transportation
in less than 15 minutes. The corresponding percentage for households in poverty pockets
is 66.5%. More than 6% of households in poverty pockets have to spend 31 minutes or
more walking to the stop as compared to only 1.8 percent of households in non-poverty
pockets. Thus access to public transportation is much easier for households in nonpoverty than in poverty pockets.
d) The use of private cars is more and public transport is less by the households in poverty
pockets than by the households in non-poverty pockets. Living in urban centers with
well maintained and subsidized public transport and high cost of living may reduce the
need for private transport as well its affordability by the non-poor population.
60
Table 22: Access, Use, Mode to/of Public Transportation, and Travel Time to Stops
(Percentage)
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Daily
41.1
29.5
ii. At least once every hour
18.0
6.5
iii. Irregular
6.7
0.1
i. Daily
21.3
56.0
ii. Once twice a week
26.7
19.2
iii. More than twice a week
10.5
5.0
iv. Once or twice a month
22.1
8.9
v. more than twice a month
3.0
4.1
vi. Once or twice a year
4.0
1.1
vii. Never
12.4
5.8
i. 15 minutes or less
66.5
79.9
ii. 16-20 minutes
13.2
9.4
iii. 21-30 minutes
13.8
8.8
iv. More than 30 minutes
6.5
1.8
i. On foot
3.9
2.6
ii. Private car
36.4
30.2
iii. Public transport
46.8
62.7
iv. Taxi/mini-bus owned by other
13.0
4.5
a. Availability of public transport
b. No. of times public transport is used
c. Time to the nearest public transport stop on foot
d. Main means of transportation
6.3 Inter-District Variations
a) Smallest proportion of households in sub-districts Al-Rweished (38.0%), Mraighah
(37.0%), Husseiniyyeh (42.4%) and Ghour El-Mazra’ah (44.3%) can reach public
transportation stop on foot in less than 15 minutes. Consequently it takes largest
percentage of households in these districts to reach the public transportation stop in 21-30
minutes18.
b) Residents in Wadi Arabahh use the public transport least frequently, once or twice a
week (33.8%), once or twice a month (28.7%) and more than twice a month (18.1%).
18
Pocket-wise distribution of the indicators in this chapter is given in Annex Tables D.1-D.4.
61
Nearly half of households in Mraighah never or once or twice a year use public transport.
A total of 70 percent of households in Borma and 66 percent in Ghour Essafi use it daily
and weekly. Round 1/3rd of households in Quaira and Al-Rweished use it only once or
twice monthly.
c) The use of private car is the lowest in Al-Azraq and Husseiniyyeh (25.3%) and Ghour
Essafi (12.7%). In Wadi Arabah 25% of households walk to reach destinations. Public
transport is least used by households in Mraighah (10.1%) and Wadi Arabah (17.5%).
6.4 Correlations of Public Transportation Indicators
A well-developed and accessible network of roads connecting villages to markets and urban
areas open up a host of opportunities for households in far flung areas. Thus households are
motivated to avail health, education services more frequently and job opportunities. It also
improves access to markets for daily consumption items bringing surplus agriculture and
livestock production. However the time taken to reach a destination is also influenced by the
mode of transportation adopted for travel to various destinations. In Table 23 correlations
between time taken to vegetable/fruit shop and mode of transport are estimated. The significant
negative correlation of traveling by foot and time taken to reach a vegetable/fruit shop indicate
that the two are inversely related. In other words the higher the percentage of households
reporting a walking mode, the lower the percentage of households reporting shorter time to the
food shop. Thus access to vegetable/fruit shop on foot is fairly time consuming, but by public
transport it can be reached within 21-30 minutes.
Table 23: Correlations between time needed for closest beverage outlet and mean of
transportaion
TRAVELtm2130
TRAVELtm3140
TRAVELtm4160
TRAVELtmGT60
ON FOOT
-0.534**
-0.596***
-0.504*
-0.047
PRIVATE CAR
-0.394
-0.021
0.11
0.067
PUBLIC TRANPRT
0.446*
0.375
0.227
0.103
TAXIMINIBUS
0.186
-0.195
-0.21
0.089
*** Sig. at 95%, ** Sig. at 90%. * Sig. at 85%
62
CHAPTER 7
ACCESS TO HEALTH AND EXTENT, CARE OF THE
DISABLED
7.1 Introduction
Healthy population remains a central pillar to the overall social well-being of a productive
society. Care of the young, old and disabled is a testimony to society’s superior consciousness
and responsibility. This is possible if all segments of the society have equitable, effective and
efficient access to health services in the country. The Kingdom has made tangible progress
during the last decades in ensuring access to health services for all sections of the society. Less
than 5 mortality rate fell from 39 (per 1000 births) to 28 in 2009. Proportion of 1 year old
immunized against measles increased from 85% in 1990 to 103% in 2009. In case of maternal
mortality, the rate per/100,000 live births has fallen from 48 in 1990 to 19 in 2009.
7.2 Access to Health Services: A Comparative View
While the above statistics are monitored on a regular basis from the various surveys, the
questions in social pilot survey for the first time addressed the accessibility and quality of health
services from the individual household perspective. It also contained a module of 4 questions on
services to the disabled (if any) in the household. Table 24 gives the percentage of households
responding to various indicators. We note the following:
a) In case of emergency more than 56% percent of households in poverty pockets visit
health center and 1/3rd visit government hospitals. These percentages are reversed in case
of households in non-poverty pockets.
Probably the coverage of health centers as
compared to government hospitals is larger in rural areas and far flung communities with
opposite being the case in urban towns and cities.
b) Around 2/3rd of households in both type of pockets use private car and taxi, minibus to
reach health services. As expected use of ambulance by the households in poverty
pockets is more than its use by the households in non-poverty pockets. In far flung
villages, transportation costs to health services are likely to be high; therefore it makes
sense to avail of subsidized transport of the health facility. Conversely the use of public
63
transport is more in households in non-poverty than in the poverty pockets. This result
may be explained if non-poverty pockets are more urbanized and linked to a welldeveloped public transport system.
c) Forty-percent of households in both poverty and non-poverty pockets regard poor health
services as a constraint in their use. Only 5% of households in poverty pockets regard
lack of health insurance as a constraint compared to 22% of households in non-poverty
pockets. Around 10% (11.1%) of households in poverty pockets regard ‘lack of
treatment’ as a major constraint. These differences between the poverty and non-poverty
pockets reflect most probably the location differences with poor mostly residing in rural
and desert towns/villages and high percentages of employed in poverty as compared to
non-poverty pockets covered by health and insurance and social security (see Table 24).
Table 24: Access to Health Facilities (Percentage)
Indicator
Poverty
Non-Poverty
36.1
51.2
a. Visiting in case of emergency health problem
i. Government hospital
ii. Private hospital
4.4
5.3
iii. Health center
56.0
35.9
iv. Doctor's clinic
3.0
7.4
v. Pharmacy
0.4
0.2
i. On foot
6.1
13.2
ii. Private car
36.5
29.9
iii. Taxi, minibus
31.1
29.5
iv. Public transport
8.7
25.0
v. An ambulance
17.6
2.4
i. No health insurance
5.0
22.1
ii. Far distance
17.4
21.2
iii. Absence of family doctor
4.0
1.3
iv. no specialized doctor
24
12.8
v. Working hour in the health center
3.4
2.5
vi. Poor services
40.8
40.3
b. Mode of transportation to health services
c. Constraints faced by households
vii. Cost of visiting a doctor
3.1
3.6
vii. Appointment delays
14.2
24.1
viii. Lack of treatment
11.1
0.6
64
Table 25 gives the household’s response to presence of disabled members in the family as well
the extent of care and access to social services and opportunities.
We note:
a) Less percentage of households in poverty pockets have under-18 years of age disabled
residents than households in non-poverty pockets. The proportion of both types of
households is similar for above-18 year disabled residents.
b) Majority of households (62.8%) in non-poverty pockets have indicated mother/father as
responsible, followed by respondent for provision of care to the disabled. In case of
households in poverty pockets, it is the highest also, followed by son/daughter but
comparative percentage is lower for mother/father.
c) Highest percentages of households in both types of pockets with resident disabled
members cite access to health services as the main constraint facing them. This is
followed by ‘access to public institutions’ for poverty and ‘job placement’ in non-poverty
pockets.
65
Table 25: Disability and Access to Health (Percentage)
Indicators
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Under 18 years of age
1.9
4.8
ii. Above 18 years of age
6.0
5.7
i. Himself/herself
28.0
38.9
ii. Husband/wife
25.3
21.6
iii. Son/daughter
36.2
26.1
iv. Mother/father
38.6
62.8
v. Brother/sister
15.5
24.6
vi. Other relatives/friends
9.2
10.3
i. Job placement
40.2
46.6
ii. Access to health services
56.0
56.5
iii. Access to public institutions
52.8
26.3
iv. Obtaining social protection service
34.8
27.9
v. Education
25.3
38.8
d. Average no. of hours per day spent with the disabled
11.0
7.0
a. Person of disabled person
b. Provision of care to the disabled
c. Constraints faced by family of the disabled
7.3. Inter-District Highlights
a) In case of emergency the smallest percentage of households visiting government hospitals
are in sub-districts: Wadi Arabahh (1.9%), Mraighah (1.8%), Salhiyyeh (1.8%) and Dair
El-Kahf (13.9%). Only 1/4th of households use health center in Ghour Essafi, and Quaira19.
b) Out of 12 poverty pockets, in 8 pockets the percentage of households that use ambulance
for emergency purposes ranges between 0 and 4.7%. These are Wadi Arabahh, Mraighah,
Al-Azraq, Salhiyyeh, Dair El-Kahf, Hoasha, Borma and Al-Rweished. Similarly, the
19
Inter-district indicators of this chapter are given in Annex Tables E.1-E.7.
66
percentage of households reporting use of public transport in 9 pockets (5 overlap the
above list) range from 0 to 9.0 percent. Nearly a fifth of households in Wadi Arabah report
walking to the health services.
c) Al-Azraq has the highest proportion of households (17.0%) reporting lack of health
insurance as a constraint to access health facilities. Complains of absence of specialist
doctors comes from more than fifty percent of households in sub-district Al-Rweished and
Mraighah. Between 30-55 percent of poor and non-poor households in all the 12 poverty
districts complain of poor services. In Ghour El-Mazra’ah 12.5% of households complain
of high cost of doctor. It is the highest percentage among the districts for this indicator.
d) Nearly 6 percent of households in Ghour El-Mazra’ah (the highest among districts) had
under-18 age disabled as residents. The percentage of poor households reporting above-18
age ranged from 7% in Al-Rweished to 18% in Ghour Essafi.
e) More than 75% of households in Wadi Arabahh, Mraighah, Al-Azraq and Salhiyyeh
reported job placement difficulties for disabled members. Percentage of households in four
sub-districts reporting difficulties in obtaining health services exceeded 55 percent. Only
the percentage of households in Ghour Essafi, Wadi Arabahh, Mraighah reporting
difficulties in accessing social protection services exceeded 60 percent. All Households in
the above latter two districts also faced constraints in education of the disabled.
f) Disabled person himself/herself and/or mother/father took care of the disabled in
Households (more than 50%) in Al-Azraq. Between 60-100% of households reported
Mother/Father taking care of the disabled in Al-Rweished, Mraighah, Husseiniyyeh and
Quaira. Husband/Wife and son/daughter took care of the disabled in more than 50% of
households in Salhiyyeh.
67
CHAPTER 8
ACCESS TO CHILDREN’S QUALITY EDUCATION
8.1 Introduction
Education of children is the main instrument to reduce inter-generational poverty among the
households. In absence of old-age pension and social security benefits, educated children at least
in some cultures and societies are in a better financial position to provide old-age support to their
retired parents. Jordan has made considerable progress in the last two decades in many of its
educational indicators. Net enrolment ratio in basic education (6-15 years) increased from 86.7
percent in 1990/91 to 97.6 percent in 2008-09. It has also achieved gender parity. Survival rates
to grade 5 of basic education have also improved from 92.2 percent in 1990-91 to 99 percent in
2007-08. Inter-Governorate NER of basic education in 2008-09 ranged from 98.2 in Mafraq to
99.5 percent in Madaba.
8.2 Access to Quality Education: A Comparative View
While improving access (Quantity) to education and achieving many of the relevant MDGs has
been accomplished by many countries including Jordan, improving the quality of education
remains a challenge.
The kingdom however continues to make important strides in this
dimension of education. The pilot social survey therefore captured this aspect of education from
a household perspective and framed many questions (indicators) accordingly. Table 26 gives the
household response to 13 indicators related to various aspects of quality of education.
68
Table 26: Access to Quality Education (Percentage)
indicator
a. Presence of children (5-18)
b. Enrollment in school
c. Proportion of households where children are attending
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. With
65.8
61.9
ii. Without
34.2
38.1
i. Enrolled children
95.8
98.1
ii. No enrolled children
4.2
1.9
i. Combined classes
7.6
2.4
ii. Nutrition classes
73.3
3.6
iii. School supplies
27.1
3.1
i. No problem
49.4
32.6
ii. Slightly severe
27.3
42.8
iii. Very severe
23.4
24.8
i. No problem
70
68.3
ii. Severe
17
20.6
iii. Very severe
13
11.1
i. No problem
54.3
52.2
ii. Slightly severe
30.2
26.7
iii. Very severe
15.4
21.1
i. No problem
68.3
71.2
ii. Slightly severe
18.7
20
iii. Very severe
13
8.8
i. No problem
52.3
43.1
ii. Slightly severe
35.1
37
iii. Very severe
12.6
19.9
i. No problem
61.9
35.8
ii. Slightly severe
19.8
34.6
iii. Very severe
18.3
29.6
i. No problem
91
66.5
ii. Slightly severe
5.1
23.6
iii. Very severe
4
10
i. No problem
78.4
39
ii. Slightly severe
11.1
38.5
iii. Very severe
10.5
22.5
d. Obstacles faced by children
i. Bad public utilities
ii. No specialized teacher available
iii. Bad quality of education
iv. No teachers available
v. Lack of discipline
vi. Smoking in school
vii. Drugs inside and outside school
viii. Crime and violence in school
ix. Difficulty in reaching school
69
i. No problem
74.7
70.1
ii. Slightly severe
12.6
19.2
iii. Very severe
12.7
10.7
x. Crowded classroom
xi. Discrimination between students
xii. Peer pressure
xiii. Crime around school
xiv. Quality of education in comparison to your area
xv. Quality of education in comparison to Jordan (nationally)
xvi. Socio-economic status of children's playmates
i. No problem
62.2
43.1
ii. Slightly severe
22.4
29.3
iii. Very severe
15.4
27.6
i. No problem
50.1
52.7
ii. Slightly severe
30.3
25.8
iii. Very severe
19.6
21.5
i. No problem
62.9
49.1
ii. Slightly severe
27.3
32.1
iii. Very severe
9.8
18.8
i. No problem
79.9
47.9
ii. Slightly severe
12.7
34
iii. Very severe
7.4
18.1
i. Worse
13.2
15.1
ii. Identical
67.8
60.1
iii. Better
19
24.7
i. Worse
71
64.2
ii. Identical
25.4
24.6
iii. Better
3.6
11.3
i. With disabilities
6.6
4.4
ii. Richer
59.7
65.2
iii. Poorer
68.4
71.1
iv. Other Governorate
12.5
19.5
v. Other nationalities
14.4
12.8
The summary of findings is highlighted as follows:
a) More than 60 percent of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets have school
going children between the ages of 5 and 18. Among those that have school-going
children, about 95% of households have enrolled their children in school. This high
enrolment is consistent with the high NER observed at the national and governorate level.
b) Majority of households in poverty pockets send their kids to special classes such as
nutrition classes. Nearly 1/4th also get their school supplies. The households in nonpoverty pockets reporting such classes for their children are in single digits. Most likely
such specialized classes are not held in non-poverty pockets.
c) Between 25% to 35% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets identified the
following obstacles as slightly and very severe in the education of their children: Bad
70
Public Utilities, Bad Quality of Education, Lack of Discipline, and Discrimination
between Students. In all the above indicators, the percentage of households in poverty
pockets was slightly lower than households in non-poverty pockets.
d) In addition more than 50% of households in non-poverty pockets identified the following
obstacles as slightly and very severe in the education of their children: smoking in school,
crime and violence in school, crowded classrooms, peer pressure and crime around
school. These latter obstacles are usually faced by public schools in low income
neighborhoods of urban areas, although the households fall in non-poverty pockets.
e) In response to comparing and evaluating the quality of education to other areas, 1/4th to
1/5th of households (both types) regarded it as better. Only around 15% regarded their
quality of education in their own area as worse. However when it came to comparing
their quality of education to national levels, more than 60% of households regarded
theirs’ as worse.
f) In response to the socio-economic status of children’s playmates, (it had multiple
answers) 60% or more said that the playmates were both poorer and richer then
themselves. Disabled children as playmates were 6.6% for households in poverty pockets
and 4.4% of households in non-poverty pockets.
8.3 Inter-District Profile
a)
Among the poor sub-districts, Ghour El-Mazra’ah (93.7%), Hosha (93.5%) and
Husseiniyyeh (84.4%) have the lowest enrolment of children20.
b) School Supplies in Al-Rweished, Al-Azraq, Salhiyyeh, Dair El-Kahf, Hoasha, and Borma
range from 0% to 10.4, nearly half of the average for households in poverty pockets.
c) With regard to the indicators where more than 50% of households in poverty pockets faced
obstacles in the education of their children, the following sub-districts are identified against
the relevant indicators:
20
Inter-district profile of the indicators in this chapter is given in Annex F.1-F.6.
71
Table 27: Identification of Sub-Districts
Indicators
Bad Public Utilities
Sub-districts
Al-Rweished, Mraighah, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, Salhiyyeh, Hoasha, AlAzraq
Bad Quality of Education
Mraighah, Al-Azraq, Salhiyyeh, Borma
Lack of Discipline
Mraighah, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, Al-Azraq, Ghour Essafi
Discrimination between students
Mraighah, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, Ghour Essafi, Salhiyyeh, Hoasha
8.4 Correlations betweem enrollment and education obstacles
Although overall enrolment rate in both types of pockets is fairly high, an attempt is made to
capture its pocket-wise variation by correlating it with the ranking of obstacles perceived by the
respondents of the pilot survey. Most of perceived ranking of obstacles correlate weakly with
enrolment percentages of poverty pockets in Table 28. The last column in the table aggregates
the percentage of households with the ranking of perception of ‘very severe’ and ‘slightly
severe’.
There is weak evidence that lower enrolment is correlated with slightly severe
perception of non-availability of teachers and violence and crime around the school. The latter
finding also corroborates with the high correlation of lack of motivation by parents to frequently
invest in book supplies and crime and violence around schools.
72
Table 28: Correlations betweem enrollment and education obstacles
Enrollment in school
1
Lack of sufficient income – very concerned
-0.084
2
no teacher available – very dangerous
0.250
3
no teacher available – some extent dangerous
0.508**
4
Bad education quality – very dangerous
0.331
5
Bad education quality – some extent dangerous
0.018
6
No specialised teacher available – very dangerous
0.118
7
No specialised teacher available – some extent dangerous
0.447*
8
Bad public utilities – very dangerous
0.241
9
Bad public utilities – some extent dangerous
-0.195
10
Crime & violence in school – very dangerous
-0.128
-
11
Crime & violence in school – some extent dangerous
-0.180
0.243
12
Drugs inside & outside school – very dangerous
0.203
13
Drugs inside & outside school – some extent dangerous
0.042
14
Smoking in school – very dangerous
0.251
15
Smoking in school – some extent dangerous
-0.294
16
Lack of discipline in school – very dangerous
0.218
-
17
Lack of discipline in school – some extent dangerous
-0.160
0.014
18
Peer pressure – very dangerous
-0.210
-
19
Peer pressure – some extent dangerous
-0.127
0.183
20
Discrimination between students – very dangerous
-0.023
21
Discrimination between students – some extent dangerous
0.270
22
Large no. of students in classroom – very dangerous
-0.176
23
Large no. of students in classroom – some extent
dangerous
0.032
24
Difficulty in reaching school – very dangerous
0.214
25
Difficulty in reaching school – some extent dangerous
0.154
26
Violence & crime around school _ very dangerous
-0.073
27
Violence & crime around school – some extent dangerous
*** Sig. at 95%, ** Sig. at 90%. * Sig. at 85%
73
0.518**
0.408
0.266
0.310
0.161
0.150
0.118
0.176
0.067
0.234
0.365
CHAPTER 9
SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND TIME-USE PROFILE OF
HOUSEHOLDS
9.1 Introduction
Apart from other economic deprivations (e.g., income, jobs) poorer households may also suffer
many types of social deprivations including less invitations from relatives, friends and
acquaintances. Similar their social interactions may be restricted as they may not be able to
afford to invite friends over a meal. Poor households working in low-income jobs may also have
to spend longer hours in their jobs in order to make ends meet and therefore may have less
quality time for their families and relatives. Thus for the first time the pilot social survey
addressed this issue in much more detail.
9.2 Time Use Profile of Households: Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Pockets
Table 29 gives the proportion of households frequency-wise the time spent with various types of
people. Largest proportion of households in both types of poverty pockets report spending time
on daily basis with their families. As the nature of relationships weaken (except neighbors), the
extent of time spent with others is less and is on weekly, monthly basis, few months in a year or
never. With neighbors more than 60.8% of households in poverty pockets spend time on daily
and weekly basis. However among non-poverty households, the neighborly interactions are
monthly or few times in a year. With acquaintances/work colleagues, about 43.6% of households
in poverty pockets never spend time while the corresponding response for households in nonpoverty pockets is 27.9%. For shorter frequency, i.e., daily, weekly, the percentage of
households in poverty pockets is higher for most groups of people compared to households in
non-poverty pockets and vice a versa for more lengthy frequencies, i.e., monthly and times in a
year each of these frequencies.
74
9.3 Social Cohesion
b) The frequency of invitations to family relatives for tea, feast on an occasion, a dinner, evening
get together or going out is inversely related to the cost attached to these invitations (Table 30).
More than 50% of households in poverty pockets invite family over a tea on a daily, weekly
basis, but only 1/3rd of households in non-poverty pockets do it as frequently. Around 55% of
households in poverty pockets invite family over an evening get together few times a year or
never. The percentage of households in non-poverty pockets for these frequencies is even higher
at 67%. A priori one would have expected a lower percentage for households in non-poverty
pockets.
75
Table 29: Profile of Quality Time Spent by the Father (Percentage)
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Daily
45.7
35.6
ii. Weekly
28.7
25.6
iii. Monthly
14.4
22.3
iv. Few times in a year
8.0
14.2
v. Never
3.1
2.3
a. Family
b. Near Relatives
i. Daily
8.2
4.0
ii. Weekly
27.4
13.1
iii. Monthly
23.2
31.9
iv. Few months in a year
28.2
40.3
v. Never
13.0
10.6
i. Daily
7.4
1.6
ii. Weekly
19.1
5.1
c. Distant Relative
iii. Monthly
27.5
24.6
iv. Few months in a year
38.5
56.0
v. Never
7.4
12.7
i. Daily
30.0
7.7
ii. Weekly
30.8
17.2
iii. Monthly
14.3
21.6
iv. Few months in a year
16.7
39.4
v. Never
7.9
14.1
i. Daily
12.1
3.9
ii. Weekly
25.2
9.6
iii. Monthly
18.3
24.9
iv. Few months in a year
28.7
46.6
v. Never
15.8
15.0
11.5
13.3
d. Neighbors
e. Friends
f. Acquaintances
i. Daily
ii. Weekly
9.4
4.9
iii. Monthly
12.2
12.4
iv. Few months in a year
23.2
41.6
v. Never
43.6
27.9
76
Table 30: Frequency of Invitation to Family by Head of Household (Percentage)
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Daily
23.3
10.1
ii. Weekly
33.2
26.2
iii. Monthly
16.3
22.1
iv. Few times a year
11.3
27.8
v. Never
15.9
13.8
a. For drinking tea
b. For a feast
i. Daily
1.9
1.0
ii. Weekly
13.4
8.4
iii. Monthly
24.9
20.3
iv. Few times a year
49.1
54.5
v. Never
10.8
15.8
i. Daily
3.5
2.5
ii. Weekly
9.4
4.8
c. For a dinner
iii. Monthly
18.9
19.4
iv. Few times a year
37.2
53.6
v. Never
31.1
19.7
i. Daily
9.5
3.5
ii. Weekly
22.1
8.8
iii. Monthly
12.5
20.7
iv. Few times a year
24.0
39.3
v. Never
31.8
27.8
i. Daily
0.0
0.0
ii. Weekly
0.9
1.0
iii. Monthly
3.4
2.1
iv. Few times a year
28.5
47.7
v. Never
67.2
49.3
d. Evening gathering
e. For going out
c) Invitations to friends (Table 31) for various types of get-togethers is even less frequent than
for families and even this case on the average it appears that households in poverty pockets are
more social than households in non-poverty pockets, However the pattern of distribution of
households across various frequency intervals as well across various types of get-togethers (cost
sensitive) remains the same as in the case of invitations to family and relatives.
77
Table 31: Frequency of Invitation to Friends by Head of Household (Percentage)
Indicator
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Daily
6.8
1.9
ii. Weekly
24.9
6.5
iii. Monthly
19.7
14.5
iv. Few times a year
22.9
44.9
v. Never
25.8
32.2
a. For drinking tea
b. For a feast
i. Daily
0.1
0.0
ii. Weekly
2.6
0.4
iii. Monthly
10.8
3.0
iv. Few times a year
52.9
56.3
v. Never
33.6
40.2
i. Daily
0.0
0.0
ii. Weekly
1.6
1.2
c. For a dinner
iii. Monthly
7.4
3.7
iv. Few times a year
38.5
49.4
v. Never
52.5
45.6
i. Daily
1.7
0.4
ii. Weekly
14.4
2.5
iii. Monthly
13.9
8.7
iv. Few times a year
27.5
39.6
v. Never
42.5
48.7
i. Daily
0.0
0.0
ii. Weekly
0.1
0.3
iii. Monthly
2.6
0.9
iv. Few times a year
21.2
37.2
v. Never
76.0
61.6
d. Evening gathering
e. For going out
d) The frequency of social visits by type of occasion by the respondents is the mirror image of
invitations (Table 32). Higher percentages of households get invited more frequently for tea,
evening get-togethers, and higher percentage of households get invited less frequently for feasts,
dinners, and special occasions. Apparently the social cohesion for taking joint trips with family,
relatives and others is much more stronger than for other type of gatherings, as the incidence of
cost is much less on each participating family.
78
Table 32: Frequency of Social Visits by Purpose (Percentage)
Indicator
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Daily
27.6
8.3
ii. Weekly
36.7
19.1
iii. Monthly
13.8
22.8
iv. Few times a year
13.3
33.6
v. Never
8.5
16.1
a. For drinking tea
b. For a feast
i. Daily
1.2
0.2
ii. Weekly
9.7
3.3
iii. Monthly
21.2
21.2
iv. Few times a year
54.3
53.0
v. Never
13.6
22.3
i. Daily
2.4
0.2
ii. Weekly
8.1
3.1
c. For a dinner
iii. Monthly
13.9
16.4
iv. Few times a year
41.1
52.2
v. Never
34.5
28.1
i. Daily
11.0
0.7
ii. Weekly
24.2
8.0
iii. Monthly
13.6
17.4
iv. Few times a year
22.7
41.9
v. Never
28.5
32.0
i. Daily
0.5
0.0
ii. Weekly
3.2
1.6
iii. Monthly
22.8
17.4
iv. Few times a year
59.8
61.2
v. Never
13.7
19.7
i. Daily
1.6
1.3
d. Evening gathering
e. For special occasions
f. For going out
ii. Weekly
29.6
43.0
iii. Monthly
68.1
55.1
iv. Few times a year
1.6
1.3
v. Never
29.6
43.0
79
e) Regarding socio-economic and background status of friends of the respondents, the percentage
of households from poverty pockets who have disabled as friends is twice than of households
from non-poverty pockets (Table 33). The percentages of households that interact with friends
belonging to cross section of socio-economic and geographical strata is almost the same (except
in the case of people from other Governorates) for both types of poverty pockets.
Table 33: Socio-Economic Background/Status of Friends (Percentage)
Poverty
Non-Poverty
With disabilities
9.5
4.3
Richer
73.8
76.2
Poorer
74.7
76.4
From other Governorates
52.1
36.0
From other city
22.1
24.4
Older or less than your age
56.1
53.4
Inter-district variations of percentage of households in poverty pockets in time use, frequency
of invitations by various type of occasions and frequency of visits for various types of occasions
are not large and do not reveal extreme values and as such are not analyzed in the main report 21.
They more or less follow the pattern of averages reflected for households in poverty pockets as
discussed above.
21
Pocket-wise profile of the indicators in this chapter is given in Annex Tables G.1-G.5.
80
CHAPTER 10
FORMAL AND INFORMAL UNCONDITIONAL CASH
TRANSFERS
10.1 Introduction
Before the social safety nets were formalized in shape of government institutions, for centuries
societies and households relied on informal social safety nets where they depended on families,
close and distant relatives, neighbors and friends to meet their material needs in times of
emergencies and old age expenses. In many developing countries formal social safety programs
and institutions are still at an evolutionary stage and majority of poor population residing in far
flung areas rely on informal social safety nets.
The National Aid Fund is considered the main social safety net program for the poor in Jordan.
The Fund has seen significant increases in its budget in the past years, doubling the number of
beneficiaries and raising the ceiling on aid, with a total annual budget of about (88) million JDs,
and its services benefiting approximately (80) thousand poor households.
Moreover, the Government had spearheaded many other initiatives to combat poverty. For
example, the government has sought to activate the law of the Zakat Fund as a means of
contributing to the fight against poverty. The Government additionally launched several
programs and projects to target the poor and poverty areas through governmental and nongovernmental institutions. These programs and projects are not limited to providing financial aid
as they include activities to encourage productive initiatives and the provision of social welfare
for the poor and marginalized such as orphans, the elderly and disabled individuals. A number of
royal initiatives are also implemented to provide adequate housing for the poor and destitute.
10.2 Households in Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Pockets: A Comparison
Table 34 gives a snap shot distribution of households relying on informal and formal social
safety nets in both types of pockets.
81
Table 34: Formal and Informal Safety Nets and Cash Transfers (Percentage)
Poverty
Non-Poverty
i. Family members
83.2
78.3
ii. Close relative
14.1
18.6
iii. Distant relative
13.2
6.9
iv. Neighbors
9.8
9.2
v. Friends
4.7
8.1
vi. Institutions (religious, state, private)
2.9
0.2
No one
7.2
12.2
i. Family members
56.5
66.0
ii. Close relative
14.8
19.5
iii. Distant relative
11.4
7.8
iv. Neighbors
11.8
8.3
v. Institutions
20.7
10.6
vi. Other
17.4
14.9
vii. No one
12.5
12.5
i. Family members
76.9
79.0
a. Reliance for care in case of health emergency
b. Reliance for cash loan to met health emergency
c. Reliance to cover the costs of a wedding/funeral
ii. Close relative
18.5
24..0
iii. Distant relative
15.9
10.5
iv. Neighbors
9.9
10.4
v. Friends
8.0
12.0
vi. Mayor + institutions
4.9
1.7
vii. No one
12.2
12.2
i. Family members
84.8
81.4
ii. Close relative
17.9
23.4
iii. Distant relative
12.3
8.0
iv. Neighbors
9.2
8.5
v. Mayor
7.6
1.1
vi. Institutions
15.6
14.1
vii. No one
2.7
9.1
i. Trust their society
46.3
46.2
ii. Do not trust their society
53.7
53.8
i. Do not need aid
52.5
60.9
ii. Not eligible for aid
25.6
25.6
d. Lending source in case of unspecified problem
e. Trust in surrounding society
f. Reasons for not applying for aid
iii. Difficulty in filling application
1.0
0.0
iv. Do not know where help is provided
3.0
7.7
v. Already receive aid for NAF
17.8
6.3
i. With job-seekers
8.9
13.5
ii. Without job-seekers
6.9
5.3
g. Households requesting aid
82
Table 34 (cont’d)
h. Income status and request for aid
i. Regular income
ii. Irregular income
Request for assistance
6.7
6
No request for assistance
93.3
94
Request for assistance
25.9
18.5
No request for assistance
74.1
81.5
Request for assistance
19.3
13.1
No request for assistance
80.7
86.9
i. Possibilities for losing main source of income
i. Very possible
ii. Slightly possible
iii. Not possible
j. Reason for refusal of aid application
Request for assistance
7.9
10.2
No request for assistance
92.1
89.8
Request for assistance
5.8
4.6
No request for assistance
94.2
95.4
i. Application data incomplete
7.8
0
ii. Not met the conditions
56.0
85.3
i. Elderly care
43.4
32.6
ii. Children
33.4
24.5
iii. Vocational training
31.1
22.1
iv. Business counseling
31.4
23.5
i. Elderly care
0
0.8
ii. Children
0.3
0.2
iii. Vocational training
1.2
4.2
iv. Business counseling
4.2
3.8
i. Municipalities
3.9
1.6
ii. Newspaper/Radio
74.9
64.9
45.6
65.9
12.7
16.8
k. Awareness of social service institutions for
l. Benefited from social service institutions
m. Source about knowledge of existing institutions
iii.
Neighbors/Friends/Relatives
iv. Organizations
a) Majority of households (between 75-85%) rely for care in times of health shock, and for
cash loan and financing for unexpected expenditures on family members (between 55%66%). Close and distant relatives are relied upon to finance these shocks by another 1025% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets. The proportion of households in
poverty and non-poverty pockets that rely on institutions (religious, state and private)
range from a low of 2.9 percent for care in health emergency to a high of 17.4 percent in
83
case of obtaining a cash loan. In addition around half of the households in poverty and
non-poverty pockets do not trust the surrounding society.
b) Nearly 75% and 85% of households in poverty and non-poverty pockets either don’t need
aid and/or not eligible for aid. Around 18 percent of households in poverty pockets and
6.3 percent in non-poverty pockets are already receiving aid from National Aid Fund.
c) The percentage of households with job seekers seeking aid is slightly higher than the
percentage of households without job seekers. Moreover in the former case, the
percentage of households in non-poverty pockets is higher than households in poverty
pockets.
d) The proportion of households with irregular income seeking aid and those who consider
the loss of income as strong possibility seeking aid is consistent with each other and
between 20 and 25 percent in poverty pockets. Similar are the percentages for households
in non-poverty pockets. The percentages of households applying for aid in case of slight
and no possibility of loss of income is obviously smaller.
e) Around 25% of the households in poverty and non-poverty pockets respectively were
refused aid as they did not meet the criteria or conditions.
f) Awareness of presence of social institutions to serve the elderly, children, vocational
training and business counseling is a good indicator since over time the services offered
by these institutions will be used by the communities. Among the surveyed, nearly 1/5th
to ½ of all households in poverty and non-poverty pockets are aware of their existence.
Unfortunately the highest percentage of households, only 4.2% in poverty pockets
benefited
from
business
counseling.
Newspaper/radio
followed
by
neighbor/friends/relatives is the two most common mediums through which the
respondents know about the institutions.
84
10.3 Pocket-wise Profile of Access to Social Safety Net
Some highlights of the finding are22:
i)
Districts with lowest proportion of households receiving NAF are: Mraighah (2.2%),
Hoasha (1.9%) Wadi Arabahh (8.0%) and Borma (7.1%). Incidentally these same
districts have highest proportion of households that don’t need aid and/or are not
eligible for aid. Dair El-Kahf has the highest proportion of households in the poverty
pockets where they do not know the source for obtaining help.Seven percent of
residents in Al-Azraq do not know how to fill aid applications.
ii)
Highest proportions of households with job seekers that seek aid are: Al-Rweished,
Ghour El-Mazra’ah and Hoasha. Highest proportions of households without job seekers
who seek aid are: Wadi Arabahh, Salhiyyeh and Dair El-Kahf.
iii)
Ghour El-Mazra’ah (13.7%) and Salhiyyeh (12.1%) had the highest proportion of
regular income households who had applied for assistance. Ghour El-Mazra’ah
(40.3%), Husseiniyyeh (50.0%), Dair El-Kahf (100%) and Borma (48.2%) had the
highest proportion of irregular income households who applied for assistance.
iv)
In the category of ‘very likely’ loss of income, Quaira (0%), Mraighah (55.9%),
Husseiniyyeh (59.4%) and Dair El-Kahf (56.8%) are among the lowest percentage of
households who did not apply for assistance, as they have a high percentage of
households that think that loss of income is very unlikely.
v)
Wadi Arabahh has the smallest proportion of households that have knowledge about the
four types of institutions. In Al-Rweished, and Al-Azraq, the proportion of households
that have knowledge about elderly care and children range from 13.1-25.5 percent, the
lowest among the 12 poor districts. Ghour El-Mazra’ah and Ghour Essafi have the
smallest proportion of households with awareness about vocational training. Only 9.1
percent of households in Wadi Arabah are aware of business advisory organizations
22
Inter-district indicators discussed in this chapter are Annex Table H.1-H.13.
85
vi)
Not meeting the aid criteria was the main reason for refusal for 100 percent of
households in Wadi Arabahh, Al-Rweished, Ghour Essafi, Quaira and Borma.
vii)
No households in Wadi Arabahh, Mraighah, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, Al-Azraq, Ghour
Essafi, Al-Azraq and Quaira benefited from municipalities as a source of knowledge for
presence of these social safety net institutions. Newspaper/radio as medium for
knowledge for institutions is recognized by fewer than 50% of households in Ghour ElMazra’ah and Al-Azraq.
86
CHAPTER 11
POLICY RELEVANCE AND WAY FORWARD
11.1 Two Caveats for Policy Implications
Broad policy implications at the pocket level for poverty reduction from the above findings are
grounded in the following assumptions regarding the sample selection of poverty and nonpoverty pockets as well as the households in the pilot social survey. A) The poverty and nonpoverty pockets retained their poverty status in 2010 as in 2008, and only changed within, below
or above the threshold. B) Majority of households sampled within the poverty pockets are below
the updated poverty line (to be still established for HEIS 2010) and those sampled within the
non-poverty pockets are above the updated poverty line. C) Specifically if in both pockets, the
assumption in (B) above, of majority of sampled households by each type is not met, the
comparison of better or worse values on indicators at the pocket level cannot be unambiguously
interpreted as reflecting a structural difference between the poverty and non-poverty pockets.
Thus poverty incidence in sampled poverty versus non-poverty pockets, impact on the average
response of poor and non-poor households to various indicators23.
Based on the well-researched cliché that poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, there are
three broad dimensions that contribute towards understanding poverty: i) individual’s or
households’ capacity to earn income and provide respectable quality of living. Capacity is
determined by education, gender, age, family size, occupation, employment status, net financial
and physical productive and unproductive assets, ii) access to social assets (usually provided by
the government) that enhance individual’s/household’s capacity and/or quality of living such as
education, health, security, effective utilities including environment quality, social safety nets,
support to vulnerable groups, job opportunities and communication network and iii) collective
household or individual attitudes, perceptions, motivations, constraints, social networking and
degree of concern and satisfaction of the households.
23
The percentages in chapter 10 indicate that 52.4% of the households in poverty pockets don’t need aid and another
25.6% do not fit into NAF criteria. If this is the case then the possibility that majority of households surveyed in
poverty pockets are below (and above for non-poverty pockets) the 2010 revised poverty threshold can only be
confirmed by accessing the income information of the corresponding households from 2010 HEIS.
87
As a stand-alone pilot social survey, a serious limitation of the current study in exploring the
causes of differential poverty incidence in poverty pockets is the absence of household and
pocket-wise information in dimension i) and community or pocket-wise information of
dimension ii) above. Once the information from this stand alone pilot survey is linked to
household information in HEIS 2010 data along with information on social assets and services
provided by the government in each of these pockets, only then a comprehensive picture as to the
root cause of high poverty in these pockets will emerge as well as which dimension among the
above three better explains poverty and to what extent. However elementary statistical exercise
to estimate few important bi-variate relationships is undertaken among the social and attitudinal
indicators and non-monetary measures of poverty24.
11.2 Policy Relevance
As a stand-alone pilot social survey of selected pockets it answers the analytical question of
‘what’ ‘where’ and by ‘how much’. This analysis is very useful from a planning perspective and
has the following policy relevance:
a) The pilot social survey comprehensively captures for the first time the social and nonmonetary aspects of poverty, constraints, perceptions and concerns as well qualitative
assessment of access to various social services. These indicators can be analytically
grouped into 8 social dimensions or indices as shown in this report and used as
determinants to explain poverty along with socio-demographic-economic and community
variables.
b) It is a report card on the status of each of the 15 sample pockets with respect to rich set of
social indicators. This report can serve as a baseline for pro-type or modified full length
social surveys or survey modules to be undertaken on a regular basis in the future.
24
Information on dimension 1 variables is the cornerstone to understand the causes of poverty. Simple correlation
analysis indicated that household’s capacity to invest in quality of life in most cases is statistically correlated with
the awareness of lack of income rather than other social variables.
88
c) By presenting a report card it identifies and quantifies pocket-wise disparities in various
social indicators.
d) For the identified pocket-wise social indicators, this study can act as springboard for indepth focused and prioritized research before formulating a matrix of efficient and
effective policy instruments.
e) Alternate criteria or prioritization strategies based on fiscal space, management and
technical capacity, or depth of poverty can be devised for selecting pockets for policy
intervention.
The findings from stand-alone pilot social survey suggest the following major broad policy
interventions for the under preparation poverty reduction strategy:
a) The effectiveness and monitoring of various policy interventions (macro/micro) already
in place be increased at the local level to reduce the perceptions of adverse situations in
poverty pockets specifically about income, poor health and environment and crime.
b) Access to food outlets can be reduced by setting stores in the public sector that can
provide essential food items all the year round at market prices.
c) The proportion of members not working due to sickness/disability can be reduced by
providing access through arranging/subsidizing regular visits to specialized health
facilities located outside the pocket. Mismatch of qualifications can be reduced by
providing access to targeted education curriculum based on localized informed demand
and supply conditions. Dissemination of functions of Ministry of labour and vacant
positions in Civil Service Bureau can improve the targeting of jobs by the poor
households.
d) A major challenge that comes out from the findings of the survey is the lack and
adequacy of precautionary savings in households of poverty pockets. Low savings not
only impact on current poverty levels by reducing consumption, inability to finance
economic and non-economic shocks, increasing debt levels but also increase intergenerational poverty. A detailed and frank household survey targeted at documenting the
wealth and debt profile of households would reveal the type, nature and extent of
89
different type of savings. Maybe the lack of financial savings is substituted by adequate
amount of savings in livestock, poultry, jewelry, human capital and physical capital.
Once this aspect is clearly understood there is need to strengthen saving habits through
saving cooperatives, advocacy and media in the far flung remote villages of the country.
e) Bad quality of utilities as a constraint to quality education can be rectified by prioritizing
and targeting education related capital expenditures in poverty pockets. To improve the
quality of education, a multi-pronged strategy that includes frequent refresher courses for
teachers and performance based monetary incentives for teachers and students need to be
implemented in poverty pockets.
f) A major impediment to investment in quality of education and sending their wards to
schools by the parents is there concern with drugs, smoking and crime and violence.
Policy interventions designed to effectively enforce school disciplinary laws and security
presence around schools can improve enrolment and students performance.
g) As a by-product of developing saving cooperatives in poverty pockets, reliance on
informal social safety nets and even public institutions will decline.
h) Low rate of awareness and use of social service public institutions in poverty pockets can
be overcome by effective investments in the educational and media dissemination
programs and strategies.
11.3 Prioritizing Policy and Program Interventions
The inter-district tables in the annex on various indicators of 8 social dimensions provide bench
mark social data from the sampled households of 15 pockets in the Kingdom. Based on the
findings of this data, this study therefore should be regarded as a report card and comparative
analysis on the social aspects of poverty in each of these 15 pockets. The district-wise indicators
reveal considerable variation in most of the indicators and therefore serve as an important tool
for intervention and planning of various government interventions to alleviate poverty in the 12
poverty pockets. The attached matrix (Table 35) highlights the indicators in social dimensions
that have extreme values/or ranked bottom among the last 5/3 among the various poverty
pockets. Policy and program interventions can be devised in several alternate ways:
90
a. Those sub-districts be selected that lag behind in the highest number of
dimensions,
e.g., Wadi Arabah, Ghour Essafi, Ghour El-Mazra’ah, and Mraighah.
b. Prioritize intervention on the basis of any one or two indicator present in most of the
districts, e.g., Access to children’s quality education and/or access to service institutions.
c. If however the priority is to improve food security than the four sub-districts of AlRweished, Wadi Arabah, Ghour Essafi and Husseiniyyeh be chosen for rapid
interventions.
d. If there is considerable fiscal space to reduce deprivation of all sort, various districts can
be identified from the annex on the basis of subjectively determined unacceptable values
to prepare, implement and monitor a detailed plan for policy and program interventions.
e. Prioritize interventions on the basis of available fiscal space or the ‘biggest bang for the
buck’ and select the poverty pockets accordingly.
f. On the basis of likelihood of easy entry or exit from the threshold, pick pockets from
Table 2 to plan policy interventions and program to reduce the overall number of poverty
pockets in the country.
This study can be used as a two stage planning document for devising poverty reduction strategy
in the poverty pockets in the country. In stage I poverty pockets be identified or prioritized
according to any one or multiple criteria (a)-(f) above, for policy and program interventions. In
stage II detailed in-depth surveys and/or focus group discussions involving various local stake
holders be conducted in the selected or prioritized poverty pockets to assess the ex-ante feedback
on a matrix of focused interventions and social indicators and generate community and political
ownership to fight poverty. Since poverty reduction is a time consuming and resource intensive
process, pilots can be initiated in a fiscally constrained environment to understand what works
and what doesn’t work for poverty alleviation in the medium run.
11.4 The Way Forward: Some Suggestions
a) With the first time collection of household data on social aspects of poverty, Jordan has
demonstrated the commitment to study poverty in a multi-dimensional setting. The data
91
collection on social aspects should be an on-going and regular process. Its sample size should be
expanded and made part of HEIS series.
b) In case its sample size is not expanded and it is conducted as a stand alone survey, the gender
aspects of deprivation, social exclusion will not be captured meaningfully unless some of the
questions are not framed with gender lens, e.g., employment, care of the disable, travel
constraints and time allocation.
c) The households’ location need to be specified explicitly, i.e., whether the responding household
is part of a poor neighborhood in a large town/city, a self-contained village or town and distance
from the nearest urban town/city.
The location externalities and their impact on poverty,
deprivation, vulnerability, empowerment and social exclusion are better documented with the
location identifiers.
d) The rich data from social survey can be the basis for constructing 8 indices of social dimensions.
These indices can be incorporated in constructing Living Standards Index (LSI) as well overtime
monitoring of the eight social dimensions.
e) In the immediate future there is a need to develop a set of studies on the determinants of poverty
at the household level and at the pocket level. The information on these 1123 households from
HEIS 2010 need to be combined with the information from this social survey to analyze the
economic and non-economic causes and their contribution to the poverty status of individual
households in these pockets. Econometric techniques such as logit, probit, factor analysis are
used to identify the underlying causes of poverty in these poverty pockets.
92
Table 35: District-Wise Summary Matrix of Indicators in Social Dimensions
Extreme Ranking in at least few indicators of Social Dimensions 1-8
Sub-Districts (Poverty
Incidence in 2008, %)
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS; 1=Food Security and Quality of Living, 2= Labour Market Dynamics, 3=Income Status, Income Shock and Savings, 4=
Access to Transportation, 5= Access to Health Facilities, 6=Access to Children’s Quality Education, 7= Social Exclusion, 8= Formal and Informal
Safety Nets
Al-Azraq (42.3)
3, 5(lack of health Insurance, job displacement for disabled member), 6,8 ( access to service institutions)
Salhiyyeh (38.1)
2, 5(visit to Govt. Hospitals, Job placement for disabled member), 6,8 ( access to service institutions)
Dair El-Kahf (35.3)
1,2, 3 (No savings), 5(visit to Govt. Hospitals), 6 (school supplies), 8 ( access to service institutions)
Hoasha (32.8)
Al-Rweished (65.0)
Borma (32.2)
Ghour Essafi (40.8)
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
(44.1)
Mraighah (48.4)
Husseiniyyeh (37.0)
3 (income from Retirement), 6, 8( access to service institutions, NAF support)
1 (Food Insecurity, Access, Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about lack of income, unexpected spending on health), 2 (Health
Insurance/Social security) 3 (zero Savings),4, 5(absence of specialist doctor),6, 8(access to service institutions
1(Affordability of Goods and Services , concerned about lack of income), 5 (low use of ambulance), 6 (school supplies), 8(access to service
institutions, NAF support)
1(Food Insecurity, Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about lack of income), 2 (job-seekers), 3 (Dependency on NAF), 5 (low usage of
health centers, High disabled population over 18-years), 6, 8 (access to service institutions)
1 (Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about lack of income), 2 (possibility of losing income), 3 ,4, 5 (cost of doctor, under 18-years
disabled), 6 (enrolment of children), 8 (access to service institutions)
1 (Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about lack of income, children dental check-up), 2 ,4,5 (visit to Govt. Hospitals, ambulance use,
absence of specialist doctor, job displacement for disabled, accessing social protection services), 6, 8(access to service institutions, NAF support)
1 (access to food outlets), 2 (job-seekers), 3 (No savings),4, 6(enrolment of children), 8( access to institutions)
1 ((Food Insecurity, Access, Affordability of Goods and Services, concerned about air/water pollution and drought/floods), 2 (Ministry of labour/Civil
Wadi Arabahh (69.3)
Service Bureau/private sector), 5 ((visit to Govt. Hospitals, ambulance for emergency, job placement for disabled), 8 (access to institutions, NAF
support)
Quaira (37.6)
2 (health insurance/Social Security, MOL/Civil Service Bureau, Dependency on retirement income), 5 (Health Centers), 8 ( access to service
institutions)
93
REFERENCES
1) Al Sqour et al, 1989, Pockets of Poverty in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,
Ministry of Social Development.
2) Department of Statistics, 2010, Report of Poverty Status in Jordan, July, Jordan
3) Ministry of Planning and Social Development, 2010, Executive Development
Program 2011-2013.
4) Ministry of Social Development, 2002, Poverty Alleviation for a Stronger Jordan.
94
ANNEX 1: MODELING DATA FROM PILOT SOCIAL
POVERTY POCKET SURVEY
This annex presents estimation results obtained by modeling the pocket-wise percentages
of selected indicators of 12 poverty pockets from the pilot survey to explain pocket-wise
poverty incidence.
Similar to correlation exercise, the multi-variate modeling is
exploratory and is conducted to assess the usefulness of this approach in absence of
pocket-wise income, socio-demographic and community indicators.
The results are
documented in annex as they are of limited use from a policy perspective due to
following limitations of data and estimation: a) Pocket-wise poverty incidence is for the
year 2008, while the survey indicators relate to year 2011. Thus any change in the
poverty incidence between the two periods at the household level may also change i)
poverty incidence at the pocket level and ii) introduce inconsistency as household’s
response to conditions in 2011 converted into pocket-wise percentages is used to explain
the pocket-wise poverty incidence of 2008, iii) Statistically given that there are only 12
data points you can use only a small fraction of indicators at a time to model poverty
incidence. Thus estimates may not be robust to infer an unambiguous policy impact and
therefore of limited policy relevance. Using multivariate regression technique, three
models are estimated.
a) Poverty incidence and labour market dynamics
In this model, we use decent work indicators such as a) percentage people covered by
health insurance (PCTHELTH), b) percentage people covered by social security
(PCTSS), c) percentage of households with one member receiving pension (PNSION)
and d) percent of job seekers (JOBSEEKR), to explain the variation in poverty incidence
of poverty pockets (PPICDNC08).
The results are given in Table 1.A. Although the percentage of variation explained by the
4 determinants is high, none of the variables are statistically significant. The findings
from the non-significant results are: A higher percentage of households reporting health
95
insurance for the employed in a pocket do not ensure a lower incidence of poverty in the
pocket. A higher coverage of social security and pensions in a pocket however helps to
reduce the poverty incidence in the pocket. Higher percentage of job seekers is also
positively related to incidence of poverty in a pocket, confirming the results of chapter 2.
Table 36.1.A, Regression Results
Dependent Variable: PPICDNC08
Sample (adjusted): 2 12
Included observations: 11 after adjustments
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
42.9
5.23
8.21
0.000437
PNSION
-0.0627
0.0501
-1.25
0.267
PCTSS
-0.15
0.196
-0.766
0.478
PCTHELTH
0.0195
0.188
0.103
0.922
JOBSEEKR
0.0647
0.0646
1
0.362
0.0649
10.9
0.000112
AR(1)
0.708
Adjusted R-squared
0.943
Mean dependent var
41.2
S.E. of regression
2.21
F-statistic
33.9
Durbin-Watson stat
1.67
Prob(F-statistic)
0.00073
b) Poverty incidence and main source of income
In the next model we asses that those pockets that report higher proportion of households
reporting retirement income (RTIREINC), internal transfers (INTRNLTRF), National Aid
Fund (NAFINC), irregular income (IREGLRINC) as main source income, and zero
savings by those with irregular income also have a higher incidence of poverty. The
results in Table 1B indicate a two way causational relationship.
In case of retirement income, income from internal transfers and NAF support, the
positive relationship with poverty incidence suggests that pockets with higher proportion
of households reporting these as main sources of income also have higher poverty
incidence, rather than contributing to lower poverty incidence. A priori one would expect
that they would contribute to lower poverty incidence. Among these NAF support or
96
Internal transfers are also statistically significant. A more strange result is that pockets
with higher proportion of households reporting irregular income or zero savings have
lower incidence of poverty. A priori one would have expected the opposite. These
counter intuitive findings are a consequence of availability weak income metrics defined
as ‘main source’ rather than actual income magnitudes from each source.
Table 37.1B, Regression Results
Dependent Variable: PPICDNC08
Sample (adjusted): 2 12
Included observations: 11 after adjustments
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
30.6
3.26
9.39
0.000715
RTIREINC
0.0174
0.056
0.31
0.772
INTRNLTRF
0.222
0.0853
2.6
0.0598
NAFINC
0.211
0.0433
4.88
0.00817
IREGLRINC
-0.0241
0.208
-0.116
0.913
ZEROSAV2
-0.006
0.0199
-0.301
0.778
AR(1)
0.69
0.0367
18.8
4.72E-05
Adjusted R-squared
0.984
Mean dependent var
41.2
S.E. of regression
1.16
F-statistic
105
Durbin-Watson stat
1.78
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000236
c) Poverty Incidence, access to health, presence of disability
Numerous studies have documented a very close relationship of poverty incidence with
the health status of the household. In this model we relate, percentage of households in a
pocket reporting a) poor hospital services (PRHLTHSER), b) lack of treatment
(LKTRTMNT), c) presence of disabled person under 18 (DSABLD18) and above 18
(DSABLDGT18), hours spent with disabled person (HRSDSABLD) with pocket-wise
poverty incidence. The results are presented in Table 1C.
97
Table 38.1C, Regression Results
Dependent Variable: PPICDNC08
Sample (adjusted): 3 12
Included observations: 10 after adjustments
Variable
Coefficie
nt
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
37.145
4.280
8.678
0.013
PRHLTHSER
-0.197
0.100
-1.970
0.188
LKTRTMNT
0.124
0.101
1.234
0.343
DSABLD18
-0.695
0.529
-1.314
0.319
DSABLDGT18
0.211
0.111
1.904
0.197
HRSDSABLD
-0.021
0.173
-0.120
0.915
AR(1)
-0.095
0.166
-0.571
0.625
AR(2)
0.655
0.156
4.196
0.052
Adjusted R-squared
0.877
Mean dependent var
38.860
S.E. of regression
1.786
F-statistic
10.170
Durbin-Watson stat
2.053
Prob(F-statistic)
0.092
Only two indicators, i.e., poor health services and presence of disabled person older than
18 years are statistically significant at 80 percent level. As the remaining indicators are
statistically not significant it is risky to comment on whether the direction of causality is
in accordance with a priori expectations. In case of significant indicators, the positive
causality flowing from higher percentage of households reporting presence of disabled
person with higher incidence of poverty supports the a priori reasoning. The negative
relationship between higher percentage of households reporting poor health services and
poverty incidence reflects that pockets with lower poverty incidence do have more health
services in the pocket but may be providing poor access to quality health services.
98
ANNEX 2: Pocket-Wise Profile of Social Indicators
Table A.1: Relative Distribution of Households by sub-district, poverty status and the family's ability to provide services 2011
Services
Provide three meals a day
Sub-district
always
Some
times
rarely
never
The provision of meat, chicken and fish at least twice a week
N/A
total
always
Some
rarely
times
The provision of vegetables and fruits at least twice a week
never
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
41.0
51.4
7.6
0.0
0.0
01101
19.4
55.1
25.5
0.0
0.0
01101
42.6
43.1
14.3
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
45.9
47.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
01101
20.4
48.8
30.7
0.0
0.0
01101
24.5
49.6
25.9
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
76.4
23.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
34.8
49.6
15.6
0.0
0.0
01101
72.3
26.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
52.1
31.3
16.6
0.0
0.0
01101
42.9
39.1
13.9
4.1
0.0
01101
51.8
38.6
7.9
1.7
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
52.8
41.1
6.1
0.0
0.0
01101
29.3
51.2
19.6
0.0
0.0
01101
47.8
42.2
10.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
33.0
59.7
7.3
0.0
0.0
01101
40.5
44.0
15.5
0.0
0.0
01101
48.7
41.7
9.6
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
76.9
22.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
01101
39.6
44.7
15.7
0.0
0.0
01101
48.4
42.8
8.8
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
88.1
11.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
76.0
20.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
01101
79.9
20.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
59.3
37.8
2.9
0.0
0.0
01101
53.2
35.9
10.9
0.0
0.0
01101
61.8
33.1
5.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
79.3
18.9
1.7
0.0
0.0
01101
32.3
51.1
15.2
1.4
0.0
01101
37.7
50.4
11.9
0.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
80.2
13.8
4.3
1.8
0.0
01101
67.6
24.9
5.9
1.6
0.0
01101
70.2
21.3
8.5
0.0
0.0
01101
Borma
68.6
29.4
1.9
0.0
0.0
01101
42.9
40.7
16.5
0.0
0.0
01101
46.7
40.4
13.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
63.8
34.5
0.0
1.6
0.0
01101
43.8
44.5
11.7
0.0
0.0
01101
53.7
37.8
8.5
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
51.4
43.7
4.0
0.9
0.0
01101
31.7
59.9
7.8
0.6
0.0
01101
46.0
46.9
6.8
0.3
0.0
01101
Qasr
68.1
30.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
01101
51.3
45.6
3.1
0.0
0.0
01101
66.1
33.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
99
Table A.1.1: Relative Distribution of Households by sub-district, poverty status and the family's ability to provide services 2011
Services
Paying Bells regularly
Sub-district
always
Some
times
rarely
never
Keep home warm
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
Buying clothes and shoes that household needs
never
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
14.7
36.9
48.4
0.0
0.0
01101
46.5
37.7
15.8
0.0
0.0
01101
46.2
32.8
21.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
54.0
31.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
01101
24.5
42.5
28.4
4.6
0.0
01101
10.0
62.1
27.9
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
34.5
31.8
31.4
2.3
0.0
01101
78.3
16.0
3.3
2.3
0.0
01101
63.0
29.4
5.3
2.3
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
57.1
9.9
33.1
0.0
0.0
01101
17.7
9.7
0.0
3.5
69.1
01101
23.8
34.4
40.1
1.7
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
45.5
31.1
21.5
1.8
0.0
01101
46.5
36.9
12.9
3.7
0.0
01101
11.0
54.6
31.2
3.2
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
53.9
22.1
23.9
0.0
0.0
01101
6.9
7.2
6.1
0.0
79.9
01101
12.0
45.9
42.1
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
59.5
37.7
2.8
0.0
0.0
01101
53.2
35.1
11.7
0.0
0.0
01101
21.4
57.6
21.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
48.8
25.1
24.5
0.0
1.6
01101
78.9
19.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
01101
54.1
24.4
21.5
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
42.5
41.3
16.2
0.0
0.0
01101
64.5
26.5
7.2
1.8
0.0
01101
41.9
9.8
45.5
2.8
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
55.3
37.8
6.9
0.0
0.0
01101
37.9
53.8
8.2
0.0
0.0
01101
23.1
58.1
18.8
0.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
56.1
36.1
7.9
0.0
0.0
01101
56.4
36.6
5.6
1.3
0.0
01101
32.4
57.7
9.9
0.0
0.0
01101
Borma
53.1
37.1
8.3
1.4
0.0
01101
44.8
50.3
4.9
0.0
0.0
01101
22.0
58.7
17.9
1.3
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
43.1
31.4
25.4
0.0
0.0
01101
46.6
32.3
17.7
2.0
1.4
01101
24.5
48.0
27.5
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
31.6
43.5
23.5
1.4
0.0
01101
37.1
43.5
19.2
0.3
0.0
01101
16.9
53.8
28.7
0.6
0.0
01101
Qasr
68.3
28.3
3.5
0.0
0.0
01101
86.2
12.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
01101
23.6
55.5
21.0
0.0
0.0
01101
100
Table A.1.2: Relative Distribution of Households by sub-district, poverty status and the family's ability to provide services 2011
Services
Purchase of medical devices (diabetes devices,…)
Purchase of medicines needed by household
Sub-district
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
Take care of each child’s teeth regularly
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
31.9
50.7
17.4
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
1.9
2.9
0.0
95.2
01101
7.8
16.5
21.1
12.0
42.7
01101
Al-Rweished
20.4
45.4
32.5
1.7
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
95.0
01101
3.3
21.9
5.6
44.8
24.4
01101
Mraighah
49.0
41.0
7.6
2.3
0.0
01101
29.9
7.2
40.8
6.7
15.4
01101
19.1
11.0
31.3
2.8
35.9
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
46.7
41.1
12.2
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
7.3
11.5
4.6
76.6
01101
32.5
13.7
18.4
12.4
23.1
01101
Al-Azraq
46.6
42.0
9.9
1.4
0.0
01101
4.8
12.9
9.6
13.9
58.9
01101
12.5
18.5
11.9
4.8
52.2
01101
Ghour Essafi
50.0
44.2
5.8
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
3.4
1.4
2.9
92.2
01101
13.9
24.0
31.3
10.2
20.6
01101
Salhiyyeh
41.4
48.2
10.4
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
1.7
2.3
4.3
91.6
01101
11.3
24.0
18.2
11.5
35.0
01101
Quaira
88.8
6.6
4.6
0.0
0.0
01101
2.2
12.4
17.4
30.3
37.8
01101
39.9
17.6
1.6
0.0
40.9
01101
Husseiniyyeh
72.5
12.0
12.3
3.2
0.0
01101
5.6
5.6
10.6
40.6
37.6
01101
45.7
22.5
13.1
1.3
17.3
01101
Dair El-Kahf
41.1
44.6
12.3
2.0
0.0
01101
1.5
0.0
7.1
1.8
89.6
01101
8.8
17.4
17.0
17.4
39.5
01101
Hoasha
59.3
34.7
3.2
0.0
2.9
01101
7.6
0.0
4.5
0.0
87.9
01101
28.1
12.2
12.7
12.8
34.3
01101
Borma
32.5
48.8
18.6
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
1.6
0.0
3.0
95.4
01101
1.4
8.0
27.3
12.6
50.6
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
45.4
45.2
7.4
0.0
2.0
01101
3.3
9.0
3.2
11.4
73.0
01101
14.8
18.1
24.6
4.1
38.4
01101
Russeifa
33.4
51.6
13.5
1.1
0.4
01101
7.3
11.0
5.7
11.8
64.3
01101
15.4
20.7
17.9
9.0
37.0
01101
Qasr
70.4
27.9
1.7
0.0
0.0
01101
1.4
1.8
1.4
0.0
95.3
01101
12.4
24.1
1.5
4.6
57.3
01101
101
Table A.1.3: Relative Distribution of Households by sub-district, poverty status and the family's ability to provide services 2011
Services
Purchase of schools supplies
Address the family/friends at least a meal once a month
Travelling to attend family occasions (between
with the family
governorates)
Sub-district
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
alway
Some
s
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
20.8
24.7
13.4
0.0
41.0
01101
11.1
35.4
52.3
1.2
0.0
01101
11.1
27.4
56.4
3.2
1.9
01101
Al-Rweished
27.6
41.0
7.1
0.0
24.4
01101
3.1
28.8
28.6
39.5
0.0
01101
3.3
6.8
25.7
45.2
19.0
01101
Mraighah
49.7
11.9
2.5
0.0
35.9
01101
40.5
43.0
11.6
4.9
0.0
01101
34.5
27.2
30.9
7.4
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
55.7
14.7
1.7
0.0
27.9
01101
10.9
43.3
23.8
18.7
3.2
01101
8.3
26.7
20.1
12.3
32.7
01101
Al-Azraq
25.2
17.6
8.0
0.0
49.1
01101
10.6
37.8
32.0
19.5
0.0
01101
16.1
26.8
16.9
36.9
3.4
01101
Ghour Essafi
46.6
29.8
0.0
0.0
23.6
01101
12.8
38.1
33.2
15.9
0.0
01101
1.5
16.7
25.7
16.4
39.7
01101
Salhiyyeh
24.2
32.5
10.3
1.7
31.3
01101
13.4
46.6
34.7
5.2
0.0
01101
6.0
19.7
23.8
14.9
35.6
01101
Quaira
54.6
2.5
0.0
0.0
42.9
01101
39.6
5.4
53.4
1.6
0.0
01101
37.8
7.0
52.7
2.6
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
54.6
9.1
4.8
1.3
30.2
01101
34.8
34.2
29.2
1.9
0.0
01101
33.8
8.5
48.8
7.1
1.9
01101
Dair El-Kahf
27.2
21.2
8.4
0.0
43.2
01101
6.4
34.7
42.0
16.9
0.0
01101
3.6
32.8
8.7
28.5
26.4
01101
Hoasha
36.7
20.1
4.7
0.0
38.5
01101
23.3
35.7
34.1
6.9
0.0
01101
17.2
35.4
26.9
14.8
5.8
01101
Borma
18.8
15.8
14.8
0.0
50.6
01101
13.8
23.2
55.1
7.9
0.0
01101
11.8
18.9
37.3
30.6
1.4
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
27.3
24.5
7.9
0.0
40.3
01101
8.7
30.4
41.4
15.7
3.7
01101
8.6
20.6
32.3
29.3
9.1
01101
Russeifa
23.0
20.6
18.3
0.9
37.1
01101
8.7
36.5
33.7
19.1
1.9
01101
9.2
23.7
30.8
32.4
4.0
01101
Qasr
41.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
58.4
01101
16.4
37.2
21.9
19.9
4.7
01101
12.3
31.4
23.4
17.3
15.7
01101
102
Table A.2: Percentage Distribution of households with members who are seeking job according to sub-district, poverty status and the family's
ability to provide services
Services for households who have members seeking job
Provide three meals a day
Sub-district
always
Some
times
rarely
never
The provision of meat, chicken and fish at least twice a week
Not
A.
total
alway
Some
s
times
The provision of vegetables and fruits at least twice a week
rarely
never
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
Not
A.
total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
14.2
78.9
6.9
0.0
0.0
01101
14.2
55.9
30.0
0.0
0.0
01101
31.5
38.5
30.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
73.8
12.6
13.6
0.0
0.0
01101
12.7
55.2
32.1
0.0
0.0
01101
12.7
55.2
32.1
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
74.8
25.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
16.7
80.6
2.7
0.0
0.0
01101
65.3
34.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
29.0
46.8
24.2
0.0
0.0
01101
31.2
39.5
16.2
13.1
0.0
01101
36.9
50.0
7.7
5.5
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
31.8
61.5
6.7
0.0
0.0
01101
22.0
63.7
14.2
0.0
0.0
01101
31.4
61.8
6.7
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
29.0
67.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
01101
38.4
57.9
3.7
0.0
0.0
01101
45.6
54.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
73.5
26.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
23.5
50.0
26.5
0.0
0.0
01101
23.5
50.7
25.8
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
90.2
9.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
81.9
18.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
81.9
18.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
36.2
55.9
7.9
0.0
0.0
01101
36.3
38.8
24.9
0.0
0.0
01101
44.5
46.4
9.1
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
59.3
30.2
10.4
0.0
0.0
01101
50.9
19.2
29.9
0.0
0.0
01101
50.9
27.6
21.5
0.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
53.1
40.9
6.0
0.0
0.0
01101
46.0
40.9
13.1
0.0
0.0
01101
67.4
26.6
6.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Borma
55.0
45.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
35.0
42.5
22.5
0.0
0.0
01101
35.7
30.5
33.8
0.0
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
48.1
51.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
18.3
66.4
15.3
0.0
0.0
01101
36.2
57.5
6.4
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
56.1
35.1
8.8
0.0
0.0
01101
33.6
50.0
14.4
2.1
0.0
01101
46.8
41.0
12.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Qasr
59.2
36.8
4.0
0.0
0.0
01101
38.5
53.0
8.6
0.0
0.0
01101
53.2
46.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
103
Table A.2.1: Percentage Distribution of households with members who are seeking job according to sub-district, poverty status and the
family's ability to provide services 2011
Services for households who have members seeking jobs
Paying Bells regularly
Sub-district
always
Some
times
rarely
never
Keep home warm
N/A
total
always
Some
times
Buying clothes and shoes that household needs
rarely
never
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
8.3
28.4
63.3
0.0
0.0
01101
20.0
44.1
35.9
0.0
0.0
01101
25.7
30.5
43.9
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
62.8
23.7
13.6
0.0
0.0
01101
12.7
13.6
73.7
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
49.9
50.1
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
15.6
32.7
51.7
0.0
0.0
01101
74.8
25.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
66.1
26.7
7.1
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
34.8
18.4
46.8
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
16.5
0.0
11.2
72.4
01101
7.1
24.0
63.5
5.5
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
14.5
69.8
15.7
0.0
0.0
01101
22.8
77.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
7.0
77.3
9.0
6.7
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
61.7
19.7
18.7
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
9.9
3.3
0.0
86.8
01101
6.4
61.5
32.1
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
23.5
66.7
9.8
0.0
0.0
01101
40.9
36.4
22.7
0.0
0.0
01101
9.8
50.0
40.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
42.3
24.7
33.1
0.0
0.0
01101
78.0
22.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
52.0
23.4
24.6
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
28.0
44.3
27.7
0.0
0.0
01101
41.3
38.8
19.9
0.0
0.0
01101
21.2
11.8
63.0
4.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
50.9
49.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
50.9
40.7
8.4
0.0
0.0
01101
50.9
27.9
21.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
53.8
24.3
21.9
0.0
0.0
01101
60.9
33.1
6.0
0.0
0.0
01101
27.3
60.8
12.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Borma
35.0
42.5
22.5
0.0
0.0
01101
22.8
65.9
11.2
0.0
0.0
01101
12.4
42.6
35.3
9.7
0.0
01101
6.4
01101
15.3
50.2
34.5
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
01101
14.2
47.1
36.5
2.2
0.0
01101
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
36.9
28.6
34.5
0.0
0.0
01101
36.2
43.0
14.5
0.0
Russeifa
19.8
54.3
21.4
4.5
0.0
01101
32.6
42.7
24.8
0.0
Qasr
44.2
46.1
9.7
0.0
0.0
01101
82.1
13.9
104
4.0
0.0
13.4
55.9
30.7
0.0
0.0
01101
Table A.2.2: Percentage Distribution of households with members who are seeking job according to sub-district, poverty status and the
family's ability to provide services 2011
Services for households who have members seeking jobs
Purchase of medical devices (diabetes devices,…)
Purchase of medicines needed by household
Sub-district
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
alway
Some
s
times
rarely
never
N/A
Take care of each child’s teeth regularly
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
25.7
38.4
35.9
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
92.0
01101
14.2
16.3
30.2
19.5
19.8
01101
Al-Rweished
12.6
26.3
61.1
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
0.0
12.7
12.6
48.2
26.6
01101
Mraighah
45.7
47.2
7.1
0.0
0.0
01101
15.6
2.7
77.1
0.0
4.6
01101
15.6
12.3
48.1
0.0
24.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
35.8
42.4
21.8
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
5.5
17.4
10.6
66.5
01101
17.9
5.2
28.6
30.0
18.3
01101
Al-Azraq
38.8
54.5
0.0
6.7
0.0
01101
14.5
18.1
0.0
21.7
45.7
01101
30.3
0.0
8.4
0.0
61.3
01101
Ghour Essafi
56.6
37.0
6.4
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
4.8
3.3
3.3
88.6
01101
13.2
17.0
34.8
3.8
31.2
01101
Salhiyyeh
33.3
66.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
86.4
01101
9.8
23.5
25.8
0.0
40.9
01101
Quaira
85.1
11.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
17.2
16.5
37.1
29.2
01101
38.9
24.7
0.0
0.0
36.4
01101
Husseiniyyeh
59.3
21.2
19.5
0.0
0.0
01101
3.7
3.7
15.8
45.0
31.8
01101
43.6
29.7
11.6
0.0
15.1
01101
Dair El-Kahf
37.1
11.0
40.1
11.8
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
10.4
11.0
78.5
01101
8.8
17.2
32.8
10.4
30.7
01101
Hoasha
61.7
25.6
0.0
0.0
12.8
01101
0.0
0.0
6.9
0.0
93.1
01101
21.4
14.8
24.1
13.8
26.0
01101
Borma
32.5
33.8
33.8
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.0
88.8
01101
0.0
12.9
30.5
11.2
45.4
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
51.4
48.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
8.9
0.0
17.9
73.2
01101
11.9
15.3
22.2
8.9
41.6
01101
Russeifa
31.3
50.0
14.5
4.2
0.0
01101
8.1
17.4
6.2
15.2
53.2
01101
10.2
16.7
26.1
6.7
40.4
01101
Qasr
80.6
19.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
5.1
0.0
0.0
94.9
01101
10.4
8.8
4.2
12.9
63.7
01101
105
Table A.2.3: Percentage Distribution of households with members who are seeking job according to sub-district, poverty status and the
family's ability to provide services 2011
Services for households who have members seeking jobs
Purchase of schools supplies
Address the family/friends at least a meal once a month
Travelling to attend family occasions (between
with the family
governorates)
Sub-district
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
always
Some
times
rarely
never
N/A
total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
31.5
24.2
24.4
0.0
19.8
01101
14.2
24.6
61.2
0.0
0.0
01101
14.2
16.7
61.2
0.0
8.0
01101
Al-Rweished
31.2
42.2
0.0
0.0
26.6
01101
0.0
12.7
26.2
61.1
0.0
01101
0.0
12.7
24.7
12.6
50.1
01101
Mraighah
68.8
0.0
7.1
0.0
24.0
01101
18.3
64.7
9.9
7.1
0.0
01101
15.6
39.3
45.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
41.8
28.7
5.5
0.0
24.0
01101
7.1
35.6
26.0
26.3
5.2
01101
5.6
12.8
34.9
5.5
41.3
01101
Al-Azraq
30.3
8.4
0.0
0.0
61.3
01101
21.2
41.0
14.7
23.2
0.0
01101
16.1
24.3
28.9
21.7
9.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
39.3
22.2
0.0
0.0
38.5
01101
8.1
44.2
29.5
18.2
0.0
01101
0.0
6.4
34.2
18.4
41.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
22.7
50.0
0.0
0.0
27.3
01101
0.0
26.5
73.5
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
13.6
36.4
0.0
50.0
01101
Quaira
63.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.4
01101
35.7
9.0
55.3
0.0
0.0
01101
29.9
11.0
59.1
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
45.7
7.9
7.9
0.0
38.5
01101
27.3
29.0
43.7
0.0
0.0
01101
31.2
6.9
62.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
19.6
17.2
21.5
0.0
41.7
01101
0.0
8.8
50.8
40.3
0.0
01101
0.0
8.8
8.8
52.2
30.2
01101
Hoasha
32.0
21.4
20.6
0.0
26.0
01101
25.1
36.4
38.5
0.0
0.0
01101
13.8
27.2
26.6
19.0
13.5
01101
Borma
9.7
24.1
20.9
0.0
45.4
01101
22.8
22.5
20.9
33.8
0.0
01101
22.1
12.9
20.9
33.8
10.4
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
20.9
11.9
25.6
0.0
41.6
01101
8.9
30.6
36.3
24.2
0.0
01101
0.0
12.7
37.5
49.8
0.0
01101
Russeifa
18.7
22.8
14.8
4.3
39.4
01101
9.2
30.5
39.1
16.4
4.9
01101
16.1
21.9
33.7
23.4
4.9
01101
Qasr
36.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
63.7
01101
17.1
34.9
20.9
22.9
4.2
01101
25.6
30.2
10.7
24.2
9.3
01101
106
Table A.3: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the time it takes to reach the nearest shop that sells
milk, 2011
15 minutes or less
16-20 minutes
21-30 minutes
31-40 minutes
41-60 minutes
61 minutes or more
Total
Sub-district
Poor
Wadi Arabah
62.8
33.4
2.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
01101
Al-Rweished
33.9
14.9
26.7
18.5
6.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
51.2
47.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
57.8
15.5
15.5
3.1
5.7
2.4
01101
Al-Azraq
82.2
11.2
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
77.1
11.7
11.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
55.3
25.0
10.4
6.0
1.4
1.8
01101
Quaira
37.5
13.3
6.1
23.1
16.8
3.2
01101
Husseiniyyeh
26.2
11.3
40.6
17.4
1.5
2.9
01101
Dair El-Kahf
27.9
14.4
23.2
10.1
15.6
8.7
01101
Hoasha
66.1
4.1
18.7
9.5
1.6
0.0
01101
Borma
48.5
21.9
21.1
3.2
3.3
1.9
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
58.6
17.7
21.7
2.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
78.8
7.6
12.9
0.8
0.0
0.0
01101
Qasr
73.2
19.8
4.4
2.6
0.0
0.0
01101
107
Table A.4: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the time it takes to reach the nearest shop selling
vegetables and fruits, 2011
Sub-district
15 minutes or less
16-20 minutes
21-30 minutes
31-40 minutes
41-60 minutes
61 minutes or more
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
58.5
33.4
2.5
0.0
0.0
5.7
01101
Al-Rweished
31.8
9.9
33.9
13.5
10.9
0.0
01101
Mraighah
43.1
45.1
10.8
0.0
1.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
48.2
19.0
18.9
5.8
5.7
2.4
01101
Al-Azraq
82.2
9.3
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
52.8
23.6
19.7
2.2
0.0
1.6
01101
Salhiyyeh
50.1
26.3
13.7
6.8
1.4
1.8
01101
Quaira
31.1
9.4
6.1
26.9
20.7
5.7
01101
Husseiniyyeh
18.0
8.6
43.0
18.8
8.7
2.9
01101
Dair El-Kahf
31.2
15.9
17.7
14.2
10.1
10.9
01101
Hoasha
37.5
6.1
28.7
14.1
4.9
8.7
01101
Borma
35.5
20.6
29.5
6.0
6.4
1.9
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
59.5
14.8
21.7
2.0
2.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
72.9
10.8
14.7
0.8
0.8
0.0
01101
Qasr
62.2
26.6
5.4
2.6
0.0
3.2
01101
108
TableA.5: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the time it takes to reach the nearest store selling coffee
and tea, 2011
Sub-district
15 minutes or less
16-20 minutes
21-30 minutes
31-40 minutes
41-60 minutes
61 minutes or more
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
64.2
33.4
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
38.3
8.2
29.1
11.4
11.3
1.8
01101
Mraighah
49.3
47.0
2.8
0.0
1.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
55.6
12.1
14.8
7.2
8.1
2.4
01101
Al-Azraq
83.6
9.3
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
72.8
17.4
9.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
61.0
21.2
11.5
3.2
1.4
1.8
01101
Quaira
31.1
9.4
6.1
26.9
20.7
5.7
01101
Husseiniyyeh
19.9
6.6
42.9
17.4
5.9
7.3
01101
Dair El-Kahf
42.9
9.4
19.4
8.7
12.4
7.3
01101
Hoasha
48.5
6.3
26.3
12.2
4.9
1.8
01101
Borma
57.5
17.7
13.2
3.2
6.4
1.9
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
65.6
12.7
17.1
4.5
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
74.6
8.8
15.0
1.2
0.4
0.0
01101
Qasr
66.3
23.7
7.4
2.6
0.0
0.0
01101
109
Table A.6.1: Relative Distribution of Households according to sub-district, poverty status and the degree of concern in cases experienced by
family 2011
Cases
Lack of sufficient income
Sub-district
Very
concerne
d
concer
ned
Hunger
Concern
Not
Very
to some
concer
concerne
extent
ned
d
concer
ned
Unexpected spending on health
Concern
to some
extent
Not
concerned
Very
concer
ned
concer
ned
Lack of housing
Concern
Not
Very
to some
concerne
concerne
extent
d
d
concerne
d
Concern to
Not
some
concern
extent
ed
Poor
Wadi Arabah
17.6
46.3
19.5
16.6
25.7
41.8
8.6
23.9
12.5
46.7
13.1
27.7
23.2
32.0
12.8
31.9
Al-Rweished
75.8
13.0
5.5
5.8
42.5
20.5
15.7
21.3
71.6
11.5
9.0
7.9
11.1
3.6
4.3
81.0
Mraighah
24.0
39.1
0.0
36.9
33.2
23.2
4.1
39.4
10.4
40.6
9.5
39.4
27.5
25.0
2.3
45.1
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
68.5
12.0
4.1
15.3
32.2
29.8
12.5
25.6
48.5
37.6
4.8
9.1
33.0
11.9
5.7
49.4
Al-Azraq
50.6
28.7
4.9
15.7
13.5
23.2
21.4
41.9
32.9
36.2
17.9
13.0
17.0
12.8
4.8
65.3
Ghour Essafi
81.7
6.0
4.2
8.0
45.8
19.7
14.0
20.4
40.8
35.6
13.4
10.2
38.9
15.6
4.4
41.2
Salhiyyeh
64.3
10.6
8.7
16.4
28.8
14.4
12.3
44.5
46.2
12.2
18.7
23.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
92.5
Quaira
34.3
15.0
16.2
34.5
2.8
6.4
3.2
87.6
4.6
6.4
15.6
73.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
98.6
Husseiniyyeh
46.2
18.5
15.8
19.6
26.7
11.2
7.2
54.8
13.3
17.4
28.6
40.6
4.2
0.0
1.3
94.4
Dair El-Kahf
61.8
12.2
14.0
12.0
35.6
20.9
10.2
33.4
34.7
27.4
15.7
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Hoasha
62.1
12.3
11.4
14.2
28.1
13.4
12.1
46.4
38.7
18.2
15.2
27.9
1.4
0.0
2.1
96.5
Borma
75.2
12.1
5.0
7.7
32.4
22.3
18.3
26.9
56.4
21.0
8.1
14.5
4.7
3.4
1.6
90.3
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
45.2
18.3
7.4
29.0
16.5
24.7
13.4
45.4
25.5
26.2
22.1
26.3
15.4
8.3
13.1
63.3
Russeifa
49.9
21.7
15.1
13.2
24.1
20.3
18.3
37.2
32.7
27.4
19.9
20.1
19.0
11.3
14.2
55.5
Qasr
63.6
20.5
6.1
9.8
28.0
18.1
3.6
50.2
50.4
29.2
10.5
9.8
33.4
13.7
7.8
45.1
110
Table A.6.2: Relative Distribution of Households according to sub-district, poverty status and the degree of concern in cases experienced by
family 2011
Cases
Crimes (theft, murder,…)
Diseases resulting from poor sanitation
Sub-district
Very
concern
concerned
ed
Concern to
Not
some
concerne
extent
d
Very
concerned
concerned
Concern
Not
Very
to some
concerne
concerne
extent
d
d
Air pollution
concerned
Concern
Not
to some
concerne
extent
d
Concer
Very
concern
concerned
ed
n to
some
extent
Poor
Wadi Arabah
36.8
29.4
3.3
30.5
01101
40.5
23.9
3.7
31.9
01101
78.7
9.2
0.0
12.1
01101
Al-Rweished
1.5
15.7
25.1
57.8
01101
13.6
9.1
22.6
54.7
01101
0.0
7.5
13.2
79.3
01101
Mraighah
52.6
0.0
2.3
45.1
01101
52.6
0.0
2.3
45.1
01101
68.3
0.0
0.0
31.7
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
20.7
19.5
8.9
50.9
01101
32.2
18.4
6.3
43.1
01101
33.1
32.3
13.7
20.9
01101
Al-Azraq
8.2
31.2
17.5
43.1
01101
19.0
25.8
9.4
45.8
01101
11.8
28.5
7.8
51.8
01101
Ghour Essafi
25.9
31.1
3.4
39.6
01101
45.9
14.2
5.7
34.2
01101
34.2
34.8
8.0
22.9
01101
Salhiyyeh
1.9
1.0
11.1
86.0
01101
10.5
8.7
5.7
75.1
01101
5.4
4.1
7.2
83.3
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
12.6
87.4
01101
1.6
3.2
22.6
72.5
01101
7.3
15.7
38.8
38.2
01101
Husseiniyyeh
14.5
9.8
15.8
59.9
01101
2.9
5.7
17.5
74.0
01101
11.5
15.2
14.8
58.5
01101
Dair El-Kahf
1.8
14.1
10.5
73.6
01101
13.6
12.3
12.3
61.7
01101
6.9
8.3
11.3
73.5
01101
Hoasha
6.2
8.4
12.4
73.0
01101
10.3
8.5
5.4
75.8
01101
12.6
7.4
10.2
69.8
01101
Borma
6.1
6.5
17.0
70.3
01101
11.3
4.8
7.4
76.4
01101
1.4
1.7
11.4
85.4
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
4.6
15.4
17.4
62.6
01101
7.3
20.1
20.2
52.4
01101
11.7
26.1
16.7
45.6
01101
Russeifa
12.0
22.9
29.3
35.7
01101
16.4
22.7
29.1
31.8
01101
12.6
17.5
39.1
30.8
01101
Qasr
25.1
19.4
9.7
45.8
01101
35.1
12.9
4.5
47.5
01101
22.7
39.0
6.5
31.9
01101
111
Table A.6.3: Relative Distribution of Households according to sub-district, poverty status and the degree of concern in cases experienced by
family 2011
Cases
water pollution
Sub-district
Very
concerned
concerned
Drought\flood
Concern to some
Not
extent
concerned
Total
Very
concerned
concerned
Concern to some
Not
extent
concerned
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
90.6
7.5
0.0
1.9
01101
86.8
7.5
0.0
5.7
01101
Al-Rweished
36.2
17.9
3.1
42.8
01101
0.0
0.0
8.4
91.6
01101
Mraighah
80.9
0.0
0.0
19.1
01101
79.4
0.0
0.0
20.6
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
40.5
37.6
5.9
16.0
01101
17.5
26.3
17.1
39.0
01101
Al-Azraq
11.8
29.9
13.8
44.4
01101
0.0
21.0
7.6
71.4
01101
Ghour Essafi
44.1
28.4
5.8
21.7
01101
12.1
38.6
13.7
35.5
01101
Salhiyyeh
7.7
4.7
3.1
84.5
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Quaira
14.5
19.0
20.1
46.5
01101
2.6
5.3
14.7
77.4
01101
Husseiniyyeh
29.3
8.1
9.9
52.7
01101
16.0
14.3
13.5
56.2
01101
Dair El-Kahf
5.5
8.7
1.8
84.0
01101
0.0
0.0
1.8
98.2
01101
Hoasha
13.7
12.9
8.9
64.4
01101
2.8
3.0
3.4
90.8
01101
Borma
15.8
19.1
3.7
61.3
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
7.1
28.6
15.9
48.4
01101
0.0
5.3
6.6
88.1
01101
Russeifa
15.9
22.0
36.2
25.9
01101
6.2
6.2
6.6
18.5
01101
Qasr
43.8
27.0
3.1
26.1
01101
16.0
16.0
32.2
11.3
01101
112
Table A.7: Relative Distribution of Households by the sub-district and the state of poverty and the proportion of poor people in the
community 2011
Sub-district
Percentage of the poor categories (%)
01-1
01-00
01-00
01-00
011-00
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
5.7
19.5
19.1
51.1
4.6
01101
Al-Rweished
3.5
1.7
7.0
47.8
40.1
01101
Mraighah
10.2
35.9
46.7
5.5
1.7
01101
4.1
4.2
19.2
61.8
10.8
01101
Al-Azraq
0.0
14.5
38.4
30.9
16.3
01101
Ghour Essafi
3.8
6.3
38.5
22.8
28.7
01101
Salhiyyeh
21.4
9.1
36.1
18.3
15.0
01101
Quaira
10.9
15.6
32.0
34.5
7.1
01101
Husseiniyyeh
1.3
10.1
41.8
36.3
10.4
01101
Dair El-Kahf
5.6
13.3
36.3
35.7
9.2
01101
Hoasha
26.8
23.2
29.3
10.5
10.1
01101
Borma
2.7
11.2
40.1
28.5
17.6
01101
Ghour ElMazra'ah
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
1.7
23.4
42.3
27.5
5.1
01101
Russeifa
5.5
13.1
33.9
41.1
6.4
01101
Qasr
29.7
26.9
20.5
21.4
1.5
01101
113
Table A.8: Relative Distribution of Households by the sub-district and the state of poverty and the proportion of Rich in community 2011
Percentage of the rich categories (%)
Sub-district
01-1
01-00
01-00
01-00
011-00
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
95.6
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
71.4
19.8
5.2
3.6
0.0
01101
Mraighah
79.3
18.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
54.2
34.5
5.1
0.0
6.2
01101
Al-Azraq
62.8
18.2
17.5
1.4
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
74.7
13.0
12.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
53.7
19.2
17.7
5.1
4.3
01101
Quaira
14.7
45.9
14.9
18.1
6.3
01101
Husseiniyyeh
56.6
13.4
26.9
1.8
1.3
01101
Dair El-Kahf
40.9
28.4
21.7
9.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
29.3
17.6
28.7
18.2
6.4
01101
Borma
42.1
28.4
24.4
2.0
3.1
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
51.8
31.6
9.7
6.8
0.0
01101
Russeifa
54.5
29.7
13.8
2.0
0.0
01101
Qasr
33.2
17.5
22.9
24.3
2.1
01101
114
Table A.9: Relative Distribution of Households by the sub-district and the state of poverty and the standard of living of the household
compared to the standard of living of the other households 2011
Neighborhood
Sub-district
Better
Similar
Village
Worse
Total
Better
Similar
Country (Jordan)
Worse
Total
Better
Similar
Worse
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
6.3
64.6
29.1
01101
4.7
56.2
39.2
01101
0.0
9.4
90.6
01101
Al-Rweished
13.9
62.0
24.1
01101
5.5
41.0
53.5
01101
0.0
1.7
98.3
01101
Mraighah
24.4
66.7
8.9
01101
9.0
86.1
4.9
01101
0.0
12.8
87.2
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
25.1
56.3
18.6
01101
25.8
54.1
20.2
01101
14.2
35.0
50.8
01101
Al-Azraq
14.8
60.1
25.2
01101
4.7
53.7
41.7
01101
3.1
10.7
86.1
01101
Ghour Essafi
18.0
59.9
22.2
01101
13.9
55.1
31.0
01101
1.4
5.7
92.9
01101
Salhiyyeh
11.4
62.9
25.7
01101
8.2
54.4
37.4
01101
0.0
10.1
89.9
01101
Quaira
18.8
52.9
28.3
01101
17.6
42.0
40.4
01101
0.0
8.3
91.7
01101
Husseiniyyeh
11.6
58.8
29.7
01101
9.0
51.9
39.0
01101
3.4
3.7
93.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
3.3
74.0
22.7
01101
3.3
60.9
35.8
01101
0.0
8.9
91.1
01101
Hoasha
8.7
67.7
23.6
01101
6.1
58.7
35.2
01101
3.6
25.0
71.4
01101
Borma
9.6
61.4
29.1
01101
4.9
37.8
57.4
01101
0.0
8.7
91.3
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
20.0
71.5
8.5
01101
17.2
68.0
14.8
01101
3.4
17.7
78.9
01101
Russeifa
28.8
51.4
19.7
01101
17.1
48.3
34.6
01101
9.2
12.3
78.5
01101
Qasr
18.1
58.3
23.6
01101
10.5
53.5
36.0
01101
3.5
25.8
70.7
01101
115
Table B.1: Distribution of households by sub district, employed members, and job seekers 2011
Sub- District
Number of employed members
Number of job seekers
Percent of job seekers
Poor
Wadi Arabah
684
252
27.0
Al-Rweished
771
163
17.5
Mraighah
1377
329
19.3
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
2772
1155
29.4
Al-Azraq
1978
596
23.1
Ghour Essafi
3567
1913
34.9
Salhiyyeh
2868
412
12.6
Quaira
2504
1173
31.9
Husseiniyyeh
1259
946
42.9
Dair El-Kahf
1197
228
16.0
Hoasha
3314
818
19.8
Borma
1770
314
15.1
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
12097
3030
20.0
Russeifa
71216
10620
13.0
Qasr
3495
1560
30.9
116
Table B.2: Relative distribution of household by sub district, poverty status and members who are seeking a job
Sub-district
No job seekers
One member is
in the family
a job seeker
More than one
member is
Total
a job seeker
Poor
Wadi Arabah
76.0
18.9
5.1
01101
Al-Rweished
86.8
13.2
0.0
01101
Mraighah
78.5
17.6
3.9
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
69.0
16.0
15.0
01101
Al-Azraq
79.6
15.6
4.8
01101
Ghour Essafi
58.2
30.9
10.9
01101
Salhiyyeh
86.1
13.9
0.0
01101
Quaira
69.4
24.5
6.1
01101
Husseiniyyeh
63.6
18.7
17.7
01101
Dair El-Kahf
83.4
16.6
0.0
01101
Hoasha
77.4
16.9
5.7
01101
Borma
86.1
10.8
3.1
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
77.2
18.0
4.8
01101
Russeifa
86.3
10.3
3.3
01101
Qasr
64.3
27.4
8.3
01101
117
Table B.3: Percentages of household according to sub district, poverty status, and employed household members who are covered by health
insurance and social insurance 2011.
Percentage of people
Sub district
Percentage people
covered by
covered by
health insurance
social security
Poor
Wadi Arabah
84.5
84.5
Al-Rweished
49.4
49.4
Mraighah
80.4
80.9
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
82.5
85.2
Al-Azraq
59.0
57.8
Ghour Essafi
83.0
78.0
Salhiyyeh
75.7
77.2
Quaira
75.7
77.6
Husseiniyyeh
71.0
79.5
Dair El-Kahf
75.4
75.4
Hoasha
79.1
77.8
Borma
68.9
68.9
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
48.8
56.9
Russeifa
34.8
37.7
Qasr
77.1
80.5
118
Table B.4: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the number of members who receive pension salary 2011.
Sub- district
No member is
One member is
More than one
receiving
receiving pension
member receiving
pension salary
salary
pension salary
Total
poor
Wadi Arabah
73.2
24.9
1.9
01101
Al-Rweished
96.9
3.1
0.0
01101
Mraighah
52.5
42.6
4.9
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
66.0
32.7
1.3
01101
Al-Azraq
71.2
28.8
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
81.0
19.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
63.9
36.1
0.0
01101
Quaira
52.6
47.4
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
66.0
34.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
63.1
36.9
0.0
01101
Hoasha
40.1
56.9
3.0
01101
Borma
74.2
24.3
1.5
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
65.3
32.9
1.8
01101
Russeifa
77.1
22.6
0.3
01101
Qasr
55.8
38.1
6.1
01101
119
Table B.5: Percentage of households by Sub district, poverty status and job search methods 2011
Submitting
Responding to
Sub-district
the newspaper
advertisements
Using the
internet
employment
application
directly to the
Family and friend
help or the support of
previous (or current)
employer
Ministries
Submitting
Submitting
Submitting
employment
employment
employment
application directly
application directly
application directly
to the Ministry of
to the Civil Service
to the
Labor Offices
Bureau
private institution
poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
79.3
19.6
0.0
0.0
12.8
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
36.7
75.9
0.0
11.1
37.2
Mraighah
16.7
7.1
100.0
77.3
0.0
27.6
7.1
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
7.7
0.0
58.0
23.5
7.1
0.0
56.1
Al-Azraq
82.5
23.4
38.1
41.0
9.0
7.0
59.7
Ghour Essafi
3.5
0.0
36.5
53.9
0.0
0.0
69.3
Salhiyyeh
13.6
0.0
40.9
86.4
13.6
0.0
13.6
Quaira
15.0
0.0
56.9
59.8
0.0
0.0
26.1
Husseiniyyeh
17.5
0.0
38.8
60.9
0.0
6.5
24.9
Dair El-Kahf
42.1
0.0
59.3
100.0
40.7
8.8
0.0
Hoasha
27.5
6.9
28.1
74.0
28.9
12.8
26.3
Borma
31.7
0.0
77.2
67.1
22.1
22.1
32.5
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
35.0
14.5
15.3
50.7
27.2
20.9
64.6
Russeifa
52.9
24.2
34.0
55.9
22.3
15.0
57.8
Qasr
4.5
4.5
81.3
29.7
14.8
24.6
16.6
120
Table B.6 Percentage of households by sub district poverty status and reason of refusing to work 2011
Failure to
Sub-district
distance
Poor
Public
Car
obtain
High oil
public
unavailability
driving
prices
transportati
license
on
transportatio
n cost
Taking care of
Sickness/
Safety
disabled
disability
concerns
member of the
family
The job
Rejection
description
Cultural and
from the
doesn’t match
traditional
family
the applicant
aspects
qualification
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mraighah
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Azraq
43.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.7
Ghour Essafi
35.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.1
64.9
0.0
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Quaira
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dair El-Kahf
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.4
0.0
55.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Borma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Russeifa
20.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.2
0.0
Qasr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
121
Table B.7: Percentage of households which doesn’t include job seekers by sub district, poverty status and reason of refusing to work 2011
Reasons for job rejection in households that don’t include job seekers
Car
Sub-district
distance
unavailabi
lity
Failure to
Poor
obtain
High oil
public
driving
prices
transporta
license
tion
Public
transportati
on cost
Taking care
Sickness/
Safety
of disabled
disability
concerns
member of
the family
The job
Rejection
description
from the
doesn’t match
family
the applicant
qualification
Cultural
and
traditional
aspects
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Azraq
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Ghour Essafi
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.4
0.0
55.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Borma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Russeifa
47.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Qasr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
122
Table B.8: Percentage of households that include job seekers by sub district, poverty status and reason of refusing to work 2011
Reasons of job rejection in households that include job seekers
The job
Car
Sub-district
distance
unavailabi
lity
Failure to
Poor
obtain
High oil
public
driving
prices
transporta
license
tion
Public
transporta
tion cost
Taking care
Sickness/
Safety
of disabled
disability
concerns
member of
the family
Rejection
from the
family
description
doesn’t
match the
applicant
Cultural and
traditional
aspects
qualification
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mraighah
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Azraq
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Quaira
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dair El-Kahf
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Borma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Russeifa
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.4
0.0
Qasr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
123
Table B.9: Percentage of households that doesn’t include disabled members by Sub district, poverty status and reason of job rejection 2011
Reasons of job rejection for households that don’t include disabled members
distance
Car
obtain
High oil
unavailability
driving
prices
sub district
The job
Taking
Failure to
license
Poor public
Public
transportati
transporta
on
tion cost
Sickness/
Safety
disability
concerns
care of
Rejection
disabled
from the
member of
family
the family
description
doesn’t
match the
applicant
Cultural and
traditional
aspects
qualification
poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mraighah
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Azraq
43.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.7
Ghour Essafi
35.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.1
64.9
0.0
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Quaira
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dair El-Kahf
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.4
0.0
55.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Borma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Russeifa
20.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.2
0.0
Qasr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
124
Table C.1: Relative distribution of households that include disabled members by sub district, poverty status the main source of income 2011
Income
Sub district
Income
Income
Income
Income
Income
generated
generated
generated
Income from
generated
generated
generated from
from salary
from private
from self-
retirement
from financial
from internal
external
and wage
project
production
assets
transfers
transfers
Income
Income
received
generated from
from
real state
National Aid
Total
Fund
Poor
Wadi Arabah
64.3
4.4
1.5
13.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
01101
Al-Rweished
37.6
9.6
0.0
3.2
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
46.2
01101
Mraighah
69.5
4.1
1.6
22.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
60.3
4.5
0.0
18.5
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
14.9
01101
Al-Azraq
46.2
10.7
0.0
21.0
1.5
4.2
0.0
0.0
16.4
01101
Ghour Essafi
56.2
4.2
0.0
15.3
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
20.1
01101
Salhiyyeh
50.8
5.1
0.0
30.9
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
11.8
01101
Quaira
35.4
5.3
0.0
45.2
0.0
12.9
0.0
0.0
1.2
01101
Husseiniyyeh
56.0
2.4
2.9
21.6
0.0
10.9
0.0
0.0
6.2
01101
Dair El-Kahf
51.1
5.1
0.0
32.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8
01101
Hoasha
46.0
2.9
0.0
47.9
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.6
01101
Borma
44.1
20.8
0.0
24.3
0.0
3.1
0.0
1.6
6.2
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
47.7
8.6
0.0
27.2
0.0
10.7
2.0
0.0
3.7
01101
Russeifa
57.4
13.5
0.9
16.9
0.3
5.8
0.3
1.4
3.5
01101
Qasr
44.8
3.5
0.0
35.4
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
9.8
01101
125
Table C.2: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status the regularity of the main source of income 2011
The regularity of the main source of income in the family and the number of individual contributors to the household income =1
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Every three month
Annual
Irregular
Total
poor
Wadi Arabah
1.7
2.0
96.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
8.3
0.0
82.5
0.0
3.5
5.6
01101
Mraighah
0.0
1.5
98.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
93.6
0.0
0.0
6.4
01101
Al-Azraq
10.4
6.9
78.8
0.0
0.0
3.9
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
2.4
86.3
2.1
2.4
6.8
01101
Salhiyyeh
4.5
2.1
91.7
0.0
0.0
1.7
01101
Quaira
3.2
0.0
96.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
6.0
0.0
94.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
2.3
91.4
1.7
2.3
2.3
01101
Hoasha
2.1
4.5
91.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
01101
Borma
9.5
2.3
78.7
0.0
7.8
1.7
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
3.3
11.0
85.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
14.8
8.4
71.5
0.0
0.0
5.3
01101
Qasr
3.8
0.0
90.8
0.0
0.0
5.4
01101
126
Table C.3.1: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the stability of the main source of income, and number of
the household members that contribute to the household income 2011
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Sub-district
Every three
month
Annual
Irregular
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
2.7
1.4
93.2
0.0
0.0
2.8
01101
Al-Rweished
9.1
0.0
82.7
0.0
3.1
5.0
01101
Mraighah
0.0
1.0
98.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
94.7
0.0
1.3
4.0
01101
Al-Azraq
9.4
5.1
79.7
0.0
0.0
5.9
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
1.5
86.9
1.4
1.6
8.6
01101
Salhiyyeh
4.9
1.7
92.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
01101
Quaira
2.8
0.0
97.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
4.2
0.0
90.1
0.0
0.0
5.8
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
1.8
90.9
1.4
4.1
1.8
01101
Hoasha
1.6
3.4
92.4
0.0
0.0
2.6
01101
Borma
7.9
1.9
79.5
0.0
7.9
2.8
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
5.8
8.5
80.6
0.0
0.0
5.0
01101
Russeifa
13.4
6.8
74.8
0.0
0.0
5.0
01101
Qasr
4.6
0.0
91.2
0.0
0.0
4.2
01101
127
Table C.3.2: Relative distribution of households by Sub district, poverty status the stability of the main source of income, and number of the
household members which contribute to the household income 2011
The regularity of the main source of income in the family as the number of individual contributors to the household income =2
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Every three month
Annual
Irregular
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
8.3
0.0
91.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
94.2
0.0
5.8
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
12.0
0.0
67.1
0.0
0.0
21.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
12.6
0.0
87.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
86.2
0.0
13.8
0.0
01101
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
93.3
0.0
0.0
6.7
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
86.6
0.0
13.4
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
9.0
0.0
91.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
11.3
4.9
81.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
01101
Qasr
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
128
Table C.3.3: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status the stability of the main source of income, and number of the
household members which contribute to the household income 2011
The regularity of the main source of income in the family as the number of individual contributors to the household income >2
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Every three month
Annual
Irregular
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
38.7
0.0
61.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
15.5
0.0
80.6
0.0
0.0
3.9
01101
Qasr
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
129
Table C.4.1: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the possibility of losing the household income 2011
Possibility of losing the household income
Sub-district
Very possible
Possible some how
Not possible
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
6.2
8.4
85.4
01101
Al-Rweished
13.1
7.9
79.0
01101
Mraighah
5.3
0.6
94.1
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
14.4
1.7
83.9
01101
Al-Azraq
12.7
16.7
70.7
01101
Ghour Essafi
13.8
19.9
66.3
01101
Salhiyyeh
27.5
5.6
66.9
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
7.1
1.8
91.1
01101
Dair El-Kahf
10.3
1.5
88.2
01101
Hoasha
4.5
6.0
89.5
01101
Borma
6.2
9.7
84.1
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
13.3
11.8
75.0
01101
Russeifa
15.7
15.8
68.6
01101
Qasr
11.6
10.4
78.0
01101
130
Table C.4.2: Relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the possibility of losing the household income and number
of family members who contribute to household income 2011
Possibility of losing the household income and number of income contributors =1
Sub-district
Very possible
Possible some how
Not possible
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
4.4
95.6
01101
Al-Rweished
14.4
8.7
76.8
01101
Mraighah
6.5
0.0
93.5
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
15.5
0.0
84.5
01101
Al-Azraq
5.4
13.4
81.2
01101
Ghour Essafi
16.6
22.0
61.4
01101
Salhiyyeh
26.3
5.8
67.9
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
1.9
2.6
95.5
01101
Dair El-Kahf
10.0
2.0
88.0
01101
Hoasha
6.1
6.3
87.6
01101
Borma
4.1
11.8
84.1
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
9.9
16.8
73.3
01101
Russeifa
15.8
18.5
65.7
01101
Qasr
16.9
4.9
78.2
01101
131
Table C.4.3: relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the possibility of losing the household income and number
of family members which contribute to household income 2011
Possibility of losing the household income and number of income contributors =2
Sub-district
Very possible
Possible some how
Not possible
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
8.3
0.0
91.7
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
13.1
7.3
79.5
01101
Al-Azraq
21.0
21.9
57.1
01101
Ghour Essafi
6.9
14.3
78.8
01101
Salhiyyeh
29.1
0.0
70.9
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
13.8
0.0
86.2
01101
Hoasha
0.0
6.7
93.3
01101
Borma
13.4
0.0
86.6
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
6.5
93.5
01101
Russeifa
5.1
6.6
88.3
01101
Qasr
4.7
11.8
83.5
01101
132
Table C.4.4: relative distribution of households by sub district, poverty status and the possibility of losing the household income and number
of family members which contribute to household income 2011
Possibility of losing the household income and number of income contributors >2
Sub-district
Very possible
Possible some how
Not possible
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
12.0
0.0
88.0
01101
Al-Azraq
0.0
56.8
43.2
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
36.0
10.9
53.1
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Russeifa
0.0
13.8
86.2
01101
Qasr
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
133
Table C.5.1: Relative distribution of households by sub-district, poverty status and savings coverage on household expenditure and the
regularity of the main source of income 2011
Savings coverage on household expenditure and the
regularity of the main source of income (monthly)
Sub-district
Less than a month
(1-4)months
More than 4 months
Total
No Savings
Poor
Wadi Arabah
49.5
50.5
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Mraighah
37.2
0.0
0.0
62.8
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
68.8
0.0
0.0
31.2
01101
Al-Azraq
11.6
12.9
0.0
75.6
01101
Ghour Essafi
20.5
7.5
0.0
72.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Hoasha
69.8
0.0
0.0
30.2
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
32.8
8.8
0.0
58.4
01101
Russeifa
26.5
39.2
1.9
32.4
01101
Qasr
12.3
0.0
17.5
70.2
01101
134
Table C.5.2: Relative distribution of households by sub-district, poverty status and savings coverage on household expenditure and the
regularity of the main source of income 2011
Savings coverage on household expenditure and the regularity of the
Sub-district
Total
main source of income (irregular )
Less than a month
(1-4) months
More than 4 months
No Savings
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
AlRweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Mraighah
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
40.3
0.0
0.0
59.7
01101
Al-Azraq
24.6
0.0
0.0
75.4
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Hoasha
48.7
0.0
0.0
51.3
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
50.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
01101
Russeifa
0.0
25.1
0.0
74.9
01101
Qasr
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
135
Table C.6.1: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the regularity of the main source of income and the
number of individual contributors to family income and disability 2011
The regularity of the main source of income, disability and the number of individual contributors in income =1
Incapable
Capable
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Every 3
months
Seasonal /annual
Irregular
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Every 3
months
Seasonal
/annual
Irregular
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
1.7
2.0
96.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
8.6
0.0
81.9
0.0
3.6
5.9
01101
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
1.5
98.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
92.7
0.0
0.0
7.3
01101
Al-Azraq
0.0
24.4
57.0
0.0
0.0
18.6
01101
11.7
4.8
81.4
0.0
0.0
2.1
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
2.6
85.0
2.3
2.6
7.5
01101
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
4.8
2.3
91.2
0.0
0.0
1.8
01101
Quaira
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
1.4
0.0
98.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
6.1
0.0
93.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
57.4
0.0
21.3
21.3
01101
0.0
2.6
95.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
2.3
4.9
90.8
0.0
0.0
2.0
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
68.2
0.0
31.8
0.0
01101
10.1
2.5
79.3
0.0
6.2
1.9
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
3.4
11.7
84.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
8.0
4.7
82.9
0.0
0.0
4.4
01101
15.5
8.7
70.4
0.0
0.0
5.4
01101
Qasr
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
4.0
0.0
90.2
0.0
0.0
5.7
01101
136
Table C.6.2: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the regularity of the main source of income and the
number of individual contributors to family income and disability 2011
The regularity of the main source of income, disability and the number of individual contributors in income =2
Sub-district
incapable
daily
weekly
monthly
capable
Every 3
Seasonal
months
/annual
irregular
Total
daily
weekly
monthly
Every 3
Seasonal
months
/annual
irregular
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
9.3
0.0
90.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
93.9
0.0
6.1
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
76.2
0.0
0.0
23.8
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
14.6
0.0
85.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
84.5
0.0
15.5
0.0
01101
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
93.3
0.0
0.0
6.7
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
86.6
0.0
13.4
0.0
01101
91.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
9.0
0.0
Russeifa
0.0
0.0
80.3
0.0
0.0
19.7
01101
13.0
5.6
81.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Qasr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
137
Table C.6.3: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the regularity of the main source of income and the
number of individual contributors to family income and disability 2011
The regularity of the main source of income, disability and the number of individual contributors in income >2
Sub-district
incapable
daily
weekly
monthly
capable
Every 3
Seasonal
months
/annual
irregular
Total
daily
weekly
monthly
Every 3
Seasonal
months
/annual
irregular
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
38.7
0.0
61.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
18.5
0.0
76.9
0.0
0.0
4.7
01101
Qasr
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
138
Table D.1: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the availability of public transportation in the region
2011
Sub-district
daily
Once every two
Once every week or
At least Once
At least Once
days or more
more
every hour
every half hour
At least Once
every quarter of
irregular
none
Total
an hour
Poor
Wadi Arabah
83.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.4
01101
Al-Rweished
11.0
0.0
13.3
15.3
8.9
0.0
24.6
26.9
01101
Mraighah
30.7
0.0
5.6
13.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.3
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
3.1
0.0
4.1
7.9
0.0
0.0
17.2
67.7
01101
Al-Azraq
35.4
19.6
20.8
24.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
17.2
7.6
1.4
6.6
0.0
1.6
1.4
64.3
01101
Salhiyyeh
37.5
0.0
6.4
49.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
95.1
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.9
01101
Dair El-Kahf
41.8
0.0
12.9
28.2
0.0
0.0
15.4
1.8
01101
Hoasha
22.1
0.0
41.0
17.6
3.3
0.0
11.0
5.0
01101
Borma
39.2
1.9
5.8
42.7
0.0
0.0
10.4
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
42.6
27.6
27.7
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
27.4
51.2
13.7
6.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
01101
Qasr
27.3
23.8
12.4
13.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
18.2
01101
139
Table D.2: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the number of times public transport is used 2011
Sub-district
daily
Once or twice a
More than twice a
Once or twice a
More than twice
Once or twice a
week
week
month
a month
year
never
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
2.6
33.8
5.5
28.7
18.1
4.9
6.4
01101
Al-Rweished
9.7
25.8
7.4
30.7
8.2
9.5
8.7
01101
Mraighah
16.5
7.7
6.6
13.2
8.5
15.2
32.2
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
22.0
20.4
21.2
17.3
0.0
6.2
12.8
01101
Al-Azraq
25.2
36.2
1.8
21.9
1.5
0.0
13.3
01101
Ghour Essafi
24.5
13.9
27.1
21.9
1.5
2.7
8.5
01101
Salhiyyeh
20.4
27.8
12.9
24.4
1.7
4.8
8.0
01101
Quaira
23.9
25.9
0.0
37.1
3.9
1.6
7.6
01101
Husseiniyyeh
22.7
30.7
3.0
29.2
1.0
3.4
10.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
23.6
30.1
3.2
19.9
1.4
5.1
16.8
01101
Hoasha
24.2
26.6
14.0
14.2
1.8
0.0
19.2
01101
Borma
20.5
50.6
3.7
6.3
1.7
4.5
12.7
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
39.0
20.7
5.7
14.2
9.7
1.9
8.8
01101
Russeifa
59.5
18.8
4.7
7.8
3.3
0.9
5.1
01101
Qasr
44.7
22.0
8.1
11.8
1.4
2.9
9.0
01101
140
Table D.3: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the time it takes to reach nearest public transport stop
on foot 2011
Sub-district
15 minutes or less
16-20 minutes
21-30 Minutes
31-40 Minutes
41-60 Minutes
61 Minutes or more
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
86.4
9.9
2.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
38.0
11.6
24.2
6.4
9.3
10.4
01101
Mraighah
37.0
46.6
16.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
44.3
4.7
36.6
2.2
9.8
2.4
01101
Al-Azraq
72.4
14.4
10.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
59.9
16.2
23.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
84.9
11.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
69.7
16.2
6.3
7.8
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
42.4
7.9
26.8
14.2
0.0
8.7
01101
Dair El-Kahf
87.8
6.7
2.2
0.0
1.5
1.8
01101
Hoasha
84.1
5.8
3.4
1.6
1.6
3.5
01101
Borma
71.8
13.2
11.5
1.5
0.0
1.9
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
68.0
20.4
9.6
0.0
2.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
81.1
8.1
9.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
01101
Qasr
96.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
141
Table D.4: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and main means of transportation 2011
Sub-district
On foot
Private car
Public transport
Taxi, mini bus owned by other
Motorcycle or bicycle
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
24.9
49.1
17.5
8.4
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
4.6
29.6
45.6
20.2
0.0
01101
Mraighah
8.2
79.7
10.1
2.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
5.0
33.0
42.9
19.1
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
8.6
25.3
61.1
4.9
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
5.7
12.7
40.7
41.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
0.0
32.3
66.8
1.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
0.0
54.8
45.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
25.3
74.7
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
1.5
33.2
49.2
16.2
0.0
01101
Hoasha
2.0
43.6
34.0
20.4
0.0
01101
Borma
0.0
43.3
49.9
6.8
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
1.9
32.1
62.3
3.7
0.0
01101
Russeifa
2.8
29.1
63.6
4.4
0.0
01101
Qasr
1.4
42.6
48.6
7.4
0.0
01101
142
Table E.1: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and where the family goes when it has an emergency health
problem 2011
Sub-district
Government
hospital
Private hospital
Health center
Charity and none
government clinic
Doctor clinic
Pharmacy
Arabic
medicine
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
1.9
3.1
95.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
40.7
0.0
59.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
1.8
1.5
96.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
22.7
22.1
53.5
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
01101
Al-Azraq
24.5
4.8
63.3
0.0
5.7
1.7
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
66.4
6.2
23.9
0.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
1.8
5.6
89.4
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
01101
Quaira
70.7
0.0
26.7
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
31.6
0.0
61.3
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
13.9
0.0
81.1
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
47.7
0.0
46.6
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
01101
Borma
52.8
4.3
41.4
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
62.9
5.8
23.9
0.0
7.4
0.0
0.0
01101
Russeifa
49.2
5.3
37.9
0.0
7.3
0.3
0.0
01101
Qasr
50.9
2.6
37.3
0.0
9.3
0.0
0.0
01101
143
Table E.2: Relative Distribution of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the main means of transportation used to reach health
services 2011
Sub-district
On foot
Private car
Taxi, mini bus owned by
other
Public transport
An ambulance
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
21.9
69.1
5.9
3.1
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
3.1
28.1
64.1
2.5
2.2
01101
Mraighah
0.0
90.2
3.0
6.7
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
2.7
13.6
23.6
1.7
58.4
01101
Al-Azraq
0.0
30.7
34.0
30.6
4.7
01101
Ghour Essafi
12.2
12.1
51.3
0.0
24.4
01101
Salhiyyeh
7.0
39.8
26.3
26.9
0.0
01101
Quaira
1.0
29.5
17.2
0.0
52.3
01101
Husseiniyyeh
5.9
52.9
9.2
1.0
31.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
8.4
40.6
42.1
9.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
9.4
47.4
39.1
1.3
2.8
01101
Borma
5.2
39.3
36.7
17.1
1.7
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
5.6
41.7
20.1
31.4
1.3
01101
Russeifa
15.0
27.1
31.9
25.2
0.8
01101
Qasr
3.3
44.7
15.3
1.7
35.0
01101
144
Table E.3: Percentage of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the problems facing the family when it goes to health care
facilities 2011
The absence
of any
Sub-district
No health
Far
insurance
distance
Absence of
Absence of
working
specialist
family
hours in the
doctor
doctor
health center
Poor
services
Cost of
The delay in
visiting a
getting an
doctor
appointment
person to
take care of
the house in
case of
Cannot take
leave from
work
I do not know
The lack of
where to go
treatment
visiting a
hospital
Poor
Wadi Arabah
11.5
8.8
41.2
1.4
0.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Rweished
7.2
9.7
58.7
3.5
2.4
36.7
1.7
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.1
Mraighah
4.3
14.5
59.9
4.1
1.0
39.2
0.0
11.0
3.3
1.8
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
3.4
30.7
33.2
3.5
7.5
52.9
12.5
16.5
0.0
1.3
0.0
3.5
Al-Azraq
17.0
37.4
37.6
8.8
4.4
47.5
6.3
30.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.3
Ghour Essafi
1.4
9.3
12.7
0.0
0.0
46.8
4.2
10.2
5.5
0.0
0.0
3.6
Salhiyyeh
4.9
11.8
10.4
5.6
1.4
39.8
1.7
16.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.1
Quaira
2.0
7.0
12.9
2.7
3.0
43.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
Husseiniyyeh
2.8
7.2
18.7
1.5
1.5
27.4
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.3
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
19.5
20.3
8.1
6.9
31.2
1.4
20.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
Hoasha
4.6
18.4
18.7
6.6
7.4
38.3
4.7
28.5
3.4
0.0
0.0
2.0
Borma
6.8
35.4
15.4
2.8
5.3
46.0
0.0
18.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.2
Hashemiyyeh
11.8
37.5
14.9
2.0
2.0
38.0
3.8
25.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Russeifa
24.7
19.2
12.3
1.3
2.7
40.6
3.5
24.0
0.7
0.9
0.0
0.4
Qasr
7.1
7.3
14.7
0.0
0.0
41.2
2.9
21.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
Non- Poor
145
Table E.4: Percentage of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status, age and disabled individuals in the family 2011
Presence of disabled children
Sub-district
Presence of disabled
in the family under
in the family
the age of 18 years
aged 18 years and over
Poor
Wadi Arabah
1.9
1.9
Al-Rweished
1.7
7.0
Mraighah
0.6
0.6
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
5.9
8.8
Al-Azraq
1.7
18.0
Ghour Essafi
2.9
6.2
Salhiyyeh
1.0
5.5
Quaira
1.6
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
1.3
2.7
Dair El-Kahf
1.5
8.9
Hoasha
0.0
6.0
Borma
1.7
4.9
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
2.0
3.5
Russeifa
5.5
6.1
Qasr
0.0
6.1
146
Table E.5: Percentage of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and caregivers who care for the disabled family member 2011
disabled person
Sub-district
himself /
Son/
Husband/ wife
daughter
herself
Mother/
father
Brother/ sister
Relatives/ other/
Assistance/ maid/
friends
paid help
neighbor
Care center
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Rweished
0.0
16.8
16.8
66.4
83.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
39.7
10.8
46.2
33.5
14.4
27.5
0.0
0.0
14.4
Al-Azraq
51.9
42.4
16.5
60.1
8.7
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour Essafi
30.2
15.8
52.8
32.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Salhiyyeh
21.2
62.6
58.5
14.8
14.8
22.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
33.3
0.0
66.7
33.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dair El-Kahf
14.0
17.6
51.8
30.7
30.7
17.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hoasha
26.1
0.0
0.0
22.3
0.0
0.0
51.6
0.0
0.0
Borma
0.0
23.5
76.5
0.0
23.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
26.3
26.3
0.0
73.7
36.8
36.8
0.0
36.8
0.0
Russeifa
41.1
21.0
28.4
63.1
24.3
7.7
2.6
0.0
4.7
Qasr
0.0
29.6
23.6
22.2
0.0
23.6
0.0
0.0
24.6
147
Table E.6: Percentage of Households by the Sub-district, poverty status and the difficulties faced by disabled family member 2011
Sub-district
Difficulty in obtaining a
Difficulty in obtaining health
Difficulty in access to public
Difficulty in obtaining social protection
suitable job
services
institutions
services
Difficulty in school
Poor
Wadi Arabah
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Al-Rweished
0.0
36.0
26.2
23.1
0.0
Mraighah
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
74.7
27.9
0.0
16.2
Al-Azraq
79.7
58.6
52.5
43.0
34.9
Ghour Essafi
49.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
35.5
Salhiyyeh
76.3
26.6
75.2
26.6
47.3
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
33.3
33.3
66.7
33.3
50.0
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
69.3
65.8
31.6
0.0
Hoasha
0.0
26.1
48.4
26.1
0.0
Borma
100.0
100.0
0.0
23.5
0.0
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
63.1
36.8
63.1
63.1
0.0
Russeifa
44.7
58.7
22.2
24.8
39.3
Qasr
61.2
45.8
46.8
22.2
100.0
148
Table E.7: Average number of hours needed to take care of disabled person in the day, according to the Sub-district, and poverty status 2011
Average number of hours
Sub-district
Poor
Wadi Arabah
10
Al-Rweished
11
Mraighah
10
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
10
Al-Azraq
9
Ghour Essafi
9
Salhiyyeh
12
Quaira
24
Husseiniyyeh
24
Dair El-Kahf
13
Hoasha
5
Borma
15
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
12
Russeifa
6
Qasr
19
149
Table F.1: Distribution of Households by Sub District, poverty status and presence of children ages (5-18 years) in the family 2011
Sub-district
)00-5( Without Children
With children
)00-5(
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
42.7
57.3
01101
Al-Rweished
24.4
75.6
01101
Mraighah
35.9
64.1
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
23.1
76.9
01101
Al-Azraq
52.2
47.8
01101
Ghour Essafi
20.6
79.4
01101
Salhiyyeh
35.0
65.0
01101
Quaira
40.9
59.1
01101
Husseiniyyeh
17.3
82.7
01101
Dair El-Kahf
39.5
60.5
01101
Hoasha
34.3
65.7
01101
Borma
50.6
49.4
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
38.4
61.6
01101
Russeifa
37.0
63.0
01101
Qasr
57.3
42.7
01101
150
Table F.2: Relative Distribution of Households by sub district, poverty status and according of school enrollment of children ages (5-18 years)
2011
No children
Sub-district
Children Enrollment in school
Enrollment
Total
in school
Poor
Wadi Arabah
100.0
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
100.0
0.0
01101
Mraighah
100.0
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
93.7
6.3
01101
Al-Azraq
100.0
0.0
01101
Ghour Essafi
96.2
3.8
01101
Salhiyyeh
97.0
3.0
01101
Quaira
96.7
3.3
01101
Husseiniyyeh
84.4
15.6
01101
Dair El-Kahf
94.0
6.0
01101
Hoasha
93.5
6.5
01101
Borma
100.0
0.0
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
96.8
3.2
01101
Russeifa
98.5
1.5
01101
Qasr
93.9
6.1
01101
151
Table F.3: Percentage of households by sub District, poverty status and households with children who attend schools with combined
classrooms, nutrition classes or receive school stationary 2011
Sub-district
Combined classes
Nutrition classes
School Supplies
Poor
Wadi Arabah
3.5
93.2
52.1
Al-Rweished
0.9
80.2
8.5
Mraighah
8.5
82.1
17.3
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
2.4
59.4
45.3
Al-Azraq
7.7
0.0
10.4
Ghour Essafi
5.5
84.1
67.6
Salhiyyeh
12.6
82.7
8.6
Quaira
12.2
83.4
34.7
Husseiniyyeh
2.2
63.5
23.3
Dair El-Kahf
22.6
86.4
10.2
Hoasha
0.0
75.2
4.3
Borma
18.1
80.6
0.0
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
3.4
4.6
0.0
Russeifa
2.2
2.0
2.9
Qasr
4.3
46.5
22.1
152
Table F.4.1: Relative distribution of households according on sub-districts, poverty status and the dangers/obstacles that children face in
schools 2011
Problems and Difficulties
No teachers Available
Sub-district
Very
dangerous
Bad quality of education
To some
extent
Null
total
dangerous
Very
dangerous
No specialized teachers Available
To some
extent
Null
dangerous
Very
Total
dangerous
Bad public Utilities
To some
extent
Null
dangerous
Very
total
dangerous
To some
extent
Null
Total
dangerous
Poor
8.1
23.7
68.1
01101
0.0
27.1
72.9
01101
11.7
18.7
69.6
01101
9.1
14.6
76.3
01101
Al-Rweished
9.1
35.2
55.7
01101
14.6
24.7
60.7
01101
11.6
24.1
64.3
01101
18.4
32.1
49.5
01101
Mraighah
48.9
31.1
20.1
01101
39.4
35.9
24.7
01101
44.0
31.3
24.7
01101
68.8
2.8
28.3
01101
5.4
14.9
79.7
01101
4.3
37.6
58.1
01101
1.9
19.0
79.1
01101
34.9
31.9
33.2
01101
Wadi Arabah
Ghour ElMazra’ah
Al-Azraq
32.5
29.8
37.6
01101
36.1
29.9
34.0
01101
23.0
39.3
37.7
01101
42.1
23.2
34.7
01101
Ghour Essafi
7.1
19.0
73.9
01101
7.2
27.3
65.5
01101
6.9
18.6
74.5
01101
17.0
27.0
56.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
13.5
14.6
71.9
01101
18.4
35.6
46.1
01101
11.0
12.5
76.4
01101
18.1
41.7
40.2
01101
Quaira
11.8
5.2
83.0
01101
10.9
15.4
73.7
01101
7.4
2.8
89.8
01101
5.7
27.4
67.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
19.0
17.9
63.2
01101
14.7
28.0
57.3
01101
16.5
13.1
70.4
01101
14.1
26.0
59.9
01101
Dair El-Kahf
6.5
21.0
72.5
01101
12.8
31.7
55.5
01101
22.6
12.3
65.1
01101
18.3
24.3
57.4
01101
Hoasha
2.1
9.7
88.2
01101
14.1
34.4
51.5
01101
16.7
12.0
71.4
01101
29.9
23.7
46.4
01101
Borma
13.3
28.1
58.6
01101
28.8
37.7
33.4
01101
5.7
15.1
79.3
01101
18.2
30.0
51.7
01101
Hashemiyyeh
5.8
21.7
72.5
01101
17.9
38.6
43.5
01101
0.0
36.4
63.6
01101
22.7
35.7
41.6
01101
Russeifa
9.4
20.1
70.4
01101
21.6
21.6
21.6
01101
21.6
21.6
21.6
01101
21.6
21.6
21.6
01101
Qasr
5.0
8.6
86.4
01101
25.2
25.2
25.2
01101
25.2
25.2
25.2
01101
25.2
25.2
25.2
01101
Non- Poor
153
Table F.4.2: Relative distribution of households according on sub-districts, poverty status and the dangers/obstacles that children face in
schools 2011
Problems and Difficulties
Crime and Violence in the school
Sub-district
Very
To some extent
dangerous
dangerous
Null
Drugs inside and outside the school
Total
Very
To some extent
dangerous
dangerous
Null
Smoking in the School
Total
Very
To some extent
dangerous
dangerous
Lack of discipline in schools
Null
Total
Very
To some extent
dangerous
dangerous
Null
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
0.0
7.7
92.3
01101
7.7
16.0
76.3
01101
Al-Rweished
10.2
12.2
77.6
01101
8.9
0.0
91.1
01101
12.9
10.3
76.8
01101
2.4
29.1
68.5
01101
Mraighah
24.8
0.0
75.2
01101
21.2
3.7
75.1
01101
72.6
4.5
22.9
01101
33.2
37.4
29.5
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
11.7
7.8
80.5
01101
0.0
2.5
97.5
01101
16.8
26.1
57.1
01101
22.0
49.0
29.0
01101
Al-Azraq
9.7
26.4
63.9
01101
6.5
13.9
79.6
01101
13.7
24.1
62.2
01101
3.6
51.0
45.4
01101
Ghour Essafi
4.5
10.0
85.5
01101
1.9
0.0
98.1
01101
16.6
16.4
67.1
01101
18.0
55.1
26.9
01101
Salhiyyeh
11.2
2.9
85.9
01101
0.0
3.0
97.0
01101
15.2
17.1
67.7
01101
16.3
17.3
66.5
01101
Quaira
6.3
16.3
77.4
01101
5.7
24.2
70.2
01101
8.5
31.9
59.6
01101
2.8
23.6
73.6
01101
Husseiniyyeh
16.9
11.5
71.5
01101
6.6
3.6
89.7
01101
6.7
22.6
70.7
01101
4.7
42.9
52.4
01101
Dair El-Kahf
3.2
16.8
80.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
11.8
10.8
77.4
01101
3.3
7.4
89.3
01101
Hoasha
14.7
18.6
66.6
01101
2.7
4.5
92.8
01101
28.5
23.2
48.2
01101
9.4
32.1
58.5
01101
Borma
16.1
6.6
77.3
01101
2.7
0.0
97.3
01101
22.2
27.2
50.7
01101
18.6
29.8
51.5
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
12.2
39.9
47.9
01101
2.1
23.4
74.4
01101
16.6
40.2
43.2
01101
17.8
45.2
37.0
01101
Russeifa
24.7
39.5
35.8
01101
11.7
24.5
63.9
01101
32.4
34.5
33.0
01101
20.5
35.5
44.0
01101
Qasr
8.8
4.3
87.0
01101
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
8.8
9.3
81.9
01101
13.8
42.4
43.9
01101
154
Table F.4.3: Relative distribution of households according on sub-districts, poverty status and the dangers/obstacles that children face in
schools 2011
problems and difficulties
Peer Pressure
Discrimination between students
Difficulty in reaching schools
Large number of students in classrooms
Sub-district
Very
dangerous
To some
extent
Null
Total
dangerous
Very
dangerous
To some
extent
Null
Total
dangerous
Very
dangerous
To some
extent
Null
Total
dangerous
Very
dangerous
To some
extent
Null
Total
dangerous
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
100.0
01101
3.3
20.8
75.8
01101
20.6
11.3
68.1
01101
7.7
13.2
79.2
01101
Al-Rweished
5.9
19.5
74.6
01101
13.3
18.0
68.7
01101
1.0
9.7
89.3
01101
7.4
12.0
80.6
01101
Mraighah
8.0
9.9
82.1
01101
16.7
55.1
28.2
01101
31.9
35.6
32.5
01101
24.4
35.4
40.2
01101
10.4
46.4
43.2
01101
24.4
39.0
36.6
01101
28.6
28.6
42.9
01101
34.0
16.2
49.8
01101
Al-Azraq
16.6
37.3
46.1
01101
19.1
29.9
51.0
01101
11.4
29.0
59.7
01101
22.9
5.8
71.3
01101
Ghour Essafi
1.8
64.7
33.5
01101
21.1
39.8
39.1
01101
22.0
44.2
33.8
01101
9.3
14.6
76.1
01101
Salhiyyeh
10.5
5.7
83.8
01101
21.6
31.1
47.3
01101
13.0
12.7
74.3
01101
16.9
0.0
83.1
01101
Quaira
12.0
25.6
62.4
01101
12.6
29.2
58.2
01101
6.3
14.8
78.8
01101
0.0
15.6
84.4
01101
Husseiniyyeh
12.8
22.1
65.1
01101
11.4
17.4
71.2
01101
22.3
22.4
55.3
01101
4.2
15.4
80.4
01101
Dair El-Kahf
6.4
3.9
89.7
01101
6.0
20.3
73.7
01101
3.4
3.3
93.3
01101
16.1
13.7
70.2
01101
Hoasha
17.8
13.4
68.9
01101
36.9
22.6
40.5
01101
9.3
11.0
79.7
01101
2.2
2.2
95.6
01101
Borma
15.8
13.7
70.4
01101
24.8
21.9
53.3
01101
9.2
18.9
71.8
01101
12.9
22.5
64.6
01101
Ghour ElMazra’ah
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
10.9
38.1
51.0
01101
17.6
48.5
33.9
01101
32.8
34.4
32.7
01101
17.4
23.3
59.3
01101
Russeifa
20.2
31.7
48.1
01101
22.3
21.9
55.8
01101
27.2
28.6
44.2
01101
9.9
18.9
71.2
01101
Qasr
13.8
16.2
70.1
01101
16.5
32.6
50.9
01101
13.8
28.3
57.9
01101
3.8
6.4
89.8
01101
155
Table F.4.4: Relative distribution of households according on sub-districts, poverty status and the dangers/obstacles that children face in
schools 2011
Difficulties and Problems
Violence and Crime Around the School
Sub-district
Very
To some
dangerous
extent dangerous
Null
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
3.3
96.7
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
4.6
95.4
01101
Mraighah
13.6
11.7
74.7
01101
Ghour Al-Mazra’ah
8.2
19.6
72.2
01101
Al-Azraq
3.6
35.3
61.1
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
10.3
89.7
01101
Salhiyyeh
7.3
8.6
84.1
01101
Quaira
4.6
17.0
78.4
01101
Husseiniyyeh
20.3
15.6
64.1
01101
Dair El-Kahf
3.2
2.6
94.2
01101
Hoasha
16.8
10.6
72.6
01101
Borma
15.8
6.1
78.1
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
10.6
29.5
60.0
01101
Russeifa
19.8
19.8
19.8
01101
Qasr‫ا‬
35.8
35.8
35.8
01101
156
Table F.5: Relative Distribution of Households by sub district, poverty status and evaluation of educational opportunities for children in the
household 2011
)Jordan( Children in your country
Children in your zone
Sub-district
Better
Identical
Worse
Total
Better
Identical
Worse
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
86.5
13.5
01101
0.0
42.1
57.9
01101
Al-Rweished
12.5
62.2
25.3
01101
5.3
4.0
90.7
01101
Mraighah
11.9
81.6
6.4
01101
0.0
19.1
80.9
01101
Ghour Al-Mazra’ah
42.0
47.8
10.2
01101
8.9
54.2
36.9
01101
Al-Azraq
22.8
66.5
10.7
01101
10.1
10.1
79.8
01101
Ghour Essafi
9.7
79.8
10.5
01101
3.0
22.2
74.8
01101
Salhiyyeh
17.4
63.7
18.9
01101
0.0
30.1
69.9
01101
Quaira
33.2
64.0
2.8
01101
0.0
29.6
70.4
01101
Husseiniyyeh
17.0
65.0
18.0
01101
8.0
12.2
79.8
01101
Dair El-Kahf
10.8
79.4
9.9
01101
8.9
24.1
67.0
01101
Hoasha
19.6
66.7
13.7
01101
0.0
27.6
72.4
01101
Borma
13.1
61.9
25.0
01101
2.9
16.9
80.2
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
10.0
77.5
12.5
01101
2.1
19.9
78.0
01101
Russeifa
27.0
57.2
15.8
01101
12.6
24.1
63.3
01101
Qasr
30.2
61.8
8.0
01101
15.8
59.6
24.7
01101
157
Table F.6: Percentage of Household according to Sub-districts, poverty status and children’s status who plays with the households’ children
2011
Sub-Districts
With Disabilities
Richer
Poorer
Other Governorate
Other Nationalities
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
100.0
82.5
15.6
0.0
Al-Rweished
4.1
73.2
81.2
20.7
18.1
Mraighah
0.0
73.1
93.6
24.7
1.5
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
13.9
44.0
59.8
26.7
30.7
Al-Azraq
3.6
54.1
48.1
20.4
31.4
Ghour Essafi
2.5
31.7
63.5
9.3
19.7
Salhiyyeh
10.0
71.5
70.2
5.4
5.2
Quaira
2.7
88.4
91.1
4.4
6.7
Husseiniyyeh
1.6
66.2
67.3
5.1
5.1
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
53.9
57.6
0.0
5.8
Hoasha
14.4
45.7
50.1
19.7
16.2
Borma
20.3
71.9
74.8
5.4
19.4
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
3.4
51.2
60.0
28.0
15.0
Russeifa
4.6
67.6
72.7
18.5
0000
Qasr
3.9
62.7
78.6
12.0
001
158
Table G.1.1: Percentage of households distributed according to Sub-districts, poverty status and quality time the father spends with his
family, relatives, neighbors and friends 2011
Neighbors
Friends
More
Sub- district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
than a
Other relative
More
Never
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than a
More
Never
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than a
Never
Total
month
Poor
Wadi Arabah
62.8
24.9
1.4
10.8
0.0
01101
31.3
25.1
16.4
18.7
8.5
01101
28.1
11.9
11.0
14.8
34.2
01101
Al-Rweished
35.0
37.9
13.7
7.7
5.6
01101
17.2
22.1
17.8
32.5
10.4
01101
7.5
4.9
4.3
19.8
63.6
01101
Mraighah
43.3
36.9
10.0
9.7
0.0
01101
12.9
41.6
22.6
16.6
6.4
01101
28.0
20.5
18.4
12.7
20.5
01101
43.4
34.1
7.6
4.1
10.8
01101
11.9
25.5
14.3
30.5
17.9
01101
27.2
11.4
11.7
18.2
31.6
01101
Al-Azraq
25.4
20.6
16.9
25.4
11.8
01101
7.9
22.4
28.1
27.8
13.8
01101
6.3
5.0
13.9
39.3
35.4
01101
Ghour Essafi
43.7
29.7
7.7
10.4
8.5
01101
13.5
23.8
36.3
24.8
1.6
01101
14.9
10.1
15.8
19.5
39.7
01101
Salhiyyeh
23.2
37.1
12.2
17.5
10.0
01101
10.5
28.5
12.9
34.9
13.3
01101
8.2
6.3
17.5
23.0
45.0
01101
Quaira
12.8
28.7
15.8
26.3
16.4
01101
5.0
16.0
6.8
23.1
49.2
01101
2.5
1.2
2.8
14.9
78.6
01101
Husseiniyyeh
21.9
38.4
16.4
17.6
5.7
01101
19.0
19.8
2.5
25.1
33.6
01101
5.4
12.2
0.0
22.1
60.3
01101
Dair El-Kahf
37.8
26.1
11.2
21.7
3.3
01101
8.1
31.9
18.6
24.4
16.9
01101
5.0
10.0
21.2
40.0
23.8
01101
Hoasha
22.9
26.5
26.4
20.9
3.3
01101
14.7
31.5
11.8
35.6
6.4
01101
8.6
19.1
16.1
22.9
33.4
01101
Borma
19.7
30.3
24.8
20.1
5.0
01101
8.4
19.9
25.2
41.3
5.2
01101
9.5
6.7
10.2
33.2
40.4
01101
Ghour ElMazra’ah
Non Poor
Hashemiyyeh
10.1
22.6
19.8
33.2
14.3
01101
4.7
17.9
20.1
46.7
10.6
01101
11.2
8.5
15.4
32.6
32.2
01101
Russeifa
6.2
15.9
22.4
41.0
14.4
01101
3.5
7.2
26.5
46.6
16.2
01101
13.3
4.1
12.2
44.1
26.3
01101
Qasr
26.4
25.3
12.8
29.2
6.3
01101
7.4
28.2
11.6
46.0
6.8
01101
19.2
6.8
6.3
22.9
44.8
01101
159
Table G.1.2: Percentage of households distributed according to Sub-districts, poverty status and quality time the father spends with his
family, relatives, neighbors and friends 2011
Family
Relatives
More
Sub-Districts
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
than a
Other relatives
More
Never
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than a
More
Never
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than a
Never
Total
month
Poor
Wadi Arabah
56.1
37.6
6.2
0.0
0.0
01101
39.6
23.8
17.2
19.3
0.0
01101
41.6
16.7
17.2
24.6
0.0
01101
Al-Rweished
23.6
32.1
16.9
18.6
8.8
01101
14.1
14.7
22.3
29.2
19.7
01101
5.8
13.4
17.3
48.1
15.5
01101
Mraighah
47.5
51.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
01101
27.8
43.6
26.8
1.8
0.0
01101
20.1
29.7
38.8
11.4
0.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
34.8
18.0
22.2
16.4
8.5
01101
5.1
22.6
23.1
27.7
21.4
01101
1.6
5.7
24.1
55.3
13.4
01101
Al-Azraq
49.9
26.5
13.4
8.3
1.9
01101
1.8
35.9
23.7
19.7
18.8
01101
0.0
18.7
33.1
39.9
8.3
01101
Ghour Essafi
43.2
33.8
16.4
6.6
0.0
01101
6.5
26.5
31.6
21.7
13.7
01101
6.9
21.6
45.6
22.9
3.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
55.7
18.8
17.5
7.9
0.0
01101
7.8
24.9
18.9
42.5
5.9
01101
7.4
23.3
27.6
38.5
3.2
01101
Quaira
39.3
23.8
20.8
10.4
5.6
01101
2.5
19.3
20.4
41.9
16.0
01101
1.2
17.2
10.0
58.4
13.2
01101
Husseiniyyeh
36.7
37.0
11.9
9.9
4.6
01101
7.4
22.3
20.7
32.8
16.9
01101
18.0
13.7
14.4
48.2
5.7
01101
Dair El-Kahf
55.4
26.1
10.4
5.3
2.8
01101
15.3
34.5
22.5
15.9
11.8
01101
5.5
28.5
31.9
28.8
5.4
01101
Hoasha
49.0
31.0
10.4
4.7
4.9
01101
3.2
36.1
19.0
28.9
12.9
01101
7.7
23.4
18.5
38.1
12.4
01101
Borma
56.3
28.0
9.9
4.3
1.6
01101
1.7
26.9
28.2
32.3
10.8
01101
1.9
15.6
43.7
33.9
4.8
01101
Non Poor
Hashemiyyeh
37.7
29.1
16.7
12.7
3.7
01101
4.7
6.8
27.7
49.3
11.5
01101
1.8
7.4
27.2
54.3
9.4
01101
Russeifa
34.7
25.3
23.8
14.0
2.2
01101
3.6
14.2
33.3
38.9
9.9
01101
1.3
3.6
24.3
57.2
13.6
01101
Qasr
46.1
20.2
12.6
21.0
0.0
01101
9.6
12.8
19.1
37.8
20.7
01101
6.1
27.0
21.6
39.0
6.3
01101
160
Table G.2.1: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of head of family invites his family for
tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outings 2011
For Drinking Tea
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
More than
one month
For a feast
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
More than one
month
Null
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
17.7
73.3
6.2
0.0
2.8
01101
2.0
8.3
17.9
66.5
5.2
01101
Al-Rweished
7.9
22.4
4.5
17.1
48.0
01101
0.0
6.0
22.7
57.7
13.6
01101
Mraighah
27.7
58.6
7.0
0.0
6.6
01101
0.0
10.1
38.5
47.5
3.9
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
18.3
22.7
24.6
24.2
10.2
01101
1.6
5.1
26.7
49.9
16.7
01101
Al-Azraq
18.4
34.8
18.7
8.6
19.6
01101
1.7
9.1
30.1
36.6
22.5
01101
Ghour Essafi
36.9
34.5
15.3
10.1
3.1
01101
4.7
13.9
33.1
43.1
5.1
01101
Salhiyyeh
22.8
33.8
22.7
14.2
6.5
01101
1.0
17.3
24.2
52.5
5.0
01101
Quaira
13.4
29.3
16.8
10.2
30.3
01101
0.0
6.5
14.4
61.5
17.6
01101
Husseiniyyeh
13.3
41.1
22.1
6.6
16.9
01101
0.0
20.2
15.3
49.4
15.1
01101
Dair El-Kahf
41.2
17.2
14.5
8.2
19.0
01101
3.2
23.3
21.3
42.6
9.6
01101
Hoasha
26.1
23.9
14.3
15.5
20.2
01101
3.1
22.0
25.3
38.2
11.4
01101
Borma
26.4
35.0
13.2
8.8
16.6
01101
2.9
16.4
23.9
55.2
1.6
01101
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
8.7
30.8
24.7
18.2
17.5
01101
1.8
15.3
19.6
53.2
10.1
01101
Russeifa
8.6
25.5
21.8
30.3
13.8
01101
0.6
7.1
20.5
54.5
17.4
01101
Qasr
42.2
25.2
18.6
12.5
1.5
01101
6.4
11.4
20.0
57.9
4.4
01101
161
Table G.2.2: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of head of family invites his family for
tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outings 2011
For a dinner (Meal)
For evening gathering
More
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
than
one
For an outing
More
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than
one
More
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than
one
Null
Total
month
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
8.3
13.5
67.6
10.6
01101
7.3
37.6
2.0
26.1
26.9
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
92.0
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
2.2
6.3
14.4
77.1
01101
1.5
9.6
6.1
11.9
71.0
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
97.8
01101
Mraighah
0.0
12.1
21.6
58.6
7.8
01101
13.1
25.7
9.4
42.3
9.6
01101
0.0
2.3
4.1
12.2
81.3
01101
4.1
6.6
27.0
34.5
27.7
01101
13.3
18.6
10.5
33.2
24.5
01101
0.0
0.0
1.6
35.2
63.2
01101
Al-Azraq
6.1
4.7
22.2
38.3
28.8
01101
9.3
9.1
9.9
35.1
36.7
01101
0.0
3.1
7.6
31.1
58.2
01101
Ghour Essafi
6.1
14.3
27.3
45.6
6.7
01101
12.1
38.2
13.2
28.8
7.7
01101
0.0
0.0
1.5
29.1
69.4
01101
Salhiyyeh
4.5
5.2
15.5
37.9
36.9
01101
11.1
15.9
20.5
27.7
24.8
01101
0.0
0.0
1.9
40.9
57.2
01101
Quaira
1.4
5.6
21.7
26.9
44.4
01101
3.0
9.2
12.5
16.8
58.5
01101
0.0
0.0
1.4
20.7
77.9
01101
Husseiniyyeh
4.7
19.8
12.2
35.1
28.2
01101
10.9
34.3
10.7
5.0
39.1
01101
0.0
1.5
3.3
13.3
81.9
01101
Dair El-Kahf
9.0
11.7
6.9
42.4
30.1
01101
12.7
24.9
10.4
19.6
32.4
01101
0.0
0.0
1.7
38.6
59.7
01101
Hoasha
0.0
16.3
19.4
20.8
43.6
01101
8.9
24.7
16.8
14.5
35.1
01101
0.0
1.8
12.1
41.3
44.8
01101
Borma
2.9
5.0
14.5
45.2
32.4
01101
9.5
24.9
12.4
23.9
29.3
01101
0.0
3.0
1.3
34.1
61.5
01101
Ghour ElMazra’ah
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
1.8
10.2
20.1
47.2
20.7
01101
3.3
8.9
17.0
36.0
34.7
01101
0.0
1.8
4.0
36.6
57.7
01101
Russeifa
2.4
3.3
19.2
55.0
20.1
01101
2.7
7.8
21.6
40.7
27.1
01101
0.0
0.9
1.8
51.0
46.3
01101
Qasr
6.4
14.4
22.1
48.9
8.3
01101
18.9
25.8
14.1
22.5
18.6
01101
0.0
0.0
1.6
21.9
76.5
01101
162
Table G.3.1: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of head of family invites his friends for
tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outings 2011
For Drinking Tea
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
More than
one month
For a feast
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
More than
one month
Null
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
10.3
54.3
19.2
10.2
5.9
01101
0.0
6.1
17.1
64.6
12.2
01101
Al-Rweished
1.5
23.8
13.1
24.5
37.1
01101
0.0
0.0
9.2
60.5
30.3
01101
Mraighah
7.9
57.8
19.1
3.6
11.5
01101
0.0
4.4
25.6
63.0
7.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
23.5
31.7
13.4
24.2
7.3
01101
1.6
0.0
8.1
40.8
49.5
01101
Al-Azraq
5.7
22.8
20.6
29.7
21.1
01101
0.0
1.7
15.3
50.7
32.3
01101
Ghour Essafi
5.9
37.0
26.9
28.6
1.6
01101
0.0
2.9
10.3
58.2
28.5
01101
Salhiyyeh
1.9
21.9
20.3
25.1
30.7
01101
0.0
1.7
6.9
61.8
29.5
01101
Quaira
5.3
5.3
7.0
16.9
65.4
01101
0.0
3.2
6.3
34.8
55.7
01101
Husseiniyyeh
9.9
11.1
18.3
17.9
42.7
01101
0.0
9.7
11.8
21.8
56.7
01101
Dair El-Kahf
4.6
20.6
17.1
28.5
29.3
01101
0.0
1.4
6.3
63.5
28.8
01101
Hoasha
4.6
20.8
23.0
25.7
25.9
01101
0.0
1.6
12.2
62.6
23.7
01101
Borma
3.3
16.5
35.0
23.2
22.0
01101
0.0
1.7
11.4
59.5
27.4
01101
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
2.9
3.8
17.0
46.1
30.2
01101
0.0
2.5
1.3
52.0
44.2
01101
Russeifa
1.6
5.7
13.8
45.2
33.7
01101
0.0
0.0
3.0
56.8
40.1
01101
Qasr
5.1
28.3
20.5
36.1
10.0
01101
0.0
2.0
8.6
59.6
29.8
01101
163
Table G.3.2: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of head of family invites his friends for
tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outings 2011
For a dinner (Meal)
For evening gathering
More
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
than
one
For an outing
More
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than
one
More
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than
one
Null
Total
month
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
2.8
13.4
70.5
13.4
01101
3.9
23.3
7.2
43.7
21.9
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
90.5
01101
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
1.5
19.3
79.2
01101
1.5
8.1
11.9
19.3
59.2
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
95.7
01101
Mraighah
0.0
6.7
16.1
61.3
15.9
01101
2.9
26.8
6.7
40.5
23.1
01101
0.0
1.0
1.8
7.0
90.2
01101
0.0
0.0
13.9
40.3
45.8
01101
8.2
34.6
14.3
17.5
25.4
01101
0.0
0.0
1.6
20.3
78.1
01101
Al-Azraq
0.0
1.7
13.7
49.3
35.3
01101
0.0
3.4
11.1
40.8
44.8
01101
0.0
0.0
6.5
39.0
54.5
01101
Ghour Essafi
0.0
4.3
6.0
45.9
43.8
01101
2.0
24.5
27.4
28.5
17.7
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.7
89.3
01101
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
3.1
42.4
54.5
01101
0.0
12.3
14.2
31.0
42.5
01101
0.0
0.0
1.9
35.2
62.8
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.3
90.7
01101
0.0
4.7
4.1
7.4
83.8
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.8
92.2
01101
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
3.8
9.1
21.8
65.3
01101
1.3
8.2
7.2
13.7
69.5
01101
0.0
1.5
0.0
9.2
89.3
01101
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
5.3
48.5
46.1
01101
0.0
15.1
7.2
27.5
50.3
01101
0.0
0.0
1.4
30.5
68.1
01101
Hoasha
0.0
1.4
7.9
34.3
56.4
01101
2.0
8.2
19.2
37.4
33.3
01101
0.0
0.0
7.5
30.6
61.9
01101
Borma
0.0
0.0
8.4
43.0
48.7
01101
0.0
8.3
20.0
33.5
38.3
01101
0.0
0.0
8.5
35.9
55.6
01101
Ghour ElMazra’ah
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
4.2
1.3
41.4
53.1
01101
0.0
5.4
9.9
29.4
55.3
01101
0.0
2.5
0.0
26.6
70.9
01101
Russeifa
0.0
0.6
3.9
51.0
44.5
01101
0.4
1.1
8.0
42.0
48.5
01101
0.0
0.0
1.1
40.1
58.8
01101
Qasr
0.0
3.6
8.0
46.1
42.3
01101
1.4
20.5
19.2
26.9
32.0
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.3
84.7
01101
164
Table G.4.1: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of visits conducted by family head to
family, friends, neighbors for tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outing 2011
For Drinking Tea
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
For a feast
For a dinner (Meal)
More
More
than
than
one
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
one
More
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than
one
Null
Total
month
Poor
Wadi Arabah
15.8
66.8
9.1
2.8
5.5
01101
0.0
0.0
33.6
59.7
6.7
01101
0.0
0.0
20.1
68.3
11.6
01101
Al-Rweished
13.1
33.8
11.5
12.3
29.3
01101
0.0
3.9
15.0
66.7
14.4
01101
0.0
1.5
2.2
20.9
75.5
01101
Mraighah
20.0
67.9
6.5
2.3
3.3
01101
0.0
9.8
31.3
55.1
3.9
01101
0.0
7.9
18.2
63.6
10.3
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
30.2
28.1
13.8
23.9
4.0
01101
0.0
1.8
23.4
47.8
27.1
01101
4.1
4.0
16.1
41.9
33.9
01101
Al-Azraq
16.3
28.0
12.9
23.4
19.4
01101
1.7
11.3
11.8
46.9
28.2
01101
1.7
5.5
6.2
51.0
35.5
01101
Ghour Essafi
26.6
41.0
18.4
13.9
0.0
01101
0.0
2.2
33.4
51.6
12.8
01101
0.0
12.6
14.8
58.3
14.3
01101
Salhiyyeh
29.1
36.6
16.1
8.7
9.4
01101
1.9
3.5
21.0
58.1
15.5
01101
1.9
9.0
12.7
32.4
44.1
01101
Quaira
33.3
27.4
18.6
14.8
5.8
01101
0.0
5.3
15.9
70.7
8.1
01101
0.0
3.6
18.0
30.9
47.5
01101
Husseiniyyeh
20.4
49.1
16.1
9.3
5.2
01101
1.8
20.4
19.3
48.1
10.4
01101
1.8
25.7
19.6
27.2
25.7
01101
Dair El-Kahf
41.3
29.6
7.7
11.2
10.3
01101
0.0
27.5
15.9
45.0
11.6
01101
7.6
5.0
20.5
29.5
37.5
01101
Hoasha
26.4
34.1
12.8
15.3
11.4
01101
2.9
15.6
16.9
52.3
12.3
01101
7.3
9.4
10.5
32.9
39.9
01101
Borma
46.2
28.2
8.4
9.4
7.7
01101
4.9
24.6
19.0
47.0
4.5
01101
3.5
7.8
10.9
44.4
33.5
01101
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
6.2
16.9
28.4
35.1
13.3
01101
0.0
4.0
18.4
52.9
24.8
01101
0.0
4.0
13.3
40.5
42.3
01101
Russeifa
7.3
19.1
22.4
33.8
17.4
01101
0.0
3.1
21.4
53.2
22.3
01101
0.0
2.4
16.6
54.9
26.1
01101
Qasr
33.3
27.2
12.9
25.1
1.5
01101
4.6
6.3
26.7
49.0
13.4
01101
4.6
14.6
20.9
38.8
21.1
01101
165
Table G.4.2: Relative distribution of households according to districts, poverty status and the number of visits conducted by family head to
family, friends, neighbors for tea or feast or dinner or evening gathering or outing 2011
For evening gathering
Special occasions
More
Sub-district
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
than
one
For an outing
More
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than
one
More
Null
Total
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
month
than
one
Null
Total
month
Poor
Wadi Arabah
13.1
29.9
0.0
40.5
16.6
0110101
0.0
2.9
29.3
40.4
27.4
0110101
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.1
94.9
01101
Al-Rweished
5.6
18.5
12.4
9.5
54.1
01101
0.0
0.0
3.9
63.8
32.3
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.4
79.6
01101
Mraighah
7.5
29.2
9.5
44.0
9.8
01101
0.0
3.8
20.3
57.4
18.6
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
90.5
01101
17.4
18.2
16.2
25.5
22.7
01101
0.0
0.0
46.3
46.3
7.4
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
70.0
01101
Al-Azraq
6.4
4.8
9.4
38.4
41.0
01101
1.7
1.8
26.9
45.6
24.0
01101
1.7
0.0
4.5
31.7
62.1
01101
Ghour Essafi
4.2
37.4
25.1
18.7
14.6
01101
1.4
9.0
42.5
44.2
2.9
01101
0.0
0.0
2.0
16.3
81.7
01101
Salhiyyeh
7.4
27.6
12.5
21.7
30.9
01101
0.0
0.0
8.9
70.9
20.2
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.6
58.4
01101
Quaira
17.9
7.4
9.8
22.6
42.4
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
92.3
7.7
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.5
62.5
01101
Husseiniyyeh
7.2
52.2
6.0
8.4
26.2
01101
0.0
5.8
16.9
65.9
11.3
01101
0.0
2.9
0.0
25.4
71.6
01101
Dair El-Kahf
15.1
19.1
14.9
16.8
34.0
01101
2.0
0.0
17.5
58.4
22.1
01101
2.0
0.0
0.0
30.1
67.9
01101
Hoasha
18.3
23.5
12.8
15.9
29.5
01101
0.0
4.6
30.6
56.4
8.3
01101
0.0
1.3
3.3
41.7
53.7
01101
Borma
11.1
29.5
18.7
22.0
18.7
01101
0.0
8.0
22.3
60.6
9.0
01101
0.0
1.6
7.5
37.1
53.8
01101
Ghour ElMazra’ah
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
9.2
10.6
38.3
41.9
01101
0.0
4.3
23.2
51.0
21.5
01101
0.0
2.5
0.0
34.9
62.6
01101
Russeifa
0.3
6.4
18.8
43.4
31.0
01101
0.0
1.2
14.8
64.0
20.0
01101
0.0
0.3
1.5
45.3
52.9
01101
Qasr
10.4
33.3
11.7
24.4
20.2
01101
0.0
1.4
48.2
42.5
8.0
01101
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.4
73.6
01101
166
Table G.5: Percentage of households according to districts, status of poverty and status of head of the family’s friends 2011
Sub-district
With Disabilities
Richer
Poorer
From other governorate
From other city
Older or less than your
age
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
94.6
93.4
63.3
0.0
65.1
Al-Rweished
9.4
76.9
75.1
31.1
19.9
42.5
Mraighah
1.8
81.6
93.9
52.6
14.6
54.6
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
23.4
63.8
78.6
65.4
40.1
76.5
Al-Azraq
13.1
69.7
71.8
54.7
30.8
40.8
Ghour Essafi
8.4
56.5
67.2
54.9
21.0
73.4
Salhiyyeh
7.5
82.6
80.3
43.1
24.7
43.8
Quaira
2.6
92.6
95.4
56.5
13.5
66.5
Husseiniyyeh
7.3
83.2
74.9
45.5
17.5
72.0
Dair El-Kahf
10.3
67.9
58.3
43.3
16.2
37.0
Hoasha
16.9
64.5
52.6
56.3
31.6
57.7
Borma
6.4
71.1
65.8
51.1
17.1
25.7
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
7.6
67.8
78.2
37.6
28.8
49.1
Russeifa
3.3
77.3
76.0
34.3
24.2
52.5
Qasr
11.2
81.1
79.6
61.1
15.8
79.7
167
Table H.1: Percentage of households according to districts, poverty status and the available facility in case a family member has an urgent
health problem and needs daily care 2011
Sub-district
Family
members
Relatives
Other
relatives
Neighbors
Friends
Mayor
Religious
Government
Private
institutions
institutions
Institutions
No one
Poor
Wadi Arabah
88.7
42.7
10.8
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.3
0.0
0.0
Al-Rweished
81.1
7.6
0.0
5.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.9
Mraighah
91.5
35.0
10.1
16.6
9.6
3.7
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
74.9
9.5
7.4
11.4
6.4
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.8
12.2
Al-Azraq
81.2
18.0
10.9
16.1
7.2
0.0
0.0
4.9
3.0
2.9
Ghour Essafi
66.7
6.5
21.1
20.3
8.2
1.4
0.0
4.4
7.0
19.6
Salhiyyeh
80.9
21.3
23.8
6.6
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
5.0
Quaira
98.4
0.0
7.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
90.9
5.4
6.0
6.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dair El-Kahf
85.0
10.4
15.9
10.6
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
Hoasha
82.1
14.9
10.6
4.7
4.7
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
4.7
Borma
92.3
23.5
19.1
12.4
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
73.7
27.9
9.3
19.6
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
Russeifa
79.6
17.9
6.1
7.4
8.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
12.3
Qasr
68.5
2.9
14.3
9.2
2.8
0.0
1.6
3.6
1.5
21.7
168
Table H.2: Percentage of households according to districts, poverty status and the available entity/person in case they need to loan money,
2011
Sub-district
Family members
Relatives
Other relatives
Neighbors
Friends
Mayor
Religious
Government
institutions
institutions
Private Institutions
No one
Poor
Wadi Arabah
91.7
47.1
15.5
16.7
6.6
0.0
0.0
4.2
17.4
3.1
Al-Rweished
38.6
9.6
1.7
3.9
16.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.9
Mraighah
95.5
53.5
20.5
16.3
13.9
2.3
0.0
0.0
6.8
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
41.1
11.7
5.6
3.4
17.4
1.6
0.0
1.6
29.0
20.8
Al-Azraq
45.5
14.8
2.8
12.6
15.3
0.0
1.9
4.7
28.6
12.7
Ghour Essafi
44.9
0.0
20.3
27.3
14.7
0.0
1.6
0.0
21.0
18.5
Salhiyyeh
57.0
19.1
17.0
10.2
24.8
0.0
0.0
1.5
10.8
10.6
Quaira
61.9
5.0
1.6
5.9
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
10.9
Husseiniyyeh
50.3
6.8
4.2
4.7
10.6
1.3
0.0
3.7
24.9
10.3
Dair El-Kahf
51.2
14.4
13.5
15.8
18.2
1.8
0.0
3.3
19.3
11.4
Hoasha
59.6
11.2
9.6
3.8
16.1
0.0
0.0
6.2
15.9
6.3
Borma
71.9
26.5
22.2
18.6
32.5
0.0
0.0
9.4
6.2
6.1
Non-Poor
Hashemiyyeh
55.5
24.6
14.4
13.3
16.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.1
12.6
Russeifa
68.9
19.6
6.3
7.3
14.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.6
12.0
Qasr
46.0
1.4
14.0
11.6
7.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.7
13.6
169
Table H.3: Percentage of households according to districts and lending source to cover the costs of a wedding or a funeral 2011
Family
Sub-districts
member
Relatives
Other Relatives
Neighbors
Friends
Area/district leader
Religious institutions
Government
and associations
institutions
Private institutions
No one
Poor
Wadi Arabah
96.9
58.8
5.2
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
Al-Rweished
57.9
9.2
3.6
1.7
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.8
Mraighah
100.0
50.7
9.9
3.7
6.6
2.4
1.8
0.0
1.8
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
54.4
17.6
10.3
8.9
7.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.9
21.8
Al-Azraq
66.0
21.8
11.9
16.8
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
7.8
Ghour Essafi
69.3
12.0
24.0
13.7
8.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2
20.7
Salhiyyeh
72.2
25.4
29.6
18.3
16.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
Quaira
95.6
3.6
9.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
80.5
8.2
2.5
1.0
3.4
2.9
0.0
0.0
9.0
3.2
Dair El-Kahf
75.9
21.0
20.8
11.9
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.1
Hoasha
82.5
10.7
18.0
7.8
9.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
11.2
Borma
84.6
22.2
22.4
17.9
16.4
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.4
Non-poor
Hashemiyyeh
70.5
29.5
14.7
24.0
16.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.1
9.1
Russeifa
80.8
23.8
9.0
8.0
11.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
12.4
Qasr
72.6
9.6
25.5
12.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.4
18.3
170
Table H.4: Percentage of households distributed according to districts, poverty status and lending source in case of an unspecified problem
2011
Family
Sub-districts
member
Relatives
Other Relatives
Neighbors
Friends
Mayer
Religious institutions
Government
and associations
institutions
Private institutions
No one
Poor
Wadi Arabah
98.6
32.3
3.8
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
Al-Rweished
66.0
17.0
1.7
3.9
21.9
13.5
0.0
4.6
0.0
6.6
Mraighah
98.2
34.2
6.8
6.9
10.5
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
80.1
16.4
6.9
9.8
28.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
Al-Azraq
90.4
26.0
11.6
14.3
9.4
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
Ghour Essafi
78.0
5.9
14.2
12.7
8.4
10.4
0.0
6.6
2.8
5.8
Salhiyyeh
90.2
24.4
19.2
17.3
22.2
6.6
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
Quaira
88.5
1.4
1.6
0.0
5.3
8.9
0.0
2.5
0.0
1.4
Husseiniyyeh
80.6
4.4
10.0
1.3
3.7
3.2
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
Dair El-Kahf
91.4
23.7
20.1
16.6
10.5
8.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
Hoasha
80.0
21.6
16.6
3.5
12.5
4.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
5.2
Borma
84.0
31.6
25.7
16.0
20.7
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Non-poor
Hashemiyyeh
78.5
25.7
14.4
17.7
9.6
1.4
2.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
Russeifa
82.1
24.1
6.8
7.1
14.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.3
9.1
Qasr
78.2
5.0
10.8
6.0
6.3
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.1
171
Table H.5: Relative distribution based on districts, poverty status and a household’s confidence in surrounding society 2011
Sub-districts
Households that trust their society
Households that do not trust their society
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
89.4
10.6
01101
Al-Rweished
48.5
51.5
01101
Mraighah
86.9
13.1
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
37.4
62.6
01101
Al-Azraq
40.9
59.1
01101
Ghour Essafi
43.7
56.3
01101
Salhiyyeh
51.9
48.1
01101
Quaira
24.4
75.6
01101
Husseiniyyeh
34.9
65.1
01101
Dair El-Kahf
51.3
48.7
01101
Hoasha
34.9
65.1
01101
Borma
63.0
37.0
01101
Non-poor
Hashemiyyeh
59.2
40.8
01101
Russeifa
44.5
55.5
01101
Qasr
39.8
60.2
01101
172
Table H.6: Relative distribution based on districts, poverty status, and main reason for not applying for aid 2011
Sub-districts
Households that do not
Households that are not eligible
need aid
for aid
Households that find it
difficult to fill out aid
application
Do not know where help is
provided
Households that receive
aid from the National Aid
Total
Fund
Poor
Wadi Arabah
55.1
33.5
1.6
1.9
8.0
01101
Al-Rweished
24.7
8.6
0.0
2.2
64.5
01101
Mraighah
83.3
10.3
1.1
3.2
2.2
01101
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
51.4
29.2
0.0
2.0
17.5
01101
Al-Azraq
33.1
35.4
6.7
4.1
20.7
01101
Ghour Essafi
14.8
51.2
1.8
1.5
30.7
01101
Salhiyyeh
71.1
5.5
0.0
4.2
19.3
01101
Quaira
54.0
34.4
0.0
0.0
11.6
01101
Husseiniyyeh
51.5
31.3
0.0
0.0
17.2
01101
Dair El-Kahf
56.3
11.1
0.0
11.9
20.6
01101
Hoasha
80.4
12.0
0.0
5.7
1.9
01101
Borma
72.6
18.0
0.0
2.2
7.1
01101
Non-poor
Hashemiyyeh
54.4
30.4
0.0
9.4
5.8
01101
Russeifa
62.9
23.3
0.0
7.7
6.1
01101
Qasr
46.4
39.2
0.0
1.9
12.5
01101
173
Table H.7: Percentage of households with people seeking jobs according to sub district and poverty status who asked for help 2011
Sub-districts
Percentage of families with members seeking employment
Percentage of families with member who aren’t seeking
who have requested aid
employment and have requested aid
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
11.8
Al-Rweished
18.5
5.3
Mraighah
0.0
8.3
Ghour El-Mazra’ah
26.2
9.7
Al-Azraq
9.0
3.5
Ghour Essafi
3.5
2.5
Salhiyyeh
9.8
12.2
Quaira
0.0
2.3
Husseiniyyeh
7.9
6.6
Dair El-Kahf
11.0
11.8
Hoasha
19.1
6.2
Borma
9.7
6.0
Non-poor
Hashemiyyeh
11.0
9.8
Russeifa
16.0
4.8
Qasr
0.0
2.1
174
Table H.8: Relative Distribution of households that applied for help and that did not submit an application according to Sub-districts, poverty
status and the regularity of the main income of the household 2011
Regular income
Sub-district
Irregular income
Percentage of household made a request
Percentage of household that didn’t
for assistance
submit a request for assistance
Total
Percentage of household made a
Percentage of household that didn’t
request for assistance
submit a request for assistance
Total
Poor
Wadi Arabah
9.2
90.8
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
Al-Rweished
6.0
94.0
01101
29.4
70.6
01101
Mraighah
6.5
93.5
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
13.7
86.3
01101
40.3
59.7
01101
Al-Azraq
3.5
96.5
01101
23.7
76.3
01101
Ghour Essafi
1.6
98.4
01101
16.7
83.3
01101
Salhiyyeh
12.1
87.9
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
Quaira
1.6
98.4
01101
0.0
0.0
01101
Husseiniyyeh
4.5
95.5
01101
50.0
50.0
01101
Dair El-Kahf
10.0
90.0
01101
100.0
0.0
01101
Hoasha
9.4
90.6
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
Borma
5.3
94.7
01101
48.2
51.8
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
7.9
92.1
01101
50.0
50.0
01101
Russeifa
6.0
94.0
01101
12.5
87.5
01101
Qasr
0.0
100.0
01101
32.2
67.8
01101
175
Table H.9: Relative Distribution of households that applied for help and that did not submit an application according to Sub-district, poverty
status and the possibility of losing the main source of income 2011
Very likely
Percentage of
Sub-district
household made
a request for
assistance
Possible to some extent
Percentage of
Percentage of
household that
didn’t submit a
Total
request for
household made
a request for
assistance
assistance
Not likley
Percentage of
Percentage of
household that
household
didn’t submit a
Total
made a
request for
request for
assistance
assistance
Percentage of
household that didn’t
submit a request for
Total
assistance
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
100.0
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
10.5
89.5
01101
Al-Rweished
12.5
87.5
01101
34.7
65.3
01101
4.5
5.5
01101
Mraighah
44.1
55.9
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
4.4
95.6
01101
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
22.2
77.8
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
13.8
86.2
01101
Al-Azraq
0.0
100.0
01101
18.2
81.8
01101
2.8
97.2
01101
Ghour Essafi
10.5
89.5
01101
7.3
92.7
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
Salhiyyeh
25.4
74.6
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
7.5
92.5
01101
Quaira
0.0
0.0
01101
0.0
0.0
01101
1.6
98.4
01101
Husseiniyyeh
40.6
59.4
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
4.6
95.4
01101
Dair El-Kahf
43.2
56.8
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
6.7
93.3
01101
Hoasha
0.0
100.0
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
10.2
89.8
01101
Borma
21.8
78.2
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
6.1
93.9
01101
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
45.2
54.8
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
5.4
94.6
01101
Russeifa
8.4
91.6
01101
11.9
88.1
01101
4.8
95.2
01101
Qasr
11.7
88.3
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
0.0
100.0
01101
176
Table H.10: Percentage of households who whose application for aid was refused according to Sub-district, poverty status and the main
reason for request refusal 2011
Sub-district
Application data incomplete
Not meet the conditions
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
100.0
Al-Rweished
0.0
100.0
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
14.8
85.2
Al-Azraq
0.0
70.3
Ghour Essafi
0.0
100.0
Salhiyyeh
0.0
12.2
Quaira
0.0
100.0
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
Dair El-Kahf
18.3
23.7
Hoasha
23.1
30.4
Borma
0.0
100.0
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
100.0
Russeifa
0.0
80.9
Qasr
0.0
100.0
177
Table H.11: Percentage of households with knowledge of the social institutions that provide services or assistance according to sub-district,
poverty status and the type of social institutions 2011
Social services
Sub-district
Social services
Foundation offers
Foundation offers
foundation
foundation
advice for training
advice for
(elderly care)
for children
on how to work
small business
Poor
Wadi Arabah
9.4
9.4
7.4
9.1
Al-Rweished
25.5
13.1
28.3
13.2
Mraighah
49.8
40.4
40.7
49.1
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
31.2
25.6
18.8
39.6
Al-Azraq
21.0
14.5
26.2
27.2
Ghour Essafi
45.5
32.9
16.6
31.5
Salhiyyeh
47.9
33.3
39.2
22.0
Quaira
47.8
37.9
34.3
32.9
Husseiniyyeh
68.5
62.3
50.4
59.4
Dair El-Kahf
51.2
40.4
35.4
22.5
Hoasha
42.9
37.6
42.1
33.2
Borma
63.5
42.6
30.8
31.2
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
24.0
18.2
24.1
15.8
Russeifa
32.6
24.2
21.0
23.0
Qasr
58.4
50.2
36.0
56.8
178
Table H.12: Percentage of households that have benefited from the services of social institutions according to Sub district, poverty status and
the type of social institution 2011
Social foundations
Sub-district
Social services
Social services
foundation
foundation for
(elderly care)
children
Foundation offers
Foundation offers
advice for
advice for
training on
small business
how to work
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Al-Rweished
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mraighah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
3.2
0.0
25.7
Al-Azraq
0.0
0.0
4.2
4.2
Ghour Essafi
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
Salhiyyeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Quaira
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Husseiniyyeh
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.4
Dair El-Kahf
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hoasha
0.0
0.0
3.3
5.9
Borma
0.0
0.0
2.4
2.4
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
0.0
0.0
11.5
0.0
Russeifa
0.7
0.0
3.3
3.1
Qasr
2.3
2.3
4.2
15.2
179
Table H.13: Percentage of households according to sub-district, state of poverty and the means of how household knows about existing social
institutions 2011
Means of knowledge
Sub-district
Municipality
Newspapers/Radio
Neighbors/friends/relatives
From the
same organization
Poor
Wadi Arabah
0.0
57.3
57.6
0.0
Al-Rweished
8.8
72.9
39.5
8.3
Mraighah
0.0
85.5
51.0
8.5
Ghour El-Mazra'ah
0.0
48.5
51.5
6.3
Al-Azraq
0.0
47.2
49.9
26.5
Ghour Essafi
0.0
66.6
33.9
14.9
Salhiyyeh
9.1
88.0
29.5
18.1
Quaira
0.0
90.9
51.3
2.3
Husseiniyyeh
1.5
76.9
57.9
5.7
Dair El-Kahf
7.5
88.0
36.1
10.1
Hoasha
7.2
73.1
63.8
22.0
Borma
10.6
84.6
44.7
10.6
Non- Poor
Hashemiyyeh
6.7
78.4
60.8
11.5
Russeifa
1.1
63.6
69.7
17.6
Qasr
0.0
60.6
35.3
16.1
180
UNDP is the UN's global development network, advocating for change and connecting
countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We
are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global
and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the
people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.
For more information
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations University
Queen Rania Street
Building No. 274
Jordan
Email: registry,[email protected].
Website: www.undp-jordan.org
181