The Protection Needs Overview (PNO) provides a detailed analysis of protection needs and issues in communities inside the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria). Its aim is to support the Sector/Cluster and its humanitarian actors in the development of their operational response strategies, plans and projects in the field of protection. It is based on a series of assessments and data (as detailed below) focusing on a number of key protection issues identified in Syria.
While the collected data presents a reliable picture of the needs and perceptions of those surveyed, it is important that the limitations and constraints of these assessments are fully understood before applying their findings to programming or generating statistical extrapolation. Humanitarian actors are therefore reminded of the utmost importance of reviewing this chapter in full before moving onto the findings presented in chapter.
2. METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENTS
Three separate assessments, guided by a common set of indicators and tools, were conducted from July-August 2017 and serve as a basis of this PNO. Below is the list of the assessments, further details on methodology and tools of each can be found in the ANNEX-1.
a. SECTOR/CLUSTER-LED ASSESSMENTS (QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE)
Assessments conducted by staff from organizations implementing protection activities in the Syria hub, including through community direct observations by the staff themselves and key informant interviews where the protection staff acted as assessor/ enumerator: Syria Hub Protection Needs Assessments (SHPNA);
Focus group discussions conducted by organizations implementing protection activities in Jordan and Turkey hubs (FGDs)
b. NON SECTOR/CLUSTER-LED ASSESSMENTS (QUANTITATIVE)
- A multi-sectoral needs assessment was led by OCHA through key informants (MSNA). A protection questionnaire developed by the Protection sector was included as part of the MSNA tool (see ANNEX 1).
3. GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE
Data included in this analysis was collected in 4,185 communities (including 32 urban neighbourhoods) located in 254 sub-districts out of 272 sub-districts across the country. The map below shows the respective coverage of both SHPNA (Syria-hub led) and MSNA (OCHA-led) assessments.
4. DATA CONSOLIDATION AND ANALYSIS
Data collected through these different assessments was consolidated for the analysis. A quantitative dataset merging data collected by SHPNA and MSNA was produced. Data was also obtained through 117 Focus Group Discussions by Jordan and Turkey hubs sector members and analysed separately.
This section elaborates the methodology for consolidating and analysing the quantitative datasets.
a. COMMON SET OF PROTECTION INDICATORS and CONCEPT OF OCCURRENCE AND FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
The SHPNA and MSNA used a common set of indicators, with minor differences in the phrasing of some questions. Below is a list of all indicators used for this assessment and indications on how the analysis was conducted throughout this document
13 protection issues were surveyed (child labour preventing school attendance, child recruitment, domestic violence, early marriage, economic exploitation, explosive hazards, family separation, harassment, housing, land and property issues, kidnapping, lack/loss of civil documentation, sexual harassment and sexual violence).
Further information was collected on movement restrictions (causes and population groups affected); lack/loss of civil documentation (reasons for not having documentation, type of documents that were not available, impact); housing, land and property concerns; coping mechanisms, types of protection services present and needed and concerns related to delivery of humanitarian assistance.
For further indicators related to GBV, child protection and mine action, please refer to relevant sections of this document.
Attention was specifically devoted to sex and age disaggregation and each of the protection issue was detected for male, female, boys, girls, adolescent boys, and adolescent girls and – in most cases – persons with disabilities.
The concept of occurrence used in this document refers to whether a concern occurred or did NOT occur (Yes/No) and was supplemented by more detailed information on the “Frequency of occurrence” (detailing whether issues were “ never happening”; happening “ sometimes”, “ common” or “ very common”) . In graphs/visualisations which refer to “Occurrence” (i.e. yes/no), if the answer was the issue never occurs/happens/not needed/etc. then the Occurrence is a “No”. If the answer is the issue occurs sometimes/common/very common, then the Occurrence is “Yes.” For more information on this point, refer to ANNEX 2.