The VAF Steering Committee Is Composed Of:: Produced by UNHCR Jordan

This report and the background analysis has been produced by the Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF)
team within UNHCR Jordan: Kate Washington, Harry Brown and Marco Santacroce, together with Alex Tyler. The
VAF maps have been created by Koen Van Rossum.
The VAF team has worked under the oversight of the VAF Steering Committee, led by UNHCR and composed of
ACTED, CARE, DRC, Handicap International, PU-AMI, UNICEF, UN Women, WFP, WHO, ECHO and BPRM.
The sector members who have been involved in the VAF process number in the hundreds. Particular thanks
are due to the following people who provided support to the project since January 2014: Yara Maasri, Byron
Pakula, Volker Schimmel, Becky Achan, Hazem Almahdy, Eugene Ha, Edgar Luce, Anthony Dutemple, Andrew
Merat, Aoife Dineen, Vitor Serrano, Carlos Afonso, Matteo Paoltroni, Heather Kalmbach, Lizzie Wood, Elizabeth
Vikman, Frank Lavigne, Giacomo Hijazin, Mary Sweidan, Melinda Wells, Dorte Jessen, Nicole Carn, Daniel Osnato,
Lucio Melandri, Jonathan Campbell, Celina Heleno, Gregory Aversenq, Edouard Legoupil, Rachel Dore-Weeks,
Carolyn Davies, Maurizio Crivellaro, Eman Ismail, Mukesh Karn, Wadih Al-Eid, Diego Batista, Paolo Verme, Susanne
Butscher, Karen Whiting, Laksiri Nanayakkara and Lito Dokopoulou. Lynnette Larsen facilitated the start of the
VAF process in early 2014, building on work by Hisham Khogali of ACAPS.
The VAF Steering Committee is composed of:

Table of Contents
Objectives of the VAF Baseline Report 6

The Syrian refugee context in Jordan 6
The Vulnerability Assessment Framework 8
VAF Baseline Survey 11
Key findings 12
Key Findings/ VAF Welfare Model 14
Key findings/Universal Indicators 20
Key findings/Sector Models 28
Cross-Model Analysis 46
Conclusions 58
Annexes 62
Annex 1: Vulnerability Assessment Framework background and development 64
Annex 2: Introduction to the VAF Welfare Model 69
Annex 3: Introduction to the sector models 72
Annex 4: Details of Sector Models 74
6 VAF Baseline Survey
Objectives of the VAF Baseline

Report1
1. To present the results of the Vulnerability Assessment Model from a ran-
domised statistically representative survey across the Kingdom of Jordan.
2. To present an introduction to both the Welfare Model and the Sector Vul-
nerability rating models and to provide context and background to their
design.
3. To identify the limitations of VAF data and models thereby providing guid-
ance on their application.
The Syrian refugee context in

Jordan
Since March 2011, hundreds of thousands of Syrian men, women, girls and boys
have sought refuge in the Kingdom of Jordan. As of May 2015, over 628,000
Syrian refugees are registered with UNHCR in Jordan2. The vast majority – over
520,000 – are living in urban and rural areas, outside of the refugee camps,
primarily in Jordan’s cities and towns.
Through a combination of the generosity of the Jordanian government and
people, a substantial international and national humanitarian aid programme,
and the efforts of the refugees themselves, most refugees have had access to
resources and services and humanitarian standards have been met.
Refugee households vary in their skills, capacities and other assets. Some
brought savings with them or benefit from remittances. Others fled Syria with
little more than they could carry. Factors such as gender, age and disabilities
have also affected different refugees’ ability to access assistance and services.
1 Note: the VAF process has been designed to identify and track the multi-sectoral vulnerabilities
of Syrian non-camp based refugees registered with UNHCR in Jordan. For the purposes of this
report ‘Syrian refugee’ refers to this group only.
2 In addition, the Government of Jordan estimates that there are up to 1.4 million Syrians cur-
rently living in Jordan.
May 2015 7
With the Syria crisis in its fourth year, humanitarian aid and the absorption
capacity of Jordanian communities have become stretched. Reflecting the
difference between their income and expenditure, and with limited access to
sustainable livelihood options, many refugees have now entered a cycle of as-
set depletion, with savings gradually exhausted and levels of debt increasing.
The most vulnerable refugees are particularly affected. Many are increasingly
adopting negative coping strategies, including a reduction in food consump-
tion, withdrawing children from school and taking on informal, exploitative or
dangerous employment.3
Humanitarian assistance is a crucial element in the welfare of many refugee
households in Jordan. The expansion of the response to include longer term,
resilience based strategies, led by the Government of Jordan through the Jordan
Response Plan (JRP), is also an important step in strengthening both Jordanian
and refugee communities’ capacities to cope with the crisis.
In parallel, humanitarian agencies are committed to ensuring that assistance
is efficient and effective, targeting the most vulnerable areas and households.
To facilitate this targeting, the humanitarian community in Jordan has devel-
oped the Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF). This report explains the
purpose, process and structure of the VAF, and in particular outlines the results
of the Baseline Survey, applying the vulnerability models developed to the
surveyed Syrian refugee population.
3 According to a recent Assessment (February 2015), WFP Rapid Impact 89% of refugees are
relying on opting for less preferred and less expensive food, 62% are reducing the number
of meals per day and 55% are borrowing food or seeking help from relatives, while 24% have
reduced essential expenditures on education and health.
Picture ©UNHCR/Olivier Laban-Mattei
The
Vulnerability
Assessment
Framework
At the beginning of the VAF project in late 2013, consid-
erable amounts of data on Syrian refugees was available.
However, the tools used to analyse and collect this data
varied between partners. The use of different vulnerabil-
ity criteria meant that data was not fully comparable or
able to be combined to form a comprehensive picture.
The terms ‘vulnerable’ and ‘vulnerability’ are common
terms in the humanitarian aid and development sec-
tors, but their use can be vague, often being seen as
substitutes for ‘poor’ and ‘poverty’. Vulnerability has to be
defined in terms of what it is that a population is vulner-
able to. The definition of vulnerability therefore requires
specificity.
Against this background the VAF Steering Committee1
was established in January 2014 to oversee the devel-
opment of the VAF as a tool to facilitate better analysis
and targeting of Syrian refugees with humanitarian as-
sistance, on the basis of vulnerability.2
The VAF process seeks to put in place an observation
and reporting system that, using a mixture of static and
dynamic indicators, supports the humanitarian commu-
nity to:
1. Establish a profile of vulnerability across Syrian refu-
gee households and enable monitoring of changes
in vulnerability over time;
2. Target assistance in a more efficient and equitable
manner, based on the application of common vul-
nerability criteria;
3. Strengthen the coordination and decision-making of
the delivery of humanitarian assistance.
1 VAF Steering Committee members are: ACTED, BPRM, CARE Inter-

national, DRC, ECHO, Handicap International, PU-AMI, UN Women,
UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO.
2 Methodologies for delivery of protection services and identifica-
tion of protection vulnerability are conducted through separate
processes. Please see Annex 1 for more information on the VAF and
Protection.
During a series of workshops and consultations with sectors in early 2014, a

set of common indicators of vulnerability were agreed. The indicators were
then checked against refugees’ own explanation of vulnerability through 70
focus group discussions with Syrian refugees, disaggregated by age, gender
and disability. The finalized indicators were compiled into a ‘VAF questionnaire’,
which was then piloted and further refined.
Since mid-2014, data has been collected using this VAF questionnaire through
a brief and rolling multi-sector assessment, recorded into a central database.
So far, 45,000 refugee families have been visited. The criteria include informa-
tion collected at the registration stage by UNHCR, as well as through partners’
Home Visits. The use of dynamic indicators and the collection of data on an
ongoing basis are intended to facilitate monitoring of changes in vulnerability
and enable trend analysis across time and by geographic area.
Also in early 2014, a World Bank team conducted a detailed analysis of indicators
used by UNHCR Jordan for Cash Assistance decisions, using proGres and Home
Visit data. Based on their analysis, the World Bank produced an econometric
model3 that can predict Syrian non-camp refugees’ economic welfare.
The World Bank’s econometric modelling methodology, which uses predicted
expenditure as a proxy for refugee welfare, was presented to the VAF Steering
Committee. It was decided to conduct the same methodology on the VAF data-
set to be able to predict refugee expenditure as a proxy for refugee household
‘economic’ vulnerability. This resulted in the ‘VAF Welfare Model’, which assigns
a welfare rating to each refugee family interviewed with the VAF questionnaire.
In tandem, sector-specific vulnerability models have been developed through
consultative processes with technical experts, using different combinations of
the agreed indicators. These models can then assign sector vulnerability scores
to the same data-set. Together with the Welfare Model, these sectors models
can now provide a nuanced and comprehensive spatial analysis identifying
those geographic areas with concentrations of vulnerable refugee families.
Spatial analysis can facilitate decision-making and prioritization by geographi-
cal area. The individual refugee family scores can facilitate partners’ decisions
on who should be assisted with what type of assistance. The VAF models are
now being used to support UNHCR, UNICEF and WFP with their targeting of
assistance, and will be further rolled out for other partners in mid-2015.
The application of this analysis will vary from sector to sector. While some sec-
tors may use VAF analysis to inform eligibility for assistance for refugee fami-
lies, other sectors may use the analysis to identify priority areas for additional
technical assessment and follow-up.
More information on the VAF development process can be found in Annex.
3 The econometric process produces a formula which uses a set of data points that have a
strong statistical predictive power to expenditure.
May 2015 11
VAF Baseline Survey

While to date 45,000 cases have had a VAF Home Visit conducted, this baseline
report uses a randomized representative baseline to measure relative vulner-
ability. The larger dataset of 45,000 Home Visits use a methodology that may
have some bias towards the most vulnerable. UNHCR Home Visits are scheduled
based on the most recent refugee cases registered with UNHCR, cases referred
for a cash assistance eligibility review and protection cases or other types of
referrals. Therefore in January and February 2015 a randomised VAF baseline
survey was conducted, designed around a statistically representative sample
of 2,163 Syrian Refugee cases living outside of the refugee camps.
The baseline survey was divided into six discreet strata: four geographical re-
gions (North, East, Centre and South) to allow geographical differences in the
Syrian refugee vulnerability to be identified; and a gender analysis allowing any
differences between male and Female-headed cases to be identified.
No.
Segment name Included governorates
cases
Geo Centre 372 Amman, Balqa, Zarqa and Madaba
Geo East 353 Mafraq
Geo North 361 Irbid, Jerash and Ajloun
Geo South 347 Kerak, Tafilah, Ma’an and Aqaba
Gender of PA = Male 363 National
Gender of PF = Female 367 National
Sample sizes
For the baseline survey, a total of 2,163 cases (7,817 individuals) were randomly
selected to create both gender and geographical segments. The result was six
segments representing the Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern regions
as well as the male and female-headed households.
Following a validation exercise with the sectors, where initial results were as-
sessed and revisions to models suggested, the models have been updated. The
results of the modifications are presented in this report, creating a baseline
against which future analysis of the vulnerability of the non-camp based Syrian
refugee population will be analysed.
Key findings/
VAF Welfare Model
Presented below are the key findings of the Vulnerability
Assessment Framework for Syrian refugees living in ur-
ban and rural areas in Jordan. The results are structured
to reflect different analytical models used to interpret
the data collected through the baseline survey:
• The VAF Welfare Model;
• Universal Indicators;
• Sector Models;
• Cross-Model Analysis.
The analysis below refers to both refugee ‘individuals’
and ‘cases’. Cases are the nuclear family unit registered by
UNHCR in its proGres registration database. There may be
several cases living in the same ‘household’, if the latter
is taken to encompass, for instance, all persons living in
the same apartment. While the primary unit of analysis
for the VAF is at the case level, the total number of indi-
viduals within these cases is on occasion specified. This
is especially true when the total percentage of vulner-
able individuals may be higher than the percentage of
vulnerable cases – implying that cases with more family
members tend to be more vulnerable.
Note: more comprehensive analysis of the components
of model can be found in annex.
Key Findings: VAF Welfare

Model
Overall Welfare Score

The VAF Welfare Model uses predicted expenditure as a proxy for multi-dimen-
sional vulnerability. By predicting the approximate levels of expenditure that a
case with a certain set of characteristics will have, the model is able to demon-
strate where that case falls within the economic vulnerability thresholds. For the
purposes of this analysis, the VAF is using the Jordanian abject poverty line of 28
JOD per capita per month as the threshold for severely vulnerable, the absolute
poverty line of 68 JOD for the highly vulnerable threshold, 100 JOD as the thresh-
old for moderately vulnerable and 100 JOD plus for low levels of vulnerability.1
It is particularly important to be able to capture and track economic vulnerability
amongst refugees in non-camp settings as many of the risks that refugee families’
face could be mitigated if they had sufficient financial means. For example many
families are Shelter, Education and Health vulnerable not because these services
are not available but because they are not able to afford them or because of the
associated costs (for example: transportation).
Although reported expenditure is an indicator of welfare (i.e. expenditure per
capita net of assistance), many studies suggest that it can be inaccurately cap-
tured. The Welfare Model has been created in order to generate a more accurate
prediction of expenditure to reduce outliers and inaccuracies. It is also able to pre-
dict an expenditure value where the reported expenditure figure is not present.
The VAF Welfare Model results show that 86% of Syrian refugee individuals are
living below the Jordanian poverty line of 68 JOD per capita per month, and
are therefore rated as being highly or severely vulnerable.2 This corresponds
with 68% of family units or ‘cases’. Further 10% of Syrian refugee individuals,
or 6% of cases, are living below the abject poverty line of less than 28 JOD.
This demonstrates that in general highly and severely vulnerable families
have larger family sizes.
1 The VAF Steering Committee identified these thresholds in line with the Government of Jor-
dan’s national poverty lines and standards; however the thresholds will be carefully monitored
and maybe revised in the future to be in line with ongoing work on a Minimum Expenditure
Basket analysis for Syrian non-camp based refugees.
2 This finding is in line with the 2014 WFP/REACH Comprehensive Food Security Monitoring
Exercise (CFSME), which found that without WFP food assistance, 85% of Syrian refugees would
not have economic access to sufficient food.
May 2015 15
poverty line in Jordan: 68 JOD
80
60
40
Chart 1 20
Source data: VAF home
visits, all records,
Date: Jan - Feb 2015, 0
Level: Individuals LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE
Geographic Variations
There are differences in the levels of vulnerability across the four geographical
regions. The Welfare Model identifies 64% of cases in the Northern region as
highly vulnerable or above, versus only 30% in the Central region. The Cen-
tral region includes Amman and Zarqa where the majority of least vulnerable
families live, more rural areas of the central region including Madaba and Balqa
have higher levels of vulnerability.
100
80
60
40
20
Chart 2
visits, Geo segments 0
(1,433 records),
NORTH EAST SOUTH CENTRE
Date: Jan - Feb 2015,
Level: Cases Low Mod. High Severe
North Irbid, Jerash, Ajloun

East Mafraq
Centre Amman, Balqa, Zarqa, Madaba
South Karak, Tafileh, Ma’an, Aqaba
These results match anecdotal evidence from the field and the results of other
nationwide surveys. A larger percentage of Syrian refugees living in urban
centres, such as Amman, Irbid, Zarqa fall into the low vulnerability categories,
while those living in the northern governorates, rural areas or Jordanian poverty
pockets have higher levels of vulnerability.
The Welfare Model predicts 64% of cases in the Northern region are rated as
highly vulnerable or above, versus 30% in the Central region.
Segmentation by Gender
Initial analysis of the VAF dataset suggests that the majority of Female-headed
cases are not in the most vulnerable category, and that in terms of economic
welfare, there is little identifiable difference in vulnerability as a result of the
gender of the principle applicant. It should be noted that within the Home Visit
questionnaire questions related for the most part to protection based issues
are not included many of which address specific gender issues, challenges and
vulnerabilities. It should also be noted that this analysis is at the case level and
there are many Female-headed cases living within Male-headed households;
the vulnerability dynamics of which are not captured in this analysis. Agencies
wishing to provide assistance based on gendered vulnerabilities will need to
conduct additional analysis.
The Welfare Model predicts similar levels of vulnerability for both male and
Female-headed cases. The percentage of Female-headed cases that fall into
the severely vulnerable category is marginally higher than the Male-headed
cases. However the percentage of cases falling under the Jordanian poverty
100
80
60
40
20 Chart 3
0 visits, Gender segments
FEMALE MALE (730 records),
Low Mod. High Severe Level: Cases
May 2015 17
line for male and Female-headed cases was almost identical. A smaller per-
centage of Female-headed cases fall into the low vulnerability threshold.3
In the two charts below, 12% of Male-headed cases have low vulnerability
compared to 6% only of Female-headed cases. 19% of Male-headed cases
are moderately vulnerable compared to 27% Female-headed cases. High and
Severe is almost the same for both genders.
There is a difference in spending among the two groups, but it is quite small.
Female-headed cases are only marginally poorer than Male-headed cases. Se-
verely vulnerable is almost the same for both genders. Female-headed cases
have an average expenditure per capita of 55 JOD, compared to Male-headed
cases 61 JOD, the difference is approximately 10%.
There is a difference in spending among the two groups, but it is quite small.
Female-headed cases are only marginally poorer than Male-headed cases.
80 80
Chart 4 70 70
Source data: VAF Home 60 60
Visits; Male HH (1,249 50 50
records), 40 40
30
Level: Cases
20 20
Chart 5 10 10
Source data: VAF Home
0 0
Visits; Female HH (906 LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE
records),
Male Headed Cases (4) FEMale Headed Cases (5)
Level: Cases
Note: The vulnerabilities of Female-headed households globally tend to be
linked to harder to identify protection risks. Some protection issues, including
gender-based violence, have been deliberately left out from VAF data collection,
noting that the VAF was not the most appropriate tool to collect such data. Ag-
gregate comparisons between female and male-headed households therefore
need to be carefully considered; especially in relation to coping mechanisms
and the specific needs of men, women, girls and boys.
3 For example a Syrian Female-headed case may have the financial means to make that case
secure and not highly or severely vulnerable but social and cultural factors may influence the
cases ability to cope in Jordan. The VAF survey methodology does not have the capacity to
capture these risk factors. Work is on going to identify ways in which additional gender sensi-
tive analysis can be applied to the VAF models and results.
MAP 1 Welfare Northern region
Bani Kenanah
Wastiyyah
Irbid Qasabah
Ar Ramtha
Irbid Ramtha
Taybeh
King Abdallah Park
Irbid
Governorate
Aghwar Shamaliyah
Koorah Mazar Shamali Cyber City
Bani Obeid
Orjan
Mafraq
Ajlun Sakhrah
Governorate
Ajlun
Jarash
Ajloun Governorate
Jarash
Jarash
Kufranjah
Legend Borma
Average Scores
Camp/Refugee location
Low (> 100 JOD/month)

Welfare
Moderate (68 - 100 JOD/month)

Mastabah
High (28 - 68 JOD/month)
Severe (< 28 JOD/month)
1 - 10
Balqa
11 - 50
Total cases
51 - 100
assessed
101 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 750
> 750
Sub-district
Governorate Average Score
Salt Low
Zarqa
Moderate
High
Severe
0 2 4 8
Km.
This map is based on 8,606 cases (not individuals) to which the VAF model has been applied in the Northern Region. The cases
were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.
May 2015 19
Picture ©UNHCR/Jared Kohler
Key findings/
Universal Indicators
May 2015 21
During the VAF development process, the following indi-

cators were consistently identified as important measures
of vulnerability, relevant to all sectors. They have therefore
been extracted and highlighted to facilitate cross-refer-
ence with the Welfare and Sector Models. The predicted
expenditure (Welfare Model) is one such indicator.
Documentation status
The VAF includes questions related to the type of document held by the Principal
Applicant (head of family) and family members, and related to the validity of these
documents. The majority of Syrian refugee cases interviewed for this baseline report
have low levels of documentation vulnerability. However the survey methodology
has a clear bias in this regard, with the sample selected from those currently reg-
istered in the UNHCR proGres database.
• 75% of Syrian refugee individuals have low vulnerableity with regard to
their documentation status.
• 13% are severely vulnerable where either the Principle Applicant or multiple
family members are missing documents.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Chart 6
10 Source data: VAF baseline
home visits,
0 Date: Jan - Feb 2015,
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE Level: Individuals
The Government of Jordan requires all refugees to have a valid Ministry of In-
terior (MOI) card from the area where they are living. Holding a valid MOI card
is mandatory for access to Government public services, in particular Health
and Education services. Additionally, refugees require UNHCR’s Asylum Seeker
certificate to access many services and assistance provided by humanitarian
agencies. Without valid documents, refugees may be at risk of arrest and re-
foulement.
Documentation status was considered important by all sectors as a defining
factor in accessing protection services and assistance packages, and is therefore
treated as a standalone indicator of vulnerability.
The current methodology and sample identified low levels of documentation
vulnerability. However, this may shift as other partners conduct assessments
using the VAF questionnaire, and as Government policy changes take effect over
the issuance of documents, including the ongoing Urban Verification exercise.
May 2015 23
MAP 2 Documentation vulnerability for Northern region
Bani Kenanah
Wastiyyah
Irbid Qasabah
Ar Ramtha
Irbid Ramtha
Taybeh
King Abdallah Park
Irbid
Governorate
Aghwar Shamaliyah
Koorah Mazar Shamali Cyber City
Bani Obeid
Orjan
Mafraq
Ajlun Sakhrah
Governorate
Ajlun
Jarash
Ajloun Governorate
Jarash
Jarash
Kufranjah
Borma
Average Scores
Mastabah
Legend
Low
Balqa
Documentation
Vulnerability
Moderate
High
Severe
1 - 10
11 - 50
Total cases
51 - 100
assessed
101 - 250
Average Score
251 - 500
Salt Low
501 - 750 Zarqa
Moderate
> 750
High
Sub-district
Severe
Governorate
This map is based on 8,606 cases (not individuals) to which the VAF model has been applied in the Northern Region. The cases
Dependency ratio
Dependency ratio is calculated by dividing the number of autonomous or able
bodied adults by the number of dependants (non-autonomous adults, children,
and the elderly). A high level of dependency is a common characteristic for the
most vulnerable families across the VAF sector models.
• 51% of Syrian refugee individuals belong to cases that have a severely
vulnerable dependency ratio. When partnered with additional indicators
in the sector models, the dependency ratio can rapidly increase the vulner-
ability of that case.
60
50
40
30
20
Chart 7
home visits, Date: Jan -
0 Feb 2015, Level: Individu-
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE als
Most sectors identified the dependency ratio as a factor that contributes to

both refugees’ resilience and vulnerability.
The dependency ratio is an indicator of the economically active to economi-
cally inactive people in a family. Family members between the ages of 18 and
60 are considered as economically active, whilst children from the ages of 0 to
17 and people above the age of 60 are considered as the economically inactive
cohort. The ratio is disability adjusted (i.e. if a family member of age 18 to 60
is chronically ill or is disabled, the person has a condition which affects their
ability to be economically active or manage daily activities).
Average Scores
Serhan
Hosha
Badiah Sh. Gh.

Irbid
Manshiyah
Governorate
King Abdallah Park
Um Al-Jemal
Irhab Mafraq
Um Elqotain
Sabha
Dair Al Kahf
Syria
Bal'ama Khaldiyah
Cyber City Serhan
Hosha
Average Score Salhiya
Low
Moderate
Badiah Sh. Gh. High
Severe
Manshiyah
Jarash Mafraq
Governorate
MAP 3 Dependency ratio for Eastern region
Um Al-Jemal
Mafraq
Irhab
Zaatari Um Elqotain
Sabha
The cases were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.
Dair Al Kahf
Bal'ama Khaldiyah Mafraq

Governorate
Legend
Low
Zarqa
Governorate Moderate
Salhiya
High
Vulnerability
Dependancy
Severe
1 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
Zarqa 101 - 250

assessed
251 - 500
Total cases
EJC
501 - 750
May 2015
Amman
> 750
Governorate
Sub-district
Governorate
This map is based on 4,099 cases (not individuals) to which the VAF model has been applied in the Eastern Region.
25
Coping strategies
The use of coping strategies in order to meet Basic Needs and maintain family wel-
fare is taken as an indicator of vulnerability. Very high incidences of negative or
unsustainable coping strategies were found across the Syrian refugee population.
• 80% of Syrian refugee individuals are using crisis or emergency coping strat-
egies and have exhausted their savings, are decreasing their food intake or
resorting to high risk, informal or socially degrading jobs.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 Chart 8
Source data: VAF baseline
10
home visits,
Most sectors identified employing coping strategies as a factor that contributes

to resilience/vulnerability. For consistency, the same coping strategy list and
approach is used across all sectors. Different coping strategies are graded differ-
ently according to their severity, some of the coping strategies are sustainable,
but their employment reflects an extreme state of vulnerability. Other coping
strategies reflect less extreme coping mechanisms, but are unsustainable (such
as the depletion of resources, i.e. savings or assets).
As demonstrated above the vast majority of Syrian families have exhausted most
sustainable coping strategies and are now employing or at risk of employing the
most severe coping strategies; including resorting to sending family members
(including children) out to beg and working in informal or dangerous jobs. (See
Annex for full breakdown of categories and characteristics).
Directly reduce future productivity, includ-

Crisis Coping Strategies
ing human capital formation
Affect future productivity and are more dif-

Emergency Coping Strategies ficult to reverse, or more dramatic in nature
including loss of human dignity
Source: Report on Continued Development and Testing of a Standardized Approach, Food

Security, World Food Programme, December 2013.
Jarash
Irbid Ajloun Jarash Mafraq
Al-Ardha
Hashemiyah
Bierain
Dair Alla Allan
Ain Albasha
Dhlail
Zarqa
Governorate
Salt Zarqa Zarqa
Salt
Balqa
Governorate Al Jami'ah EJC
Russeifa
Fuhais
Marka
Amman
MAP 4 Coping strategies for Central region
Yargha

Amman Qasabah
Sahab
Wadi Essier Azraq
Quaismeh
Azraq
Shoonah Janoobiyah Na'oor
Azraq
Rajm al-Shami
Hosba'n Um Elbasatien Muaqqar
Jrainah
Faisaliah
Jarash Madaba
Average Scores
Legend Madaba Amman
Governorate
Low Madaba
Maeen Governorate
Moderate
High
Coping
Jizah
Strategies
Severe
Mlaih
1 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
Areedh
101 - 250
assessed
Total cases
251 - 500 Average Score
May 2015
Dieban
501 - 750 Low
> 750 Moderate
Sub-district Um Al-Rasas High
Governorate Severe
This map is based on 12,437 cases (not individuals) to which the VAF model has been applied in the Central Region. The cases
27
28 VAF Baseline
Picture ©UNHCR/Jared Kohler Survey
Key findings/
Sector Models
May 2015 29
Every sector provides different services based on different

needs. Therefore a single, universal vulnerability indicator
may not be sufficiently nuanced for sector-specific target-
ing. Specific sector algorithms have been developed using
the questions and data points that were identified by the
sectors to be indicators of vulnerability for each sector.
The sector model characteristics, including the data points
and weighting, were chosen by experts and practitioners
from each sector. The models have gone through several
rounds of statistical analysis and revision by the VAF team
and the sector leads.
Note: Further detail on the indicators below can be found
in Annex.
Basic Needs
Basic Needs are the financial and non-financial minimum standards a family needs
to be able to maintain their welfare and dignity. The vast majority of Syrian refugee
families have limited access to sustainable livelihood options and are in need of
financial, non-financial and non-food assistance. In particular refugees living in un-
furnished apartments face considerable hardship during the winter months; lacking
adequate bedding, heating and floor coverings etc.
• 92% of the individuals are identified as high or severely vulnerable for Basic
Needs.
• There were no individuals identified as having low rates of vulnerability for
Basic Needs.
• 8% of individuals have moderate vulnerability for Basic Needs.
• Over 60% of Syrian non-camp families have a high or severely vulnerable
level of debt per capita, influencing their ability to ensure their Basic Needs
even if receiving an income/assistance.
50
40
30
20
Chart 9
10
home visits,
The Basic Needs sector identified the use of coping strategies, high dependency
ratios, high levels of debt and a low level of expenditure per capita as the critical
elements contributing to a risk of increased vulnerability.
Families who exhibit these characteristics are considered to be unlikely to be able
provide for their Basic Needs and would therefore be in need of sector specific
assistance packages.
High levels of debt per capita, low levels of expenditure per capita, high depend-
ency ratios and the adoption of crisis or emergency coping mechanism make
families vulnerable in this sector. Many families have depleted all assets and are
living in unfurnished or semi-furnished apartments without access to regular
income or financial support that would allow them to manage their own needs.
Coping Strategy Rating (Composite Indicator) Basic Needs Vulnerability Rating (VAF)
Average Scores Average Scores
Bani Kenanah
Irbid
Governorate
Aghwar Wastiyyah Syria

Shamaliyah
Ramtha
Irbid Qasabah Ar Ramtha Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
Irbid
Taybeh
King Economic State Rating (Composite Indicator) Dependancy Ratio Rating (Composite Indicator)
Abdallah
Park Average Scores
Average Scores
cases were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.

Cyber
MAP 5 Basic Needs vulnerability for Northern region
Koorah
City
Mazar Shamali
Bani Obeid
Mafraq
Orjan
Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe

Sakhrah Mafraq
Legend Ajloun
Governorate Debt per capita (Basic Indicator)
Camp/Refugee location Expenditure per capita (Basic Indicator)
Jarash
Low Average Scores Average Scores
Ajloun Governorate
Ajlun
Moderate Zaatari
High
Basic Needs
Vulnerability
Severe
Jarash
1 - 10
Jarash
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250 Kufranjah
assessed
Total cases
251 - 500
May 2015
Borma
501 - 750
> 750
Sub-district Mastabah
0 2 4 8
Governorate Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
Km.
Balqa Zarqa
This map is based on 8,606 cases (not individuals) to which the VAF model has been applied in the Northern Region. The
31
Education
Access to education for registered Syrian refugee school aged children is currently
free in Jordanian state schools; however Syrian families face a number of barriers to
ensuring all their children are able to enrol and remain in education.1 These include
social, economic and educational barriers: i.e. distance to school, availability of places
in a school, financial/economic barriers, missed education, etc.
• Almost all of refugee individuals were identified as living within families with
high or severe Education vulnerability.2
• Only 2% were moderately vulnerable. There are no individuals with low edu-
cation vulnerability.
• 97% of the school aged children are at high risk for non-attendance at school:
-- Almost 90% of the cases are highly vulnerable in terms of having ad-
equate financial resources to maintain school attendance for their chil-
dren.
-- 6% of the cases are severely vulnerable due to the participation of at
least one child in child labour.3
-- A number of protection related concerns also affect families’ abilities
to maintain children in school; including but not limited, to early mar-
riage, violence or perceived threat of violence, psychological distress,
children’s disabilities, mobility of the family and distance to school. There
were very low levels of reporting in the VAF baseline for these issues,
but other reports indicate that these issues act as barriers to children
remaining in school.4
Note: The Education vulnerability is shown only for cases that have school aged
children. If the analysis included all cases without children, education vulner-
ability would have a higher proportion of low and moderately vulnerable cases.
The Education sector identified various factors associated with a refugee case be-
ing at risk of educational vulnerability. These include the number of school aged
children a family needs to support, the level of current and previous attendance
in school and factors related to a risk of non-attendance. The Education sector
1 Education vulnerability in the VAF relates to primary and secondary education only. Edu-
cation vulnerability here is the risk of being unable to access and remain in schooling for all
children within a case.
2 Education vulnerability was only calculated for those families with school aged children.
3 This is the reported rate of child labour through the VAF data collection methodology. Sector
level assessments suggest much higher levels of child labour within the Syrian refugee popu-
lation. In some cases children may be attending school and participating in labour but in the
majority of cases it is suspected that children have been withdrawn from school.
4 Low levels of reporting of these issues were discussed with the Education sector, and it was
agreed to track reporting over time and review.
May 2015 33
divided out risks for non-attendance into economic, social and physical (see An-
nex for full breakdown).
The results demonstrate that while a high percentage of children are attending
government schools, many families and children are still facing challenges with
assess and regular attendance. Families with more than three school aged chil-
dren are particularly at risk of withdrawing one or two children from schooling.
Families identified economic barriers and distance to school as contributing to
their inability to send all children to school.
Currently, the Government of Jordan is accommodating registered Syrian refu-
gee children into the state schooling system. This significantly reduces the levels
of Education vulnerability. However if this service was withdrawn or if Syrians
were asked to pay for access to schooling the vast majority of Syrian school age
children would likely fall into severe Education vulnerability.
80
70
60
50
40
30
Chart 10
20
home visits, Records with 10
school aged children,
34
Education Vulnerability Rating (VAF)

Average Scores
Bani Kenanah
Irbid
Governorate
Aghwar Wastiyyah Syria

Shamaliyah
Ramtha
Irbid Qasabah Ar Ramtha
Irbid
Taybeh
VAF Baseline Survey
King Low Moderate High Severe

Abdallah
Park Missed Education Rating Risk factors for Education Attendance Rating
(Composite Indicator) (Composite Indicator)

MAP 6 Education vulnerability for Northern region
Cyber
Koorah
City
Mazar Shamali
Bani Obeid
Mafraq
Orjan
Sakhrah Mafraq
Legend Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
Ajloun
Governorate School Aged Children Rating Formal Education Attendance Rating
Camp/Refugee location (Composite Indicator) (Composite Indicator)
Jarash
Low Average Scores Average Scores
Ajloun Governorate
Ajlun
Moderate Zaatari
High
Education
Vulnerability
Severe
Jarash
1 - 10
Jarash
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250 Kufranjah
assessed
Total cases
251 - 500
Borma
501 - 750
> 750
Sub-district Mastabah
0 2 4 8
Governorate
Km. Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
Balqa Zarqa
This map is based on 8,606 cases (not individuals) to which the VAF model has been applied in the Northern Region. The
May 2015 35
Food Security
WFP provides targeted food voucher assistance to approximately 80% of the Syrian
refugee population living outside camps. All refugees living in camps receive WFP
food voucher assistance along with a daily provision of fresh bread. Nonetheless,
the VAF analysis, in line with the 2014 WFP/REACH CFSME results, demonstrates that
Syrian families still face considerable difficulties in maintaining their food security.
A reduction in WFP food assistance would have a dramatic impact, putting many
refugee families at risk of falling into high or severe food insecurity.
• Nearly 79% of Syrian individuals are highly or severely vulnerable to food
insecurity, while 20% are moderately vulnerable. This is in line with WFP’s
current tiered targeting approach.5
• Almost all the cases have low vulnerability for the Food Consumption Score
rating.6
• 46% of Syrian cases have severe vulnerability scores for expenditure on
food and 72% are severely vulnerable due to the adoption of emergency
coping strategies to meet food needs.
60
50
40
30
20
Chart 11
Source data: VAF baseline 10
home visits,
The Food Security sector identified factors related to food vulnerability based
on globally recognised standards and tools. The CARI (Consolidated Approach
5 As of April 2015 WFP introduced a tiered approach to Syrian refugees living in host communi-
ties, analysing poverty and assessing vulnerability using data from various sources, particularly
the VAF and the 2014 WFP/REACH CFSME, based on which it was determined that 34,000
individuals no longer relied on WFP assistance and as such they were excluded from food
assistance; 190,000 extremely vulnerable individuals should receive 20JOD per person per
month; while 240,000 moderately vulnerable individuals should receive 10JOD.
6 The WFP food assistance targeting had not affected the majority of cases interviewed for this
baseline survey and at the time of interview the majority were receiving assistance in line with
global food security minimum standards (2,100 kcal/person/day).
for Reporting Indicators of Food Security) is a WFP global methodology for as-
sessing food vulnerability. In addition to the CARI the Food Sector identified
Social vulnerability, which is assessed through identifying high dependency
ratios and single headed households as significant in identifying vulnerability.
WFP was able to provide blanket food assistance to registered Syrian refugees
until October 2014. Since then it has incrementally reduced food assistance by
adopting targeted assistance. The VAF Baseline reflect similar findings to WFP
Food Security monitoring conducted in 2015. If funding limits WFP’s ability to
provide food assistance for the most vulnerable families, it is anticipated that
there will be significant shifts in the vulnerability ratings above.
King Food Vulnerability Rating (VAF)
Abdallah
Park
Average Scores
Irbid
Cyber Serhan Syria

City
Hosha
Low Moderate High Severe
Badiah
Sh. Gh.
Manshiyah
Mafraq
Jarash
Mafraq Um Al-Jemal
Um Elqotain
Zaatari
Irhab Sabha
Mafraq

Governorate
MAP 7 Food Security vulnerability for Eastern region
Dair Al Kahf
Khaldiyah
Bal'ama
CARI Rating (Composite Indicator)
Average Scores
0 2 4 8
Km.
Legend
Salhiya
Low
Zarqa
Moderate
Food
High
Vulnerability
Severe
Dependancy Ratio (Basic Indicator) Single Headed Household (Basic Indicator) Food Consumption Score Rating (Basic Indicator) Social Vulnerability Rating (Composite Indicator)
1 - 10
Average Scores Average Scores Average Scores Average Scores
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250
Zarqa
assessed
251 - 500 .
Total cases
m
May 2015
85 K EJC
501 - 750
> 750
Sub-district
Governorate Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
This map is based on 12,437 cases (not individuals) to which the VAF model has been applied in the Central Region. The
37
Health
As of November 2014 access to Primary Health Care for Syrian refugees is charged
at the same rate as for uninsured Jordanians and is subsidized by the Govern-
ment of Jordan. Nonetheless, families with ongoing health issues or complicated
health needs face considerable financial and other burdens in securing appropriate
healthcare. It should also be noted that many Syrian refugees came to Jordan with
pre-existing health problems both conflict and non-conflict related.
• 41% of Syrian individuals are part of families with severe health vulnerability,
15% are part of highly health vulnerable families.
• 15% of cases were identified as severely vulnerable in terms of being able
to access health services when needed.
• 16% of cases have the presence of pre-existing medical conditions (disabili-
ties or chronic illnesses) that are negatively impacting a family members’
day to day life.
• 10% of cases report that they spend more than 25% of their expenditure
on health related items.
50
40
30
20
10 Chart 12
home visits,
The Health sector vulnerability indicator is not assessing the extent of medi-
cal issues within families, rather the factors that are likely to impact a family’s
ability to mitigate health shocks. The sector identified the following factors:
access and availability of health care, family composition, the existence of
existing conditions and the proportion of expenditure on health related items
as influencing Health vulnerability.
The Health vulnerability results demonstrate that over 56% of the Syrian reg-
istered refugee population are highly or severely vulnerable. This is based on
baseline data collected in January and February, which was after the change
in government Health policy for Syrian refugees in November 2014.
King Health Vulnerability Rating
Abdallah (VAF)
Park
Average Scores
Irbid
Cyber Serhan Syria

City
Hosha
Badiah
Sh. Gh.
Manshiyah
Mafraq
Jarash
Mafraq Um Al-Jemal
Um Elqotain
Zaatari
Irhab Sabha
MAP 8 Health vulnerability for Eastern region
Mafraq
Governorate

Dair Al Kahf
Khaldiyah
Bal'ama
Legend
Low
Moderate
Health
High
Vulnerability
Severe Salhiya
1 - 10
11 - 50
Zarqa
51 - 100
101 - 250
Accessibility and Availability Family Composition Existing Conditions Health Expenditure
assessed
Total cases
251 - 500 (Composite Indicator) (Composite Indicator) (Composite Indicator) (Composite Indicator)
Average Scores Average Scores Average Scores Average Scores
501 - 750
> 750
Sub-district
Zarqa
May 2015
Governorate
m .
85 K EJC
0 2 4 8
Km. Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
39
It should be noted that Health vulnerability is not static and a family’s health
vulnerability can change dramatically based on illness or accident. The results
above demonstrate the Health vulnerabilities of these families at the time of
interview and their current capacity to mitigate health risks; however a family
that currently has low health vulnerability might in the future find themselves
severely at risk or vulnerable due to a change in the health status of one or
more family members.
Shelter
The vast majority of Syrian refugees living outside of the camps are living in for-
mal housing. However, as demand for apartments has increased many Syrian
families are accepting substandard housing arrangements, often in unfurnished
apartments with insecure or informal tenancy agreements. For the majority of
Syrian families who have insecure livelihoods or income, maintaining rental com-
mitments is a considerable burden and rental arrears have both financial and
protection implications. Additionally, although not identified within this baseline
survey some Syrian families are living in informal housing or tented settlements;
within the Shelter vulnerability model these families are automatically considered
severely Shelter vulnerable.
60
50
40
30
20
Chart 13
Home Visits,
• 25% of individuals are severely shelter vulnerable and 50% are highly shelter
vulnerable.
• Over 50% of all cases have all the standard basic house assets and 95% of
cases are not suffering from overcrowding in their houses.
Ajloun Jarash Mafraq
Dair Alla
Al-Ardha Hashemiyah
Bierain
Allan
Dhlail
Ain Albasha Zarqa
Governorate
Zarqa Zarqa
Salt
Salt EJC
Balqa Al Jami'ah Russeifa
Governorate
Fuhais
Marka Sahab
Amman Qasabah
Yargha Amman
Azraq
Wadi Essier
Amman
Quaismeh Governorate Azraq
Shoonah Na'oor Azraq

Janoobiyah Rajm al-Shami
MAP 9 Shelter vulnerability for Central region
Muaqqar Family Composition (Composite Indicator) Shelter Vulnerability Rating (VAF)

Hosba'n

Um Elbasatien
Jrainah
Faisaliah
Madaba
Madaba
Madaba
Governorate
Maeen
Jizah
Mlaih
Legend
Low Moderate High Severe Moderate High Severe
Type of Accommodation (Composite Indicator) Housing Conditions (Composite Indicator) Security of Tenure (Composite Indicator)
Low
Areedh Average Scores Average Scores
Average Scores
Moderate
Shelter
High
Vulnerability
Dieban
Severe
Null
1 - 10
11 - 50
Um Al-Rasas
51 - 100
101 - 250 Karak
assessed
Total cases
251 - 500 m .
85 K
May 2015
501 - 750
> 750 0 2 4 8
Km.
Sub-district
Governorate Low Moderate High Severe Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
41
• However over 50% of the cases’ properties are showing at least one sign of
poor quality, with 34% identified as having two or more instances of poor
quality.7
• 23% of cases properties were judged to be unsatisfactory by the enumerator.
• 60% of cases have a high or severe debt per capita. One third of cases did
not have a rental agreement.
• 100% of the cases surveyed were in formal accommodation, no informal
cases were surveyed.
The Shelter sector identified three main factors contributing to shelter vulner-
ability and risks; namely those relating to housing conditions, the security of
tenure and family composition.
Multiple assessments have demonstrated that Syrian refugees living outside
camps are for the most part living in formal housing, however in the major-
ity of cases this is poor housing with poor ventilation, light, heating etc., this
vulnerability is exacerbated by insecurity of tenure.
Currently, Syrian refugees are allowed to rent formal housing in non-camp areas
but any change in the policy framework related to this would result in additional
levels of severe Shelter vulnerability across the Syrian refugee population.
7 See Shelter sector documentation for a full breakdown of Shelter quality indicators.
May 2015 43
WASH
The majority of Syrian refugee families have access to the formal Jordanian national
water and sewage networks; including regular mains water supply. However, in
different areas of the country and at different times of year the Jordanian mains
water supply varies in quality and reliability. Similarly, sector assessments have
identified that while mains water maybe available, the most severely vulnerable
families may not have access to sufficient or safe water storage.
60
50
40
30
20
Chart 14
10
Home Visits,
• 60% of Syrian individuals are severely vulnerable to WASH related risks.

• There are no Syrian families with low WASH vulnerability.
• This is predominantly caused by solid waste management where 80% of
cases have experienced solid waste vector evidence more than twice in the
last year and 20% of cases have experience waste-water overflows more
than once in the last year.
• More than 50% of cases have secure access to bathing facilities; but 15%
of cases are identified as severely vulnerable due to sharing facilities with
three or more other cases. However, almost all refugee families report feel-
ing secure when accessing these services.
• There are no highly or severely vulnerable cases with regards to safe ac-
cess to water.8 The majority of cases have low vulnerability. Nearly all cases
surveyed have their water supplied through the municipality and 88% of
cases report have never having had issues with water supply.
8 This may be due to the season when the VAF baseline study was conducted (winter) when
nationally Jordan’s water network has the capacity to meet public demand, during the summer
months some areas of Jordan experience water scarcity.
• The WASH expenditure rate varies significantly among cases. 32% of cases
are identified as severely vulnerable due to spending over 25% of their
expenditure on WASH items.
Effective access to WASH services is crucial to many aspects of a refugee’s daily
life, from hygiene, to drinking water and waste disposal facilities. As such there
are many discrete, non-related, contributing factors that make up the WASH
sector rating.
While the majority of Syrian refugees living in urban or peri-urban areas do
have access to the Jordanian water and sewage networks almost 60% of in-
dividuals remain severely vulnerable to WASH vulnerability. The WASH sector
also remains concerned about seasonal changes in the Syrian refugees’ ability
to access adequate WASH facilities. The ongoing VAF analysis will consider
changes in refugee responses to WASH indicators over time.
Additionally many WASH risks are communal rather than at the household level
and include the capacity of public services to meet demand in some areas; for
example waste disposal services. The WASH sector has also identified that the
Syrian communities’ perception of the safety of Jordanian public water affects
their usage.
WASH Vulnerability Rating (VAF)
Ajloun Jarash Mafraq Average Scores
Dair Alla
Al-Ardha Hashemiyah
Bierain
Allan
Dhlail
Ain Albasha Zarqa
Governorate
Zarqa Zarqa
Salt
Salt EJC
Balqa Al Jami'ah Russeifa
Governorate
Fuhais
Moderate High Severe
Marka Sahab
Amman Qasabah
Yargha Amman
Azraq
Wadi Essier
Amman
Quaismeh Governorate Azraq
Shoonah Na'oor Azraq

Janoobiyah Rajm al-Shami
MAP 10 WASH vulnerability for Central region
Muaqqar Access to Facilities (Composite Indicator) Access to Hygiene (Composite Indicator)

Hosba'n Um Elbasatien

Jrainah
Faisaliah
Madaba
Madaba
Madaba
Governorate
Maeen
Jizah
Mlaih
Legend
Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
Solid Waste Management (Composite Indicator) Waste Water Management (Composite Indicator) Accessibility to Safe Water (Composite Indicator)
Low
Areedh Average Scores Average Scores
Average Scores
Moderate
WASH
High
Vulnerability
Dieban
Severe
Null
1 - 10
11 - 50
Um Al-Rasas
51 - 100
101 - 250 Karak
assessed
Total cases
251 - 500 m .
85 K
May 2015
501 - 750
> 750 0 2 4 8
Km.
Sub-district
Governorate Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe
45
Cross-Model
Analysis
A nuanced and holistic picture of
vulnerability
The VAF models recognise that refugees’ vulnerabilities
are complex, varied and dynamic. A refugee family may
have low health vulnerability, but have specific problems
in relation to Education and Basic Needs vulnerability.
There is also considerable interplay between variables.
For example a change in the health status of a family
member may significantly change the family’s depend-
ency ratio, and therefore impact on other sector vulner-
ability scores.
When analysing a specific family’s situation applying
the Welfare, Universal Indicators and Sector Models, the
VAF’s ability to present a nuanced picture of vulnerability
is evident.
Displayed below are four case studies of Syrian refugee
families that have been assessed and their relative VAF
ratings across the different vulnerability categories. This
analysis can be conducted at the case, district, region
and national level and is displayed here to help agen-
cies understand the potential of the VAF thresholds for
analysing the inter-play between vulnerabilities when
developing programming or providing assistance.
Sample case-level snapshot

Moderately vulnerable
34 year old Syrian man living with mother, no children, high expenditure with
no debt.
Universal
indicators 1
1 1
Predicted
welfare
WASH Documentation
status
2 1
Shelter Coping strategies
1 Health
Dependency ratio 2
Basic Needs
Food
Education
Chart 15
1 Source data: VAF home
2 visits, Single record,
n/a Level: case
May 2015 49
Sample case-level snapshot/Moderately vulnerable

34 year old Syrian man living with mother, no children, high
expenditure with no debt.
Predicted per capita

Predicted expenditure 1
387 JOD
PA Documentation Family
Documentation status 1 PA is registered Documentation
Registered
No coping strategies
Coping strategies 1
being used
1 autonomous adult
Dependency ratio 2
1 dependent
Economic state
Coping strategies Dependency ratio
No debt
Basic Needs 1 No coping strategies 1 autonomous adult, 1
387 JOD per capita /
being used dependent
month
Attendance risks
Education n/a
0 school aged children
Social vulnerability CARI score

Food 2 2 adults FCS = 65
1:1 dependency ratio 39% spent on food
Existing conditions
Access to services Family composition
Health 1 No conditions
No problems No 60+ or < 5s
0 health expenditure
Housing conditions Family composition

Security of tenancy
Shelter 2 Missing 1 essential Non-autonomous
No debt, has contract
item adult
Access to latrines Access safe water Waste management
Health
WASH 1 Not shared and safe Municipality source 1 instance water
No issues
access instances without 1 instance solid

Severely vulnerable
41 year old Syrian man living with wife, 4 children and elderly mother in law.
Universal
indicators 4
3 4
Predicted
welfare
WASH Documentation
status
4 4
4 Health
Dependency ratio 4
Basic Needs
Food
Education
Chart 16
3 Level: case
May 2015 51
Sample case-level snapshot/Severely vulnerable

41 year old Syrian man living with wife, 4 children and elderly
mother in law.

39 JOD
Family
PA Documentation
Documentation
Documentation status 4 PA is missing MOI
One family member is
not registered
1 emergency strategy
Coping strategies 4
being implemented
2 autonomous adult
Dependency ratio 4 4 children
1 60+
Coping strategies Dependency ratio Economic state

Basic Needs 4
Emergency strategies Poor dependency High debt per capita

2 years missed educa-
Attendance risks
Education 3 tion
Finance main risk
2 children attending
schooling
CARI score
Social vulnerability
FCS = 7, high% of
Food 4 High dependency
expenditure on food,
ratio
Emergency
Access to services
Family composition Existing conditions
Missing MOI, had not
Health 4 Under 5’s and over 60s High health expendi-
had problems access-
in Case ture (13%)
ing
Security of tenancy Family composition

Housing conditions Has contract but high Male-headed house
Shelter 4
Adequate debt (167 JOD per High dependency
capita) ratio

Health
WASH 3 Not shared and safe Municipality source 0 instance water
No issues
access No instances without 1 instance solid

Moderately vulnerable
32 year old Syrian female living with brother, one child, high expenditure with
moderate debt.
Universal
indicators 1
2 1
Predicted
welfare
WASH Documentation
status
2 2
1 Dependency ratio 1
Health
Basic Needs
Food
Education
Chart 17
1 2 Source data: VAF home
visits, Single record,
n/a Level: case
May 2015 53
Sample case-level snapshot/Moderately vulnerable

32 year old Syrian female living with brother, one child, high
expenditure with moderate debt.

129 JOD
PA Documentation Family
Documentation status 1 PA is registered Documentation
Registered
Stress coping
Coping strategies 2
strategies being used
2 autonomous adults
Dependency ratio 1
1 child
Economic state
Coping strategies
Dependency ratio 100 JOD debt
Basic Needs 2 stress coping
2 adults, 1 child 129 JOD per capita /
strategies being used
month
Attendance risks
Education n/a

Food 1 2 adults FCS = 95
1 child 15% spent on food
Existing conditions
Access to services Family composition
Health 1 No conditions
No problems No 60+ or < 5s
0 health expenditure
Housing conditions Security of tenancy

Family composition
Shelter 2 Missing 0 essential Some debt,
Female head of family
item has contract
Waste management
Access to latrines Access safe water
Health 1 instance solid
WASH 2 Not shared and safe Municipality source
No issues Over 5% spent on
access instances without
WASH

Severely vulnerable
38 year old widowed Syrian female with 4 children.
Universal
indicators 3
3 4
Predicted
welfare
WASH Documentation
status
3 4
4 Health
Dependency ratio 4
Basic Needs
Food
Education
Chart 18
3 Level: case
May 2015 55
Sample case-level snapshot/Severely vulnerable

38 year old widowed Syrian female with 4 children.

43 JOD
Family
PA Documentation
Documentation status 4 Documentation
PA is missing MOI
Family registered
1 emergency strategy
Coping strategies 4
being implemented
1 autonomous adult
Dependency ratio 4
4 children
Coping strategies Dependency ratio Economic state

Basic Needs 4
Emergency strategies Poor dependency High debt per capita

Attendance risks 2 years missed educa-
Education 3
Finance main risk tion
2 children attending

Food 4 High dependency FCS = 103, 20% spent
ratio, Single headed on food, Emergency
Access to services
Family composition Existing conditions
Missing PA doc, not
Health 4 No under 5’s and over Existing disabilities
had problems
60s in case present
accessing
Housing conditions Family composition

Security of tenancy
Missing essential Female-headed
Shelter 3 Has contract but high
items, showing poor house, high
debt
signs dependency ratio

Health
WASH 3 Shared access with 1 Municipality source 0 instance water
No issues
house and safe access 1 instances without 3 instances solid
Relationship between the Welfare and Sector models

Cross analysis of the VAF Welfare Model and other sector models demonstrates
high levels of corresponding vulnerability. For example, refugee families rated
as severely vulnerable by the Welfare Model have for the most part correspond-
ing high or severe levels of vulnerability across the other sectors.
Of all of the vulnerability models, Welfare has the highest crossover with the
other sectors. For instance, for Education, Food Security and WASH, 100% of
those considered severely vulnerable by these sector models, are also severely
vulnerable in the Welfare Model. For Basic Needs, 74% of those considered
severely vulnerable are also severely vulnerable under the Welfare Model.
This implies that the Welfare Model can be used to cross-reference the sector
models, while also recognizing that the sector models may be more nuanced,
and lower levels of cross-over can be explained by the combination of non-
welfare factors selected to identify vulnerability.
WASH 100%
Food Security 100%
Education 100%
Basic Needs 100%
Dependency 95%
Shelter 88%
Coping 81%
Chart 19
Health 72%
Source data: VAF Home
Documentation 14% Visits. All records with
high & severe ratings.
0 20 40 60 80 100 Level: case.
May 2015 57
Conclusions
Holistic approach to better
understanding vulnerability
The VAF baseline survey provides a detailed overview
of the different vulnerabilities of the non-camp Syrian
refugee population and the interplay between these
vulnerabilities.
Although there are significant differences between the
sectors’ definitions of vulnerability there are common
themes; in particular the universal indicators that con-
tribute to the different vulnerabilities of Syrian refugee
cases. For example a case with severe documentation,
dependency ratio and welfare vulnerabilities are ex-
tremely likely to be also experiencing risks associated
with Shelter, WASH, Education etc.
If this cross-sectoral analysis is applied, it will facilitate a
holistic analysis of vulnerability by agencies and sectors,
and then allow for more comprehensive identification of
needs, design of programs and ultimately the coordina-
tion of assistance.
It could also provide insights into how reductions in as-
sistance or access to services in one sector – for instance,
WFP food vouchers or a change in government policy
towards public services – would have operation-wide
ramifications and affect Syrian refugees’ ability to main-
tain family welfare.
Benefits from a standardised criteria

The development of standardised criteria for vulnerability and the different
thresholds also allows for humanitarian actors to talk about relative vulner-
abilities in equivalent terms and to track those vulnerabilities across the refugee
population and both map and respond to the vulnerabilities identified.
By using the VAF questionnaire as the standard and agreed tool within broader
assessments, data collected by agencies for different purposes may be more
comparable, contributing to a greater store of knowledge and analysis of the
refugee population, beyond any one assessment.
Practical application of the VAF analysis

The capacity of the VAF to map vulnerabilities across specific sectors and ge-
ographic locations also allows for a more nuanced analysis of not only the
inter-connectedness of refugees’ experience of vulnerability at a case level but
also at a community level. In the future the VAF analysis could be used to sup-
port the work of the Government of Jordan and the Ministry of Planning and
International Cooperation in identifying Jordanian communities particularly
impacted by the Syrian crisis and the influx of refugees. Simultaneously, by
mapping vulnerability within the Syrian community and contrasting with Jor-
danian poverty pockets and or available services it will allow agencies wishing
to adopt a community based response to identify those communities most in
need of assistance.
The VAF model identifies and demonstrates different kinds of vulnerability
across the different sectors. For example in Health and Education the vulner-
ability can be translated as a family’s ability/capacity to mitigate or manage
a Health or Education related risk in the future. One practical application of
this analysis could then be in the decision making around eligibility for urgent
cash assistance for health related reasons. A family that has a low Welfare vul-
nerability rating and a low Health vulnerability rating is much more likely to
be able to absorb a health related shock than one with severe vulnerability in
the two sectors. Similarly, a family with a severe Education vulnerability rating
and a high or severe Welfare vulnerability rating is far more at risk of removing
children from school or adopting negative coping mechanisms such as children
being sent to beg or to work informally.
This report represents the beginning rather than the end of the VAF analysis
process. Working closely with the sectors, the VAF team can customise both
sector and geographical analysis in line with specific priorities. The key applica-
tion, however, will be in the targeting of assistance at the case level – a process
already being applied by WFP, UNICEF and UNHCR – to ensure assistance is
efficiently allocated to the most vulnerable.
May 2015 61
62 VAF Baseline
Picture ©UNHCR/Jared Kohler Survey
May 2015 63
AnnexES
Annex 1: Vulnerability Assessment

Framework background and
development
Background and Objectives

A key objective of the Jordan Refugee Response has been to ensure that hu-
manitarian resources have been used effectively and efficiently, as a commit-
ment to both donors, the Government of Jordan and to the refugees them-
selves. Targeting of assistance to the most vulnerable refugees is part of this
commitment.
At the beginning of this project in January 2014, while considerable amounts of
data were available, analysis of vulnerability was varied. The terms “vulnerable”
and “vulnerability” are common terms in the humanitarian and development
sectors, but their use is often vague, being seen as substitutes for “poor” and
“poverty”. A more systematic approach requires that vulnerability is defined in
terms of what it is that a population is considered to be vulnerable to and its
definition therefore requires specificity.
The use of different vulnerability criteria among agencies meant that data was
not for the most part comparable or able to be combined to form a comprehen-
sive picture. In addition, many vulnerability measurements focus on hazards
and risks while minimizing or omitting capacities for addressing them giving
only part of the full picture of vulnerability.
Against this background the Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF) Steer-
ing Committee1 was established in January 2014 to oversee the development of
the VAF to facilitate better the targeting of Syrian refugees with humanitarian
assistance, on the basis of vulnerability.
The VAF process seeks to put in place an observation and reporting system
that supports the humanitarian community to:
1. Establish a profile of vulnerability among Syrian refugee households and
enable monitoring of changes in vulnerability over time;
2. Target assistance in a more efficient and equitable manner, based on the
application of common vulnerability criteria;
1 VAF Steering Committee members are: ACTED, CARE International, DRC, ECHO, Handicap
International, BPRM, PU-AMI, UN Women, UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO.
May 2015 65
3. Strengthen the coordination and decision-making of the delivery of hu-

manitarian assistance.
The VAF definition of vulnerability

Following consultations with the sectors in early 2014 and endorsement by the
VAF Steering Committee, the Vulnerability Assessment Framework for Syrian
Refugees defines vulnerability as:
The risk of exposure of Syrian refugee households to harm, primarily in rela-

tion to protection threats, inability to meet Basic Needs, limited access basic
services, and food insecurity, and the ability of the population to cope with
the consequences of this harm.
Development VAF Criteria and Indicators

In February 2014, a series of workshops and consultations with the sectors
resulted in a list of common indicators, and a standardized questionnaire, de-
signed to capture data related to the vulnerability of Syrian refugee households.
Agencies and sector representatives attended a workshop to develop a list of
34 indicators. These indicators were intended to be ‘cross-sectoral’, rather than
just sector-specific. After further refinement by the VAF Steering Committee,
the sectors were again consulted on the list, including in the reduction from
34 to 15 indicators (some indicators were removed, others were combined
and/or reworded).
These indicators were then cross-checked with refugees through 70 focus group
discussions, disaggregated by age, gender and disability, across the country.
The final list was then developed in to the VAF questionnaire. The question-
naire was piloted and incorporated into the UNHCR Home Visit form in the
summer of 2014.
The VAF form was fully rolled out in the July of 2014 and from July 2014 to April
2015 over 45,000 Home Visits have been conducted. The results are recorded
into a central database (RAIS).
The VAF models include information collected at the registration by UNHCR, as
well as through partners’ Home Visits. The use of dynamic indicators and the col-
lection of data on an ongoing basis is intended to allow for monitoring changes
in vulnerability and enable trend analysis across time and geographic areas.
VAF, Welfare Models and the World Bank

In spring 2014, a World Bank team conducted a detailed analysis of indicators
used by UNHCR for Cash Assistance decisions, using proGres and Home Visit
data. Based on their analysis the World Bank produced an econometric model2
that can predict Syrian non-camp refugees’ economic welfare based on data
collected during registration with UNHCR.
The World Bank’s econometric modelling methodology, which uses predicted
expenditure as a proxy for refugee welfare, was presented to the VAF Steering
Committee and it was decided to use the same methodology on the VAF data-
set to be able to predict refugee expenditure as a proxy for refugee household
‘economic’ or welfare vulnerability.
In early 2015, the World Bank have continued their works on Welfare Models in
the region, based on UNHCR Home Visit and registration data. The World Bank
has worked closely with the VAF team, commenting on and reviewing the VAF
Welfare Model. The World Bank’s own analysis, developed with the VAF team,
will be released in mid-2015.
Sector Models
In tandem, vulnerability models have been developed through consultative
processes with the refugee sectors, using different combinations of data points.
The VAF team worked with the sectors to develop customised models based
on the data points available in the VAF questionnaire and these models were
then shared with the sector members for endorsement.
In March 2015 a technical review report was shared with sectors which mapped
the results of the initial models across the VAF baseline survey results. Sectors
were then invited to review and revise their models.
These models are then used to assign vulnerability scores at the case level, and
together with other periodic surveys, will provide spatial analysis that identi-
fies those geographic areas with concentrations of vulnerable refugee cases.
Spatial analysis can also facilitate decision-making and prioritization by geo-
graphical area. The individual case scores can support partners when taking
decisions on who should be assisted with what type of assistance.
The application of this analysis will vary from sector to sector. While this multi-
sector approach will encompass agreed upon indicators from many sectors, it
will not be the sole basis of information for assistance for all agencies and for
some will rather flag or refer cases for additional follow up and prioritisation.
2 The econometric process produces a formula which uses a set of data points that have a
strong statistical predictive power to expenditure.
May 2015 67
Limitations to the VAF models and Baseline Survey
The VAF does not cover Protection-related risks comprehensively
The VAF represents a tool to facilitate common targeting and assessment on

the basis of vulnerability. Data collection to inform this tool is and will continue
to be undertaken by a number of different VAF partners in Jordan. The range
of actors involved poses potential challenges to more sensitive areas of data
collection.
While partners have been and will continue to be trained in the VAF methodol-
ogy, and in Do No Harm approaches to data collection, not all field level enu-
merators will be trained in safe and ethical approaches to protection-specific
data collection or in protection referrals (including the Inter-Agency CP/SGBV
Standard Operating Procedures). Given these constraints, it has been agreed
with the Protection Sector that the VAF will not collect data on key protection
issues. Information on protection-specific concerns is collected and analysed us-
ing different methodologies and tools (e.g. proGres, the Child Protection Infor-
mation Management System (CPIMS), the Gender-Based Violence Information
Management System (GBVIMS)), and responses to protection vulnerabilities or
risks are coordinated through the Protection Sector’s strategic response and
specific referral mechanisms.
The VAF is primarily focused on ‘cases’ rather than individual vul-

nerabilities
While individual vulnerabilities contribute to the overall case vulnerability rat-

ing, the VAF was not designed to comprehensively target individual refugees’
vulnerabilities. The VAF does not replace the need for assessment and referral
mechanisms that are able to focus on the needs and vulnerabilities of individual
Syrian refugees. For example one family member may have a specific Health
or Education related vulnerability and the VAF would not capture this; rather it
would identify that the case the individual was registered in was at risk.
VAF partners will be able to access data on individual vulnerabilities using RAIS
and proGres through customised data sharing agreements with UNHCR.
The VAF does not cover Jordanian households.
While there are some similarities between the vulnerability of Jordanians and
Syrian refugees (debt, over-crowdedness, income/expenditure gap), there are
many differences (the short-term nature of debt, civil-political rights, documen-

tation status, access to services, access to labour market etc.). Analysis of the
needs of Jordanians is undertaken by the Government of Jordan, including by
the Ministry of Social Development through its social security mechanisms and
by the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation. The VAF process
will continue to support the work of the Government of Jordan in identifying
needs and gaps in services.
Natural bias in Home Visits
There is an inherent bias in the VAF data collection process for the larger 45,000
data set, with cases selected for review on the basis of recently having regis-
tered with UNHCR, being referred for or having requested a review of eligibility
for cash assistance, having been referred from the VAF appeals process or as
a protection referral.
The VAF team anticipates that the Home Visit data will identify higher levels
of vulnerability due to this methodological bias, with a higher than average
number of cases being highly or severely vulnerable.
For this reason a randomised baseline survey was conducted. A separate report
will be issued analysing and comparing the VAF ongoing Home Visit data and
the VAF baseline results in June 2015. There after monthly VAF sector reports
will be issued noting comparisons with the VAF baseline data.
Difference between case and household
The Home Visit form collects data at the case level, where a case represents
a nuclear family, meaning that each record in the database represents one
case. Other organisations analyse their data at different levels such as house,
household, or individual. Although it may be possible to aggregate the data
to the household level this transformation has not taken place for this survey.
See Case vs Household, A conundrum note for more details
Baseline survey: Informal Tented Settlements
No cases living in informal settlements were interviewed for the baseline survey.
May 2015 69
Annex 2: Introduction to the VAF

Welfare Model
The VAF Welfare Model

The Welfare Model is an algorithm created on the basis of an analysis of the
econometric survey. The model created has been reviewed by the World Bank
and is a formula that predicts the expenditure per capita for a Syrian non-camp
refugee case.
The World Bank identifies welfare as the net predicted expenditure per capita
in a household. The definition of welfare comes from the principle that a house-
hold with a higher expenditure per capita has more economic resources to
deal with instances of certain types of risk than one with a lower expenditure
per capita.
The VAF Welfare Model has been developed and tested on a number of differ-
ent data sets from Jordan.
Since the Home Visit data does not currently cover the full urban refugee popu-
lation an additional model has also been developed to predict expenditure
based upon proGres data. This has a slightly lower predictive power than the
Home Visit version but can be used as an indicator in absence of full data. This
model is out of the scope of this document but is described in the document
referenced below and available on the VAF page of the UNHCR Syrian Refugee
Portal.
See VAF vulnerability modelling background discussion for a more

detailed description on how the model was created
Contributing factors
The econometric process produces a formula which uses a set of data points
that have a strong statistical predictive power to expenditure. The data points
are chosen by the unbiased econometric process, in other words they are in-
cluded purely because the formula identifies that they have a correlation with
expenditure, they are not chosen with or influenced by other bias.
The following table presents the data points that are included in the model
and average characteristics for both the low and severely vulnerable cases.
LOW Severe
Case size 1 7
Arrive through formal 20% entered through 77% entered through

border crossing = Yes formal border crossings informal border crossings
House crowding 2 rooms per person 4 people per room
Enumerator
14% of cases judged not 1% of cases judged not
judgement = Not vulnerable vulnerable
vulnerable
Work documentation
56% have work permits 27% have work permits
= Yes
58% of severe vulnerability

73% of low vulnerability
cases are Male-headed
Gender of PA = Male cases are Male-headed and
cases and 42% are Female-
27% are Female-Headed
headed cases
4 individuals in a 9 individuals in a
Household size household household
Percentage of children 1% of the average case size 60% of the average case
in the case is made up of children size is made up of children
Single households have an Married, divorced

equal distribution across and widowed have
Marital status low, moderate and severely approximately 50% or
vulnerable more highly vulnerable
Humanitarian assistance,
Those who own or rent
lodging in return for work
Occupancy type have 0% or 3% in severely
and squatting have over
vulnerable respectively
50% in severely vulnerable
Amman, Aqaba, Balqa,

Jerash, Karak, Ma’an, Ajloun, Irbid, Tafileh and
Location of MOI
Madaba, Mafraq have Zarqa have less than 7% or
registration between 7-16% of cases as no low vulnerable cases
low vulnerable
May 2015 71
Appeals Systems and Safeguards

To mitigate the exposure to risk caused by exclusion and to acknowledge po-
tential inaccurate predictions, a VAF appeals framework has been established
to allow refugees to request a re-evaluation of their eligibility for assistance
after exclusion.
The VAF, WFP and UNHCR have collaborated to establish a comprehensive and
customised appeals system in relation to WFP’s targeting of assistance, based
on models developed with the VAF team. The appeals process is designed to
ensure accountability to the refugee population and represents a best prac-
tice in line with the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership Standards.1 This
process has also been put in place to mitigate the exclusion errors inherent in
econometric modelling. When introducing the targeting of assistance WFP also
applied several inclusion criteria, targeting widows and pregnant and lactating
women, as an additional layer of safety for the beneficiaries. These inclusion
criteria were identified on the basis of the 2014 WFP/REACH CFSME.
See VAF application guidance note for more details.
Limitations of the Welfare Model

The Welfare Model is regarded as a strong indicator of economic vulnerability.
However it is not without limitations.
1. The model does not take into account risk used to gain a high expenditure.
For example a refugee case may be using severe coping strategies (for
example working informally in dangerous or demeaning jobs) in order to
achieve a high expenditure, and as such have additional vulnerabilities
which the model does not identify.
2. The model does not take into account sustainability, it predicts current
expenditure. It does not take into consideration the economic reserves
that a refugee case may have; so this model is unable to predict future
economic vulnerability.
3. As a practical example, high predicted expenditure does not necessarily
make a case secure for Health issues. Therefore in order to be able to identify
the spectrum of vulnerabilities and risks that refugees face and to meet the
objectives of the VAF the rating models must be able to provide specific
view of other vulnerabilities. For the purposes of the VAF these have been
divided into the different implementation sectors.
1 http://www.hapinternational.org/
Annex 3: Introduction to the

sector models
Development of the sector models

The sector models were created through consultation with sector chairs and
members following a workshop on using the Home Visit data to identify vul-
nerability. Individual sector working groups reviewed the Home Visit data and
provided draft versions of assessment criteria they identified as important.
Rules were applied to criteria to create a model, or algorithm. The draft algo-
rithm was then run on the entire database and the results were reviewed and
compared against other data sources for validation. Following the review some
adjustments were made until the final models presented in this report were
confirmed.
The models have now been programmed into the UNHCR RAIS and the results
will shortly be available for download by VAF partners.
Characteristics of the sector models

Together the algorithms use 161 data points from the Home Visit survey and
proGres from which 80 new indicators were created which are used for the
identification of vulnerability. The results can then be viewed at a granular level
to help identify where the cause of the vulnerability comes from. These are:
• 10 sector level vulnerability ratings (including Welfare/predicted expendi-
ture);
--Six sectors: (Basic Needs, Education, Food Security, Health, Shelter and
WASH);
--Four Universal indicators: indicators which are either used in multiple
sectors or that were identified as important across sectors;
• 26 composite indicators: a combination of one or more related atomic in-
dicators;
• 44 atomic indicators: a raw or very lightly processed data field from the
data collection form.
See the Sector rating specifications documents for more details on the
exact composition of all the VAF models.
May 2015 73
Limitations of the sector models

Producing individual vulnerability assessments for each sector provides a solu-
tion for sectoral needs, and the combination of all the sectors assessments can
provide a profile of vulnerability for a case, however, the following limitations
that exist and mean that a continued assessment and refinement of is required.
1. The models do not assess causality and cannot be used to predict future
vulnerability. The data points chosen are known to be related to vulner-
ability in a given sector only.
2. The data used in the models was selected by practitioners working in those
sectors, this may introduce a bias towards the data chosen. To mitigate this
risk the practitioners were asked to examine data from the entire Home Visit
report, not just data relating to their sector.
3. The models will be reviewed periodically and may evolve over time.
Annex 4: Details of Sector Models
The Welfare Model
80 76% WELFARE INDIVIDUALS

Key insights
60
• 75% of the cases have low vul-
nerability with regards to their
40
documentation status
20
• 13% are severely vulnerable
10% 10% where either the PA or multiple
3%
family members are missing
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE documents
8
7
4
4
2 Case size
2
1
A low vulnerability case will have a
0 case size of 1 and a severely vulner-
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE able case will have a case size of 7
10 9
8
7
6 5
4
4 Household size
2
A low vulnerability case will have a
household size of 4 and a severely
0 vulnerable case will have a household
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE size of 9
59%
60
50 46%
40
30
20
Percentage of children
9% A low vulnerability case will not have
10
1% children and 59% percent of a severe-
0 ly vulnerable case will be children
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE
May 2015 75
4
3.9
2
1.9
House crowding
1 0.8 A low vulnerability case will have 2
0.5 rooms per person and a severly vul-
0
nerable case will have 4 people per
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE room
80 77%
60%
60
42%
40 Arrive informally = Yes
20% 20% of low vulnerability cases en-
20
tered informally while 77% of severe
vulnerability cases entered Jordan
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE informally
60 56%
41%
40 37%
27%
Work documentation =
20 Yes
56% of low vulnerability cases have
0
work permits while 17% of severely
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE vulnerable have work permits
15 14%
12
6
6% Enumerator judgment
Enumerators judged 14% of low vul-
3 2% nerability cases as ‘not vulnerable’
1%
0
and judged 1% of severely vulnerable
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE cases as not vulnerable
80 73%
60% 58%
60
49%
40
Gender of PA = Male
20 73% of low vulnerability cases are
Male-headed and 58% of severe
0 vulnerability cases are Male-headed
cases
Atomic indicator Composite indicator Sector indicator
Case size
Household size
Percentage of children
House crowding
vulnerability rating
Predicted Welfare
Predicted Welfare
1. 100 JOD +
Welfare model 2. 68-100 JOD
Arrive informally = Yes formula 3. 28-68 JOD
4. Less than 28 JOD
Valid work
documentation = Yes
Enumerator judgement
= Not vulnerable
Gender of PA = Male
Marital status
Occupation type
Governorate of MOI
registration
May 2015 77
The Documentation Status model
80 75%
vaf documentation rating
60 Key insights
• 75% of the cases have low vulner-
40 ability with regards to their docu-
mentation status.
20
10% 13% • 13% are severely vulnerable where
2% either the PA or multiple family
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE members are missing documents.
100
89%
80
60
40
PA documentation
20 11% The vast majority of the cases have
0% 0% low vulnerability in terms of PA’s
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE documentation.
98% <-- PA UNHCR Documentation

100
80
60
40
20
0% 0% 2% Base indicators
0
8% of the cases are severely vulner-
able regarding the PA’s MOI docu-
100 92% mentation.
80
60
40
20
8%
0% 0%
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE <-- PA MOI Registration
1. Yes
Registration?
PA has MOI
2. -
3. - 1. PA has all
4. No registration
PA Registration
2. -
Status
3. -
MAX
1. The PA and all other

4. PA has one or
family members
more have both a valid
missing UNHCR registration
1. Yes
PA has UNHCR
registrations
Registration?
and a valid MOI

2. - service card
2. The PA has both
3. - forms of documen-
4. No
Registration Status tation AND one
form of documenta-
tion is missing
within the family
MAX
3. The PA has both

forms of documen-
UNHCR Registration?
tation AND two

Members missing
forms of documen-
1. 0
tation are missing
2. 1 within the family
4. The PA has both
3. 2
forms of documen-
4. >3 tation AND three or
Family Registration
more forms of
1. = 0 missing reg. documentation are
missing || OR PA is
SUM
Status
2. = 1 missing reg. missing one or

3. = 2 missing reg. more documents
4. >3 missing reg.
MOI Registration?
Members missing
1. 0
2. 1
3. 2
4. >3
May 2015 79
The Dependency ratio model
VAF dependency ratio

60 rating
51%
50 Key insights
40 • More than half of the cases have a
severe dependency ratio.
30
• 14% of the cases are highly vulner-
20
18% 17% able in this regard.
14%
10
• 17% of the cases have a moderate
dependency ratio.
0
• 18% of the cases have low depend-
ency ratio.
No. of autonomous
Coping strategies
adults / (No. Juniors +

No. of Elderly + No. of 1. 0.6 : 1
non-autonomous
2. 0.6 - 1.2 :1
adults)
3. 1.2 - 1.8 :1
= X:XX ratio of depend- 4. > 1.8 :1
ents to non-dependents
adults
The Coping strategies model
VAF coping strategy

rating
80% Key insights
80 • 80% of individuals are implement-
ing emergency coping strategies.
60
• No individuals have low vulnerabil-
ity with regards to coping strate-
40 gies:
-- Having spent all savings, sold
20 16% all household goods (furniture,
4% jewellery etc.) and accepting
0%
0 high risk, informal, socially
degrading or exploitive tem-
porary jobs are cited as the
* Note: data is at individual level main causes.
1. = HH not adopting 1. = HH not adopting

coping strategies coping strategies
used by household
Coping strategies
Coping strategies
2. = Existence of 2. = Existence of
stress strategies stress strategies
MAX
crisis strategies crisis strategies
emergency emergency
strategies strategies
May 2015 81
The Basic Needs model
50%
vaf basic needs
50 vulnerability rating
42%
40 Key insights
• 50% of the cases are severely vul-
30
nerable with regards to their Basic
20 Needs.
• Over 40% are highly vulnerable.
10 8%
• Only 8% of the cases have moder-
0% ate vulnerability.
0
• There are no cases that have low
* Note: data is at individual level vulnerability.
80 72%
60
40
23%
Coping strategies
20 The vast majority of the cases are
5% adopting coping strategies. There
0%
0 are no cases identified as low vulner-
ability in terms of coping strategies.
40
39%
32%
30
20%
20
10% Dependency ratio

10
Half of the cases have a severe or high
dependency ratio. 32% of the cases
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE have low dependency ratio.
60
51%
40
30%
20 Economic state
14%
5% Half of the cases are identified as se-
verely vulnerable in their economic
0 state.
40%
40 <-- Debt per capita
35%
30
21%
20
Base indicators
10
5% While a third of cases have no debt,
0
two thirds of cases have less than
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE 28 JOD per month expenditure so
while they may not have debts to
80
repay, they are still living far below
66% the Jordanian poverty line. Over
one third of cases have over 100
60
JOD in debt.
40
20
10% 12% 12%
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE <-- Expenditure per capita
* Composite and atomic indicators are shown at case level

May 2015 83
Coping strategies
1. Not adopting
2. Stress
3. Crisis
1. The household is
4. Emergency not adopting
coping strategies,
has a low
dependency ratio,
no debt and a high
expenditure per
capita
Dependency ratio
2. Somewhere in
1. > 0.6 between 1 and 4,
Basic needs
AVERAGE
with a more
2. > 0.6 & < 1.2
positive mix
3. >1.2 & < 1.8 3. Somewhere in
4. < 1.8 between 1 and 4,
Total debt per capita
with a more
1. No debt
negative mix
2. 0 to 40 JD 4. The household is
3. 40 to 100 JD resorting to
implementing
4. >100 JD coping strategies, a
1. Result from
average high dependency
Economic state
ratio, high debt and

AVERAGE
2. Result from a low expenditure

average per capita
3. Result from
average
Total expenditure
1. >100 JD 4. Result from

per capita
2. 100 to 68 JD average
3. 68 to 28 JD
4. <28 JD
The Education model
vaf education
60 56% vulnerability rating
41%
Key insights
40 • 97% of the school aged children
are at high risk for non-attendance
at school
20
• Only 2% were moderate vulner-
able.
0% 2%
0 • There are no individuals with low
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE vulnerability in this sector.
* Note: data is at school aged children level
32%
30
29%
21%
20 18% School aged children
The percentage of school aged chil-
10 dren are more or less equally divided
across the vulnerability thresholds.
0 The severely vulnerable cases have 3
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE or more school aged children.
80
78%
60
40 Education attendance
18% Three quarters of school aged chil-
20
dren are attending school and there
4% are no cases identified as severely
0%
0 vulnerable.
80 77%
60
40
20 16% Missed education

5% 2% Three quarterss of children have not
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE missed any years of education.
May 2015 85
80%
80
60
40
20 16% Risk factors

4% Almost 80% of the cases are at high
0%
0
risk for non-attendance at school.

1. 0 or 1
School aged
children
2. 2
3. 3
4. >3
Formal education
1. All children (100%)
attendance
2. Majority (>50%)
3. Half or less (0-50%)
4. None of the school
aged children (0%)
or at least 1 child
1. None
education
2. 0-1 years
Missed
3. 1-3 years
1. No 4. 3+ years
Child labour
2. -
3. -
Economic risks
4. Yes 1. Zero or few school-aged

children, good current and
previous school attendance,
1. >100 JD per capita good economic, social and
physical conditions
resources
FInancial
2. 68-100 JD per capita

Education 2. Somewhere in between 1 and
3. 28-68 JD per capita
MAX
status 4, with a more positive mix

4. <28 JD per capita 3. Somewhere in between 1 and
4, with a more negative mix
4. Many school-aged children,
1. No poor current and previous
Early marriage
school attendance, poor

2. - economic, social and physical
conditions
3. -
4. Yes
1. Good economic, social
non-attendance
1. No and physical qualities

(physical & verbal)
MAXIMUM
Social risks
Violence
Risks for
2. - 2. Mild
3. - 3. Moderate
4. Yes 4. Poor economic, social
and physical qualities
1. No
Psychological
distress
2. -
3. -
4. Yes
1. No
Children with
disabilities
2. -
3. -
4. Yes
1. No
Physical risks
Mobility of
2. -
family
3. -
4. Yes
1. No
Distance to
2. -
school
3. -
4. Yes
May 2015 87
The Food Security model
vaf food vulnerability

rating
59% Key insights
60
• The majority of the cases are iden-

tified as highly vulnerable in their
40
food needs.
• 20% of the cases are severely vul-
20% 20% nerable.
20
• The other 20% have moderate vul-
1% nerability.
0 • There is only 1% of the cases that
have low food vulnerability.
50
42%
40
30 25%
18% Social vulnerability
20 15%
More than half of the cases have low
10 or moderate social vulnerability. One
quarter of the cases is high vulnera-
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE ble and 18% are severely vulnerable.
40
39% <-- Dependency ratio
32%
30
20%
20
10% Base indicators

10
52% of the cases have low or mod-
0 erate dependency ratio. The other
half of the cases is identified as
highly or severely vulnerable. Nev-
60% ertheless, there is no severe vulner-
60
ability in terms of single headed
household. 60% of the cases have
40%
40 low vulnerability.
20
0% 0%
0 <-- Single headed family
50
42% 41%
40
30
20 17% CARI rating

The majority of cases were identified
10 either as moderate or highly vulner-
0% able in CARI rating. There is no case
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE of severe vulnerability.
99% <-- FCS rating

100
80
60
40
20
0% 1% 0%
0
50 46% <-- Expenditure on food

40%
40 Base indicators
30 Almost all of the cases have low
vulnerability in the FCS rating. In
20 contrast, 40% of the cases have
9% severe expenditure on food and
10 5% 72% are severely vulnerable with
0 regards to adopting coping strate-
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE gies to meet food needs.
80 72%
60
40
23%
20
5%
0%
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE <-- Coping strategies

May 2015 89

Dependency ratio
exclu. chronic sick
1. >0.6 1. Low dependency ratio

2. >0.6 & <1.2 & non single headed
3. >1.2 &1.8 Social vulnerability 2. Somewhere in
between
4. <1.8
AVERAGE
3. Somewhere in
between
1. Non single headed 4. High dependency 1. The housesold has a low
Single headed
ratio and single

household
dependency ratio, is not

2. - headed single-headed, has a good
3. Single headed diet, food does not account
for the majority of
4. - expenditure and is not
adopting coping strategies to
meet food needs
Food security
vulnerability
Food consumption
2. Somewhere in between 1 and

1. Acceptable FCS (42.5+)
MAX
4, with a more positive mix
2. - 3. Somewhere in between 1 and
score
3. Borderline FCS (28.5-42) 4, with a more negative mix

4. The household has a high
4. Poor FCS (0-28) 1. Acceptable FCS, <50% dependency ratio, is
food expenditure, no single-headed, has poor
coping strategies good diet, food accounts for
1. <50% total exp. the majority of expenditure
Expenditure on
2. Somewhere in
AVERAGE
and the household is

2. 50-65% total exp. between adopting coping strategies to
food
CARI
3. Somewhere in meet food needs

3. 65-75% total exp.
between
4. >75% total exp.
4. Poor FCS, >75% food
expenditure,
emergency coping
1. = HH not adopting strategies
coping strategies
Livelihood coping
2. = Existence of stress
strategies
strategies
3. = Existence of crisis
strategies
4. = Existence of
emergency strategies
The Health model
vaf health vulnerability

rating
50
41% Key insights
40 • 41% of individuals are living in cas-
es with severe health vulnerability.
30 25%
• 5% of individuals are living in cases
19%
20 15% with high vulnerability.
• 25% of individuals are living in
10
cases with low vulnerability.
0 • 19% of individuals are living in
cases with moderate vulnerability.
80 75%
60
40
Access and availability
20 15% Three quarters of the cases have low
9%
2% vulnerability with regards to access
0 and availability of health services.
80 76% <-- Registration status

70
60
50
40
30
20 13%
9%
10 2% Base indicators
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE The majority of the cases have
low vulnerability in their registra-
98% tion status and when they have
100
needed to access medical services
80
most have had not had problems
60
40
20
0% 2% 0%
0 <-- Medical access
May 2015 91
50 48%
40
32%
30
Family composition
20 16% Almost half of the cases have low
10
vunerabiliy in their family compo-
4% sition. Only 4% of the cases are se-
0 verelly vulnerable.
59% <-- Children <5

60
50
40
30
23%
20
14%
10 Base indicators
4%
0 58% of the cases where the chil-
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE dren of the family are younger than
5 were identified as low vulnerable.
100
89% Moreover, the vast majority of the
cases where the adults of the fam-
80
ily are above 60, are identified as
60 low vulnerable.
40
20
9%
1% 0%
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE <-- Adults >60
80 77%
60
40 Existing conditions
23% Three quarters of cases have low vul-
20 nerability regarding existing condi-
tions that affect their life, one quarter
0% 0%
0 face severe vulnerability.
100
<-- DIsabilities
82%
80
60
40
18%
20
0% 0%
0
100 95% <-- Chronic illness
80
Base indicators
60 The vast majority of cases have low
vulnerability in terms of having dis-
40
abilities and chronic illnesses that
20
affect their daily life. 17% of those
5% cases facing these problems are
0% 0%
0 severely affected in their everyday
life.
100
84%
80
60
40
20 16%
0% 0%
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE <-- Affecting daily life
79%
80
60
40
20
8% 9% Health expenditure
4%
0
Almost 80% of the cases have low
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE health expenditure.

May 2015 93
1. Valid MOI Card

MOI Card
2. -
3. -
Accessibility and
4. Non valid MOI card
availabilty
MAX
Result of average
1. Received access (or NA)

Medical access
2. -
3. -
4. Did not receive access
1. None
Children <5
2. 1
Family composition
3. 2
AVERAGE
4. 3 or more
Result of average
1. None
Adults >60
2. 1 1. Able to access medical

3. 2 services, has no young or
elderly and no current
4. 3 or more instances of disabilities or
chronic illness
Health status
2. Between low and severe, with

a more positive than
1. No case in family
MAX
moderate
Disabilities
2. 1 case in family 3. Between low and severe, with

3. 2 cases in family a more negative than mild
4. 3 or more cases OR 4. Not able to access medical

affects daily life or work services, has multiple young
or elderly and has existing
disabilities or chronic
Existing conditions
1. No case in family
Chronic illness
2. 1 case in family
MAX
Result of average
3. 2 cases in family
4. 3 or more cases OR
affects daily life or work
Affecting daily life
1. No
2. -
3. -
4. Yes
Health expenditure
1. <5%
2. 5% - 10%
3. 10% - 25%
4. >25%
The Shelter model
vaf shelter
80
78% vulnerability rating
Key insights
60
• The vast majority of the cases are
severely vulnerable in Shelter.
40
• 17% are highly vulnerable.
17% • Only 5% of the cases have moder-
20
ate vulnerability.
5%
0% • There is no case of low vulner-
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE ability
* Note: data is at individual level
99%
100
80
60
40
20 Type of accomodation
0% 0% 0% Almost all cases have low vulnerability
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE regarding type of accomodation.
60 55%
40
32%
Housing conditions
20
13% More than half of the cases have
moderate vulnerability for their
0% housing conditions. 32% of the cases
0 ae identified as severely vulnerable.
60 56% <-- Lack of basic house assets

Base indicators
40 37%
Half of all cases have all the stand-
ard basic house assets. 95% of
20
cases are not suffering from over-
crowding in their houses. Half of
7%
the cases’ properties are showing
0%
0 one sign of poor quality, with 34%
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE showing 2 or more. 23% of cases
properties were judged to be un-
satisfactory by the enumerator.
May 2015 95
100 95% <-- House crowding

80
60
40
20
5%
0% 0%
0
48% <-- Poor quality of dwelling

50
40
30
20
19% 17% 17%
10
0
80 77%
60
40
23%
20
0% 0%
0
<-- Enumorator judgement
60
58%
40
25%
Security of tenure
20
14%
Nearly 60% of the cases are severely
4% vulnerable regarding the security of
0 their tenure.
40%
40 <-- Debt per capita
35%
30
21%
20
10
5%
0
80 <-- Existance of rental contract

69%
60
Base indicators
40
60% of cases have a high or severe
31% debt per capita. One third of cases
did not have a rental agreement.
20
100% of the cases surveyed were
0% 0% in formal accommodation, no in-
0 formal cases were surveyed.
100%
100
80
60
40
20
0% 0% 0%
0 <-- Occupancy type
50
42%
40
Family composition
30 25% 23% More than half of the cases are ident-
20 fied as highly or severely vulnerable
11% in their family composition.One
10 quarter of the cases has moderate
vulnerability and only 11% have low
0
vulnerability.
May 2015 97
50 47%
43% <-- Head of family
40
30
20
10% Base indicators
10
Almost half of the cases have se-
0%
0 vere vulnerability regarding the
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE head of the family. 43% of the
cases though have a low vulner-
39% ability. 52% of the cases have low
40
or moderate dependency ratio. The
32% other half of the cases are identi-
30 fied as having high or severely vul-
nerability.
20%
20
10%
10
0
<-- Dependency ratio

1. Permanent
accomodation
2. -
Type of
3. Transitional
1. Has all 5
house aseets
Lack of basic
4. Emergency
2. Has 4
3. Has 3
4. Has 2 or less
House crowding
1. >=3.5 m2 per person

2. -
3. -
1. Good housing
Housing conditions
4. <3.5 m2 per person conditions

AVERAGE
2. Mild housing
conditions
1. Has none
Poor quality of
3. Moderate housing
2. Has 1
dwell
conditions
3. Has 2 4. Poor housing 1. The household has
4. Has 3 or more conditions permanent accomodation,
sufficient house assets, is not
crowded, the dwelling is not
of poor quality, and is of an
1. - acceptable standard AND
Enumerator’s
judgement
there is no debt per capita, a

2. Standard acceptable rental contract exists and it is
an autonomous male headed
3. - household with a good
4. Substandard dependency ratio
Shelter status
4, with a more positive mix

1. None
MAX

Debt per capita
4, with a more negative mix

2. 0 - 40JD
4. The household has
3. 40 - 100JD emergency accomodation, a
4. > 100 JDaffects daily lack of house assets, high
life or work crowding, the dwelling is of a
poor quality, and is not of an
1. Secure tenancy, no acceptable standard AND
there is a high debt per
Existence of rental
Security of tenure
debt
1. Yes capita, no rental contract
AVERAGE
2. Mild tenancy or debt exists and it is an informal

contract
2. -
issues occupancy AND it is a child,
3. - elderly or non-autonomous
3. Moderate tenancy or headed household with a
4. No debt issues poor dependency ratio
4. Insecure tenancy, debt
Occupancy type
1. -
2. Formal
3. -
4. Informal
1. Male (autonomous)
Head of family
2. Female (autonomous)
1. Autonomous, male
3. -
headed house, low
Family composition
4. Junior, elderly or dependency

non-autonomous
AVERAGE
2. Mild family
composition
Dependency ratio
1. > 0.6 3. Moderate family comp

2. > 0.6 & < 1.2 4. Non-autonomous, child
or elderly, high
3. > 1.2 & < 1.8
dependency
4. < 1.8
May 2015 99
The WASH model
vaf wash vulnerability

60
59% rating
Key insights
37% • The vast majority of the individuals
40
are severely vulnerable in WASH.
• There are no individuals with low
20 vulnerability.
• This is predominantly caused by
4% solid waste management.
0%
0
* Note: data is at individual level
100 95%
80
60
40
20 WASH related health

5%
0% 0% 95% of the cases have low WASH re-
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE lated health vulnerability.
100 95% <-- Diarrhea

80
60
40
20 Base indicators
5%
0% 0% Only 5% of the cases were identi-
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE fied with severe diarrhea.
60 54%
40
30%
20 17% Access to facilities

More than half of the cases have se-
0% cure access to bathing facilities.17%
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE are identified as severe vulnerable.
60 55%
<-- Sharing latrine
40
30%
20 15%
Base indicators
0%
0
More than half of the cases have
access to their own latrine facilities,
with 15% sharing with 3 or more
98% other households. Almost all of
100
them feel secure when accessing
80 them.
60
40
20
0% 0% 2%
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE <-- Perception of security
100
86%
80
60
Access to safe water

40
There is are no high or severe vulner-
20 13% abilities regarding the safe access to
0% 2% water. The majority of cases are low
0
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE vulnerabe.
100 96% <-- Source of water

80
60
Base indicators
40
Nearly all cases surveyed have
20 their water supplied through the
3% 0% 0% municipality and 88% have never
0
had had issues with water supply.
May 2015 101
100
88%
<-- Frequency without water
80
60
40
20 10%
0% 2%
0
60
53%
40 Waste water
27% management
20%
20 More than half of the cases are low
vulnerable in terms of waste water
management while 20% have expe-
0%
0 rience overflows more than once in
the last year.
80%
80
60
40
Solid waste management

20
18%
There is 80% of cases have experi-
2% 0% enced solid waste management is-
0
sues more than twice in the last year.
60 56%
43%
40
Hygiene
20
Just over 50% of the cases do not face
1% problems accessing hygiene facilities.
0%
0 The remaining half have shared access
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE to facilities.
32%
30%
30
25%
20 WASH expenditure
13%
The WASH expenditure rate varies sig-
10 nificantly among the cases. 32% of the
cases are severely vulnerable spend-
0 ing over 25% of their expenditure on
LOW MOD. HIGH SEVERE WASH items.

May 2015 103
1. No incidents 1. No incidents
WASH related
Diarrhea
2. - 2. -
health
3. - 3. -
4. Incidents 4. Incidents
/bathing facilities
1. Exclusive use
Sharing latrines
2. Shared with 2 houses

3. -
4. Shared with 3+ houses Accesibility to
facilities
MAX
Result of MAX
1. Latrine in environment
perceived to be safely
Perception of
and securely accessible

security
2. -
3. -
4. Not the above
1. Municipality/piped
Source of water
2. Private
vendor/shop/NGO 1. No incident of WASH related
3. Private well illness, good and safe access
Accesibility to
safe water
4. Other/informal to latrines, reliable access to

water source, reliable and
MAX
Result of MAX
effective waste management
and positive WASH coping
Frequency without
1. Never capacity
2. <5 times in last month 2. Between low and severe,
WASH status
water
more positive than moderate

3. -
MAX
3. Between low and sever, more

4. >5 times in last month negative than mild
4. Incidents of WASH related
illness, poor or unsafe access
to latrines, unreliable access
1. Never to water source, unreliable
Frequency of
waste-water
and ineffective waste source,

overflows
2. Once/year unreliable and ineffective

3. - waste management and a
poor WASH coping capacity
4. > Once/year
Frequency of solid
1. Never
vector evidence
waste-related
2. 1-2 per year

3. -
4. > 2 per year
1. Access to facilities
WASH hygiene
2. Shared access
3. -
4. No access to facilities
1. < 5% of total
expenditure
2. 5-10% of total
WASH
3. 11-25% of total
4. >25% of total
Picture ©UNHCR/Jared Kohler
The VAF Steering Committee

is composed of:
May 2015
Produced by UNHCR Jordan

The VAF Steering Committee Is Composed Of:: Produced by UNHCR Jordan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The VAF Steering Committee Is Composed Of:: Produced by UNHCR Jordan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The VAF Steering Committee Is Composed Of:: Produced by UNHCR Jordan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This report and the background analysis has been produced by the Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF)

The VAF Steering Committee is composed of:

Objectives of the VAF Baseline Report 6

Objectives of the VAF Baseline

The Syrian refugee context in

1 VAF Steering Committee members are: ACTED, BPRM, CARE Inter-

During a series of workshops and consultations with sectors in early 2014, a

VAF Baseline Survey

Key Findings: VAF Welfare

Overall Welfare Score

poverty line in Jordan: 68 JOD

North Irbid, Jerash, Ajloun

MAP 1 Welfare Northern region

King Abdallah Park

Koorah Mazar Shamali Cyber City

Low (> 100 JOD/month)

Moderate (68 - 100 JOD/month)

Severe (< 28 JOD/month)

Governorate Average Score

During the VAF development process, the following indi-

King Abdallah Park

Koorah Mazar Shamali Cyber City

Most sectors identified the dependency ratio as a factor that contributes to

Badiah Sh. Gh.

Cyber City Serhan

Badiah Sh. Gh. High

Bal'ama Khaldiyah Mafraq

Zarqa 101 - 250

Most sectors identified employing coping strategies as a factor that contributes

Directly reduce future productivity, includ-

Affect future productivity and are more dif-

Source: Report on Continued Development and Testing of a Standardized Approach, Food

Irbid Ajloun Jarash Mafraq

were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.

Wadi Essier Azraq

Hosba'n Um Elbasatien Muaqqar

> 750 Moderate

Sub-district Um Al-Rasas High

Every sector provides different services based on different

Aghwar Wastiyyah Syria

cases were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.

Low Moderate High Severe Low Moderate High Severe

101 - 250 Kufranjah

Education Vulnerability Rating (VAF)

Aghwar Wastiyyah Syria

King Low Moderate High Severe

cases were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.

101 - 250 Kufranjah

Cyber Serhan Syria

Low Moderate High Severe

cases were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.

Cyber Serhan Syria

Low Moderate High Severe

cases were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.

Shoonah Na'oor Azraq

Muaqqar Family Composition (Composite Indicator) Shelter Vulnerability Rating (VAF)

cases were assessed between July 2014 and April 2015.

101 - 250 Karak