In the second part of the report, it became clear that the Palestinian public did not always evaluate the assistance distributed by the various service providers positively. This could be a consequence of the public’s perception that the provided assistance does not fully answer the main needs and priorities of the community as a whole or on an individual level. This perception will be the object of the analysis in part three of this report.
 

3.1 - Individual perspective

Figure 21, below, indicates that of all the respondents who confirmed not to have received any assistance, 63% stated that they were in need of it, 30% affirmed that they did not need assistance and 6% said that they were not sure whether or not they were in need of assistance.
 

Figure 21 - Need of assistance (q26) for the population [total and by refugee status (q2)] who did not benefit from aid

N= 313 (refugees) / 924 (total) / 609 (non refugees)

Moreover, it becomes clear from figure 21, above, that 71% of the refugees who did not receive any assistance stated that they were in need of it. This percentage falls to 59% among the non-refugee population.

Figure 22, below, indicates that the need for assistance for those who did not receive any differs according to the place of residence of the respondents. In the West Bank, 80% of camp respondents indicated their need for assistance compared to only 49% of Gaza camp residents.

In fact, whereas in the West Bank, more camp respondents than non-camp respondents affirmed their need for assistance, the opposite is true for the Gaza Strip where respondents living outside camps stated more frequently than their colleagues residing in camps that they were in need of assistance.
 

Figure 22 - Need of assistance (q26) by place of residence (q42 & q43)

Figure 23, below, compares the most important needs of the total sample of the survey with those of the respondents who said they were in need of assistance. When looking at the responses of the total sample, the four main needs in order of importance are: financial needs (24%), political and security needs (23%), employment (21%), and food (8%). When looking at the responses of the respondents who said they were in need of assistance, the three main needs in order of importance are: Financial needs (34%), employment (18%), political and security needs (15%), and food (14%). From the comparison of the above figures, three main deductions can be drawn:
 

1. Although financial need is the priority for both the total sample and those respondents who said they were in need of assistance, it was even more valued for the latter than for the former.
2. Although the need for employment is the second priority for the respondents who affirmed their need of assistance and only the third priority for the total sample, the percentage of respondents selecting employment as a need in the total sample is higher than among respondents who said they were in need of assistance.
3. Although food is the fourth priority for both the total sample and those respondents who said they were in need of assistance, it was even more valued for the latter than for the former.

Figure 23 - Most important need for oneself (q27) in general and for those who say they need assistance (q26)

N=1157 (total) / 551 (those who need assistance)

Figure 24 - Most important need from individual perspective (q27) by area of residence (q43)

N=584 (city) / 215 (camp) / 356 (village)

Focusing further on the topic of financial needs, respondents were asked how much money they would need for their household to meet their basic life necessities. The responses averaged at 2733 shekels, and half of the respondents said that they need 2500 shekels or less.

The results in table 7, below, illustrate that the sampled respondents did not overestimate their needs. In fact, by multiplying the average number of people employed in an average sized household by the average income of an employed individual, a number close to the above-mentioned figure can be reached.

A breakdown of the sample according to refugee status did not reveal any significant differences between refugee respondents and non-refugee respondents as to the monthly income necessary to meet basic needs. However, a breakdown according to place of residence, as specified in table 7, did disclose that respondents in Jerusalem and West Bank refugee camps estimated the average monthly income needed to meet ends higher than the respondents in other places of residence.

Although not indicated in a table, it is worth noting that respondents who affirmed their need of assistance, estimated the monthly income to cover basic necessities lower (2568 NIS, N=579) than those who stated that they did not receive any assistance (3017 NIS, N=272).

median=2500 min=100 max=20000

Respondents were also asked how close their present income is to 3000 shekels. The results in table 8, below, indicate that less than 9% of the sampled respondents have a higher household income than the one necessary to meet basic life necessities. Even by including the respondents with revenue close to 3000 shekels, there are still about 70% of the interviewees unable to meet their household’s basic needs.

A breakdown of the total sample according to refugee status reveals that 77% of the refugee respondents compared to 68% of the non-refugee respondents have a household income that does not suffice to meet basic necessities. Analysis on this issue according to place of residence, illustrated in figure 25, below, accentuates the dire financial needs in refugee camps as 82% of the sampled refugee camp households have a monthly income that is either a little or much less than 3000 Shekels.
 

Figure 25 - Household income (q29) by place of residence (q42 & q43)

3.2 - Community perspective

Only 16% of the respondents know of a project that was carried out in their community since al-Aqsa Intifada started. This proportion is about 20% among the refugees, but only 12% among the remainder of the population.

As figure 26 below indicates, emergency assistance was visible to approximately one third of the respondents living in Gaza camps compared to only 6% of those living in Jerusalem. This confirms some of the previous findings in this report.

With a more general area analysis, visibility of assistance reaches 26% in refugee camps, however, with great variation between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Emergency assistance was visible to about 13% of the respondents in villages and to 14% of those in the cities.

Those in the sample who knew about a project had to name it. 187 persons described a project in an open response. This small number does not permit a detailed analysis, however the most cited project was “fixing roads” (32% of the answers); followed by “building and renovating schools” (15%); “building medical centers and clinics (13%); “unemployment” (9%); and “infrastructure” (8%).
 

Figure 26 - Visibility of assistance (q30) projects by place (q42 & q43)

In an open question, the interviewees were asked what, in their opinion, is the most important need for their community. As specified in figure 27, below, 22% of the respondents mentioned job opportunities as the most needed relief for their community, followed by 16% who stated that health related relief is the most important need. Surprisingly, the need for relief that boosts the morale and self-esteem of the population was cited more frequently than the need for food and financial assistance.

A closer analysis on the issue of relief needed by the community according to refugee status reveals that 25% of the refugee respondents compared to 20% of the non-refugee respondents considered job creation as the most important need for their community. However, the need to boost the morale within the community was valued higher by the surveyed non-refugees than by the surveyed refugees (16% against 10%).

A breakdown of the results on relief needed by the community according to the place of residence of the respondents points to some interesting variations in opinions.
 

Figure 27 – Relief needed by your community (q34)

Figure 28 – Relief needed by your community (q34) by place of residence (q42 & q43)

As illustrated in figure 28, above, a very high percentage of Jerusalemite respondents, 49%, considered the need to boost the morale of the community a priority. The need to create job opportunities in the community was higher valued among respondents in the Gaza Strip than among their colleagues in the West Bank and in Jerusalem. Health related relief was a much more important need for West Bank respondents than for respondents in Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

The respondents were also asked to evaluate various types of assistance according to their level of importance and effectiveness. As indicated in table 9, below, assistance in employment generation was rated as highly important by 81% of the respondents. Assistance in health related areas was considered highly important by 73% of the respondents, followed by 71.6% of the respondents who stated that assistance in the field of education was highly important. Aid in terms of food distribution came in fourth with 64.5% of the respondents deeming it to be highly important. Only 45.3% of the respondents rated assistance in the domain of infrastructure as highly important and it is, as such, the least important issue under study.

Assistance was evaluated relatively poorly in terms of its effectiveness. Assistance in health related areas was rated most positively with 50.7% of the respondents stating that it was at least effective, followed by 44.2% of the surveyed public evaluating assistance in the field of education as such. Only 22.1% of the interviewees said that aid related to food distribution was either very effective or effective. Assistance in the field of infrastructure and especially aid in employment generation were evaluated very negatively. Over 88% of the respondents felt that assistance in the domain of infrastructure was either not very effective or not effective at all. Assistance in job creation, which was rated the highest in terms of its importance, was considered by 96.1% of the respondents as either not so effective or not effective at all.

It is worth noting that the relatively better evaluation of assistance both in health related areas and in the field of education might have been a reflection of some positive initiatives taken during the crisis in those domains. The Palestinian Ministry of Education has implemented a decentralization plan that has allowed for a reduction in problems of mobility caused to students and teachers by the closures’ policies of the Israeli authorities. As for health assistance, the work of the PRCS and its mobile clinics, the role of the Ministry of Health and the hospitals, -despite the inconveniencies created by the Israeli army - have all proved very efficient in their mission.

A breakdown of the results according to refugee status on the level of importance of assistance does not reveal any major differences in opinion between refugees and non-refugees. As for the effectiveness of assistance, non-refugees seem to evaluate most types of assistance more positively than refugees, with the exception of health related aid.

Table 10 contains a breakdown of the results according to place of residence on the level of importance and effectiveness of assistance. It shows, for example, that more frequently health assistance was perceived to be effective in Gaza refugee camps than in other places.