GENDER AND MOBILITY Staying inside the home is generally encouraged for women under conservative Rohingya cultural norms. The study determined that women’s mobility for reasons other than basic necessities like healthcare, bathing, and using the latrine has increased somewhat since displacement. Several women who were interviewed described this greater mobility negatively and attributed it to unavoidable circumstances, such as the need to collect rations. Changes in women’s mobility Households in which women went out of the home in Myanmar 36% 7% Net increase in women’s mobility since arriving to camp 43% Households in which women go out of the shelter “ If I have to go out, I go with my father or my brothers. I don’t feel good when we have to receive rations directly. A household member should be able to receive it for us. Going out is not good; it means we have to talk to men. It’s not comfortable. - Rohingya mother of three whose husband is imprisoned in Myanmar, age 28 From Maungdaw, living in Camp 1E CONCLUSIONS The research highlights the role of transnational family networks as a source of support for refugees, and the significant contribution of remittances to many households that have relatives abroad. Mapping extended family networks is important for the present and the future: in the event of repatriation, having no personal ties or assets remaining in Myanmar would be an additional barrier to a refugee’s return. The study finds that while the basic food and material needs of refugees are by and large being addressed through aid, Rohingya families face other economic pressures that create a need for income. To pay for their children’s education, obtain healthcare services not available in camp facilities, buy data packages for their mobile phones, or provide for a daughter’s marriage, refugees have little choice but to accrue debt or find a way to generate an income in an environment with few opportunities. It is important for policymakers and the humanitarian community to understand the limitations of aid, and the role of non-aid resources as an important safety net for camp households. Non-aid resources not only provide economic relief, they also restore a sense of agency and control to an extremely vulnerable population. To live as a Rohingya refugee in Bangladesh means that a host of everyday activities are legally off limits, such as phoning a relative in another country, working as a day laborer, or traveling for a family emergency. Often, these restrictions can only be overcome illicitly, contributing to an environment that encourages risk taking and rule breaking as the only alternatives to desperation. As camps become increasingly securitized, Bangladeshi authorities should weigh short-term gains against longer-term consequences and consider the benefits of relaxing restrictions on work and internet communications. Global experience in peacebuilding has shown that stability takes hold as a people’s sense of agency grows. Bangladesh is undeniably shouldering a great burden by sheltering Rohingya refugees, one that is felt most intensely by host communities. However, gains for refugees do not necessarily equate to losses for local Bangladeshis, and loosening restrictions does not necessarily mean opening the door to assimilation. The aid community and the government of Bangladesh can find mutually agreeable measures to give refugees opportunities for greater selfreliance. Genuine livelihood opportunities inside the camps could relieve pressure on host-community resources, alleviate social tensions, and mitigate the push factors that drive some refugees to leave the camps illegally. Such solutions would serve the best interests of Rohingya and host communities alike.