NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM...

NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT

ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

June 2017

Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine

Cover and internal cover page photos:

IDP and local children in Drohobych, Lviv Region, enjoying the event organized for them within an IOM project

© Petro Zadorozhnyy/AP Images for ESN

3June 2017

The project is funded by the European Union

and implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM)

3



CONTENTS

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

OVERALL SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

• Gender and age structure

• IDP household members

• Education

• IDPs with disabilities

2. EMPLOYMENT OF IDPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

• Employment before and after the displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

• Employment rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. WELL-BEING OF IDPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

• Livelihood opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

• Living conditions and types of accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

• Suspension of social payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

• Loans and debt obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5. IDP MOBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

• Displacement experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

• Visits to the former places of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6. INTEGRATION IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

• Integration rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

• Discrimination experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

• Electoral rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

7. RETURNEES TO THE NON-GOVERMENT-CONTROLLED AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8. ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

The project is funded by the European Union and implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM)

with IDPs from the government-controlled area (GCA) and 391 interviews were with returnees to the non-government controlled area (NGCA). The sampling was derived from the IDP registration da-tabase maintained by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine .

In this round data from telephone interviews was combined with data from face-to-face interviews. The combining of these two data sets was pro-duced with the assistance of a statistical weighting tool. Both data sets were weighted according to the regional distribution of registered IDPs. Telephone data was also weighted according to the socio-demographical characteristics of IDPs interviewed face-to-face1 .

Face-to-face interviews with key informants

Four hundred and eleven (411) key informants were interviewed with this method. They were identified, in cooperation with the Ukrainian Centre of Social Reforms, across the country and were engaged to monitor the developments of the situation with IDPs in the oblasts. Most of the key informants worked in non-governmental organizations (40%), and a sig-nificant share of key informants represented insti-tutions of social protection (22%). In addition, 16% were employed as local authorities, 8% in health care establishments, 2% were engaged in educational in-stitutions, while 12% worked in other organizations.

Focus group discussions

Two focus group discussions (FGDs) with key in-formants, two FGDs with IDPs and one FGD with returnees to the NGCA, were conducted in coop-eration with the Ukrainian Centre of Social Reforms during May 2017. The FGD with returnees took place in Mariupol (Donetsk oblast, government-controlled area).

Please see Annex 1 for more methodological details.

1 Please see Annex 4 for comparison of face-to-face and telephone socio-demographical data.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGYThe objective of the National Monitoring System (NMS) in Ukraine, drawing from IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) approach, is to support the Government of Ukraine in collecting and analysing information on the socio-economic characteristics of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and IDP house-holds, as well as the challenges they faced. IOM adapted the DTM, a system designed to regularly capture, process and disseminate information on dis-placement situations, to the Ukrainian context. The NMS provides a better understanding of the evolving movements and locations, numbers, vulnerabilities and needs of displaced populations in Ukraine.

The survey collected information on socio-economic characteristics of IDPs at individual and household levels, including trends and movement intentions, employment and livelihood opportunities, access to social services and assistance needs in 24 oblasts of Ukraine and the city of Kyiv.

Main information sources used for NMS:

i) Data of sample surveys of IDPs via face-to-face interviews;

ii) Data of sample surveys of IDPs via telephone interviews;

iii) Data of sample surveys of key informants via face-to-face interviews;

iv) Focus group discussions (FGDs);v) Administrative data and relevant data avail-

able from other sources .

Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

One thousand and twenty-five (1,025) IDPs were in-terviewed with this method in cooperation with the Ukrainian Centre of Social Reforms in 205 territorial units across the country during May 2017. The sam-pling of territorial units was devised for all govern-ment-controlled oblasts of Ukraine and distributed in proportion to the number of registered IDPs.

Telephone interviews with IDPs

Three thousand one hundred and nine IDPs (3,109) were interviewed with this method by IOM in April-June 2017. Out of the total, 2,718 interviews were

5June 2017



OVERALL SUMMARY1. Characteristics of IDPs and their households

The average size of household

Age distribution of household members

Gender distribution of household members

Households with children

Persons with disabilities

2 .73 persons60 and over – 17% 18-59 years – 56%

Under 18 years – 27%

Female – 57%Male – 43%

49% of IDP households

8% of IDP households

2. Employment of IDPs. The proportion of the em-ployed among all IDPs increased from 35% to 46%:

Employment of IDPs after displacement by rounds, %

A positive trend in the employment of IDPs was the increase in the share of long-term employment (more than a year) from 33% in March-June 2016 to 67% in June 2017.

3. Well-being of IDPs. The average monthly income per one member of the IDP household steadily increased:

Average income per person (per month), by rounds, UAH

The main sources of income for the respondents were financial support received from the govern-ment for IDPs (61%) and salary (61%). This demon-strates that the majority of IDPs still rely heavily on government support2. The most problematic issues

2 Respondents could choose more than one option

for IDP households throughout the entire monitor-ing period have been various aspects of finding and maintaining housing .

4. Access to social services. IDPs showed a high level (79% or higher) of satisfaction with the accessibility of all basic social services. Respondents were least satisfied with the accessibility of employment op-portunities (69%).

5. IDP mobility. The vast majority of respondents did not move recently with 79% reporting that they have lived in their current place of residence for more than 18 months . The proportion of those intending on returning to their place of origin af-ter the end of conflict grew from 33% (in Septem-ber 2016) to 44% (in June 2017).

The share of IDPs reporting that they returned to their place of residence in the conflict zone after the first displacement has steadily increased, from 32% in March-June 2016 to 48% in June 2017.

IDPs reporting having visited NGCA, %

Main reasons to travel to the NGCA were maintain-ing housing (63%), transportation of belongings (52%) and visiting friends or family (49%)3 .

3 Respondents could choose more than one option



6. Integration in local communities. According to the survey of IDP households, the proportion of per-sons who felt totally integrated into the local com-munity rose to 68%, an increase in 12% from the previous report. The main conditions for integration were housing, regular income and employment.

Round 5 (March 2017), %

Round 6 (June 2017), %

Integrated in local communities

56 68

Discrimination based on IDP status was experienced by 10% of respondents. The IDPs reported that cases of discrimination based on their status were experi-enced in the following: housing (46%), employment (31%), healthcare (22%), and daily interactions with the local population (19%).

7. Returnees to the NGCA. About half of the return-ees (44%) were older than 60 years. The employ-ment level of IDPs who returned to the NGCA was 24%. The main sources of income for IDPs that re-turned to the NGCA were retirement pension (41%) and salary (34%).

Seventy-three (73%) per cent of respondents in the NGCA reported that their reason to return was be-cause they owned property in the NGCA and there is no need to pay rent .

Safety remained the main issue for IDPs that re-turned to NGCA (33%). Seventy-three percent (73%) of the returnees plan to stay in the NGCA during the next three months.

7June 2017



Almost all IDPs (94.4%) stated that they have regis-tered within the social protection system of the Min-istry of Social Policy (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. IDP registration within Ministry of Social Policy system, %

Rounds 1-3(March-

June 2016)

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Yes 92 .7 92 .1 96 .5 94 .4

No 7 .0 7 .6 3 .5 5 .4

Do not know

0 .3 0 .3 0 0 .2

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

During the focus group discussions, the IDPs and key informants noted that typically, persons that do not register are those who are not in need of gov-ernment support. However, occasionally the lack of registration is connected to bureaucratic barriers (Source: Focus groups with IDPs; Focus groups with key informants).

During the interviews, the respondents were asked about the composition of their households. The av-erage size of households was identified as 2.73 per-sons, which is higher than the average household size in Ukraine at 2.58, according to 2016 data4. Most IDP households (58%) are composed of two or three persons (Figure 1.2).

4 Socio-demographic characteristics of households in Ukraine in 2016 (according to a sample survey of living conditions of households). Statistical Bulletin. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2016.

Figure 1.2. Distribution of IDP households in Ukraine, by number of members, %


Compared to the total population of Ukraine, the share of households among IDPs with 3 or more per-sons is higher, while the share of households with 1-2 persons is lower.

Households with children made up almost half (49%) of all IDP households (Figure 1.3). At the same time, households with one child constitute almost two-thirds of the total number of households with children.

Figure 1.3. Distribution of households with or without children, %


1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS



The share of households with children among IDPs is 10.5% higher than the general household composi-tion in Ukraine. This shows that families with chil-dren were more likely to move from the non-govern-ment controlled areas (NGCA).

Women represent 57% of surveyed IDP household members, which is slightly higher than the pro-portion of women among the total population of Ukraine (54% as of 01 January 20165). The preva-lence of women among IDPs was observed in all age groups 18 years and older and matches the findings from the previous reports (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4. Gender and age distribution of IDP surveyed household members, %


The share of IDPs aged 60 and over are almost 1.3 times lower compared to the general population. Whereas the share of IDPs aged fewer than 18 is al-most 1.5 times higher.

Eight (8%) per cent of IDP households reported mem-bers who are persons with disabilities (Figure 1.5).

5 Distribution of the permanent population of Ukraine by gender and age as of January 1, 2016. Statistical Bulletin. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2016.

Figure 1.5. Distribution of IDP households with people with disabilities (I-III disability groups, children with disabilities), %


The level of education among the IDPs over 18 years old is high, where 63% have some form of higher education (Figure 1.6). Highly educated individuals were more likely to move from the non-government-controlled areas (NGCA).

Figure 1.6. Distribution of IDP household members by educational attainment, % of household members older than 18 y.o.


Among adult women, the proportion of those with some form of higher education is 64% and among adult men 61%.

9June 2017



Employment before and after the displacementAlthough employment remained one of the key chal-lenges identified by the IDPs, compared to the previ-ous rounds of the survey, there were indications of a gradual stabilization of the situation in this sphere by many parameters .

According to the results of the current round, the share of employed IDPs increased from 41% to 46%, and the differences between the employment rates from before and after the respondents’ displace-ment decreased from 19% to 15% (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Employment of IDPs before and after displacement by rounds, %


Another positive trend was also a steady decline of currently unemployed IDPs from September 2016 (Figure 2.2). According to the results of Round 6, there were almost no gender differences in IDP em-ployment rates. However, the share of women was two times higher than men in the economically in-active group (pensioners, persons with disabilities, women on maternity leave).

Figure 2.2. Employment of IDPs after displacement by rounds, %

Rounds 1-3(March –

June 2016)

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Yes 35 40 41 46

No 26 38 28 19

Pensioners, persons with disabilities, maternity leave

39 22 31 35


The largest proportion of employed IDPs reside in the fourth geographic zone (Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhyto-myr, Vinnytsia, Odesa oblasts), and the smallest per-centage in the third (Sumy, Poltava, Cherkasy, Kiro-vohrad, Mykolaiv, Kherson oblasts) and fifth (West-ern part of Ukraine) zones (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. IDPs employment after displacement, by geographic zones, %6

36%60%

37%49%

41%

– zone 5 – zone 4 – zone 3 – zone 2 – zone 1


6 Grouping of oblasts into zones is by distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Please see Annex 2 for more details .

2. EMPLOYMENT OF IDPs



Before displacement, the gender difference of em-ployed IDPs (aged 18-59 years old) was insignificant, while after displacement 12% more men than wom-en are employed (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Employment of IDPs, before and after displacement by gender, % of IDPs 18-59 years old


Based on the results of Rounds 1-6, the employment rate among IDPs was lower compared to the recent national indicators7 and the percentage of the eco-nomically inactive population (pensioners, persons with disabilities, maternity leave) was smaller.

The sectors IDPs were employed in before displace-ment is similar to those after displacement. In com-parison to the pre-conflict period, the share of those employed in industry decreased (from 14% to 9%) and those employed in public administration in-creased (from 11% to 15%) (Figure 2.5).

7 In Ukraine, the employment rate of the population aged 15-70, on average, in 2016, was 56.3%, the unemployment rate was 9.3%, and the percentage of the economically inactive population was 37.8%. Source: Economic activity of the population in 2016: Statistical Bulletin/State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2017. – 23 p.

Figure 2.5. Changes in sectors of employment before and after displacement, % of IDPs 18-59 years old


Employment ratesSignificant gender imbalances were observed in almost all spheres of current employment of IDPs aged 18-59 years. In the industry, transportation and construction sectors, the prevalence is in favour of men; the trade, education, public administration, and service sectors favour women (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6. Changes in sectors of employment after displacement by gender, %


11June 2017



A positive trend in IDP employment is the increase in the share of long-term employment (of more than one year) in their current job (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7. Distribution of IDPs by duration of employment in current job by rounds, % of employed respondents


June 2016)

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Less than a month

6 5 3 1

1-6 months 27 23 10 12

7-12 months 33 30 23 19

More than 12 months

33 41 62 67

No response 1 1 2 1


There were settlement type differences in the length of employment reported by IDPs. Long-term employ-ment (13 months and more) prevailed in rural areas, and most IDPs employed between 7-12 months re-side in cities (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.8. Distribution of IDPs by duration of employment in current job by type of settlement, % of employed respondents


Also, the proportion of IDPs that managed to find a job after displacement and whose current em-ployment corresponded to their qualifications was steadily increasing (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9. Correspondence of the IDPs’ current job with their qualification by rounds, % of employed respondents

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Corresponds 59 67 74

Does not correspond

41 33 26


It was more difficult for IDPs to find a new job fitting their previous qualifications in cities and towns than in villages (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10. Correspondence of IDPs’ current employment after displacement to previous qualifications, distributed by settlement type, % of employed respondents


Key informants agreed that it was difficult for IDPs to find a job meeting their previous qualifications, but reported that IDPs were willing to attend re-training programmes if they were offered a job with a high salary (Source: Focus groups with key informants).

Among the unemployed IDPs, direct employment was recognized as the most effective means of sup-port, with the share of such responses rising steadily from September 2016 (Figure 2.11).



Figure 2.11. Distribution of unemployed IDPs in need of a job, by type of preferred support by rounds, %

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Direct employment 43 46 63

Start-up of own business 10 10 10

Retraining 13 13 8

Consultation in employment centre

5 4 6

Education 10 2 5

Other 4 3 0

No response 15 22 8


Eighty-two (82%) per cent of men and 58% of women reported that their preferred support was direct employment. Retraining, starting-up their own business and consultation in the employment centres were shown to be more popular among women (Figure 2.12).8

8 The shares were statistically weighted by gender

Figure 2.12. IDPs who need jobs by type of preferred support and gender, %


13June 2017



Livelihood opportunitiesThe level of well-being of most IDPs remains low, although according to the respondents’ self-as-sessment, the share of vulnerable households that had to limit expenses even for food decreased by 2.5 times throughout the monitoring period (from 38% in Rounds 1-3 to 15% in Round 6). The propor-tion of IDP households that had enough funds only for food still remains high at 44% (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. IDPs’ self-assessment of the financial situation of their households by rounds, %

Rounds 1-3

(March – June 2016)

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Have to limit expenses even for food

38 29 23 15

Enough funds only for food 40 42 45 44

Enough funds for food, necessary clothing, footwear, basic needs

20 28 29 38

Enough funds for basic and other needs . Have savings

1 1 1 2

No response 1 0 2 1


According to the results of Round 6, the largest share of households that had to limit expenses, even for food, is 26% in towns (villages – 15%, cities – 10%). The largest share of households that have enough funds for food, necessary clothing, footwear and urgent needs is 49% in cities (in villages – 34%, in towns – 21%) (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. IDPs’ self-assessment of the financial situation of their households by type of locality, %


Compared to the recent general trends in Ukraine9, the biggest disparity, according to the IDPs’ self-as-sessment, was observed primarily among the most vulnerable households that limited expenses even for food. Their share (15%) is three times higher than the average national level (5%). Also, the share of IDP households that can accrue savings is less (2% versus 6% for the general population).

The average monthly income per IDP household member has increased from UAH 1,991 to UAH 2,017 in the current round (Figure 3.3). However, the aver-age monthly income level of IDPs was still low com-pared with the actual subsistence level calculated by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, which pub-lished rates in April 2017 at UAH 2,862 (taking into

9 Distribution of households in Ukraine based on the self-assessment of their income during 2015: did not earn enough even for food – 5%; constantly spared on the most necessary items, except for food – 43%; enough funds, but did not make savings – 46%; enough funds and made savings – 6%. Source: Self-assessment of households in Ukraine of their income level (according to a sample household survey in January 2016): Statistical Bulletin/State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2016. – 76 p.

3. WELL-BEING OF IDPs



account the amount of personal income tax, the sub-sistence level is even higher at UAH 3,280)10 .

Figure 3.3. Average income per person (per month), by rounds, UAH


According to the results of Round 6, by settlement type, the largest amount of average monthly income per IDP household member was UAH 2,230 in cities (towns – UAH 1,501 and rural areas – UAH 2,058).

The IDPs from the fourth (Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia, Odesa oblasts) and the first (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts) zones reported having a higher av-erage income per person than the IDPs from other geographic zones (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4. Average income per person (per month), by geographic zones, UAH

1,6842,748

1,4141,849

1,975



10 Background information for households in Ukraine in 2015: the average per capita equivalent total income (per month) was UAH 2,427.51, the average per capita equivalent monetary income (per month) was UAH 2,216.11. Source: Household expenditures and resources in Ukraine in 2015 (according to a sample survey of household living conditions in Ukraine): Statistical Bulletin/State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2016. – 380 p.

According to the results of the last two rounds of IDP monitoring, a positive trend was reflected in an increase in the share of households who indicated their average monthly income for the past 6 months ranged between UAH 7,001-11,000 (from 8% to 14%) (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5. Distribution of IDP households by monthly income by rounds, %

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Up to UAH 1,500 4 5

UAH 1,500–3,000 21 19

UAH 3,001–5,000 26 23

UAH 5,001–7,000 21 19

UAH 7,001–11,000 8 14

Over UAH 11,000 5 5

Difficult to answer or no response

15 15


Respondents reported government IDP support (61%) and salary (61%) as their main sources of in-come, with the percentage of those reporting salary as a major source increasing steadily since March-June 2016 (Figure 3.6). The high levels of respon-dents who receive support from the Government shows that the majority of IDPs still rely heavily on government assistance.

Figure 3.6. Salary as a source of income in IDP households, by rounds, %


Two more sources of income were consistently im-portant for the IDPs, retirement/long service pen-sions (35%) and social assistance (32%). Those who reported irregular earnings were likely to be sea-sonal workers (15-19% during the monitoring pe-

15June 2017



riod), and the share of humanitarian assistance as a source of income for IDPs was gradually decreasing (from 32% in March-June 2016 to 14% in June 2017) (Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7. Main sources of income in households of surveyed returnees to the NGCA in the past 12 months, %


June 2016)

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Salary 43 46 56 61

Government IDP support 50 57 59 61

Retirement or long service pension

Х 30 33 35

Social assistance 44 33 33 32

Irregular earnings 18 19 15 16

Humanitarian assistance 32 17 16 14

Financial support from relatives residing in Ukraine

Х Х 5 8

Disability pension Х 8 7 6

Social pension Х 3 5 4

Other incomes Х 3 2 2

Note: Respondents could choose more than one optionSource: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

The most problematic issues for IDP households con-sistently, were various aspects related to housing. In particular, in June 2017, 22% of respondents identi-fied the improvement of living conditions as one of their most acute problems. Twenty-one (21%) per cent said that paying rent was most problematic and 14% stated paying for utilities. However, the issue of unemployment is slowly decreasing (Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.8. The most problematic issues for IDP households by rounds, %

Round 4

(September 2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Living conditions 22 27 22

Payment for rent 13 23 21

Payment for utilities 19 20 14

Unemployment 18 13 11

Lack of opportunity to return to the place of permanent residence

x x 10

Suspension of social payments

7 2 4

Access to medicines 5 5 4

Other 9 4 3

None of the above 6 4 9

No response 1 2 2


Key informants view IDP problems a bit differently in terms of severity and consider unemployment the most problematic issue (33%), followed by living conditions (17%), payment for rent (10%) and pay-ment for utilities (10%) (Source: Face-to-face inter-views with key informants).

According to key informants, the most important types of IDP support included housing (83%), decent jobs (72%), and the provision of monetary assistance from the State (63%). Also mentioned as important was the provision of psychological support (35%), monetary assistance from other donors (33%), ob-taining new qualifications through additional training (32%) and humanitarian assistance (32%) (Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants).



Living conditions and types of accommodation Most IDPs had to rent various types of accommo-dation (houses, apartments or a room in an apart-ment). Also, a significant proportion of IDPs contin-ued to reside with relatives or host families. Accord-ing to the results of the last round only 2% reside in housing they own (Figure 3.9).

Figure 3.9. IDP accommodation types by rounds, %


June 2016)

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Rented apartment 43 40 43 42

Host family / relatives 20 25 22 23

Rented house 16 15 16 16

Rented room in an apartment

7 7 7 7

Dormitory 8 6 3 6

Collective centres for IDPs

3 2 6 4

Own housing 1 4 1 2

Other 2 1 2 0


The level of IDPs’ satisfaction with the current liv-ing conditions was constantly increasing in all basic characteristics of housing amenities and the highest level of satisfaction in the last three rounds of the survey was related to the availability of electricity and feeling safe (Figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10. IDPs’ satisfaction with living conditions by rounds, % of satisfied

Round 4

(September 2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Electricity 87 89 95

Safety 82 85 93

Sewerage 76 81 89

Water supply 75 82 88

Heating 70 75 81

Insulation 70 73 80

Living space 69 70 75


The results of focus groups show that IDPs consid-ered the purchase of their own housing impossible due to the constant lack of funds for even basic household needs. It also remained problematic for the IDPs to officially rent an apartment because they do not have all the necessary documents (Source: Focus groups with key informants) . In order to limit expenses, some IDP families jointly rented housing (Source: Focus groups with IDPs).

According to key informants’ observations, IDPs’ poor living conditions affected their well-being. High payments for housing (primarily rent) made it impossible to ensure improvement of living condi-tions. There were cases when the most vulnerable categories, single mothers or large families, settled in remote districts of oblasts and/or in abandoned houses, and the assistance of the local community was not sufficient to substantially improve their situ-ation (Source: Focus groups with key informants).

Some IDPs continued to face a lack of household appliances, furniture and utensils, among others. Retired IDPs, who were former city residents, have found it hard to get used to new living conditions in the rural areas, mainly due to a lack of water supply and sewage (Source: Focus groups with IDPs).

17June 2017



Suspension of social payments During September 2016 – June 2017, more than 20% of respondents or their families faced suspension of social payments (Figure 3.11). A positive trend is noted in respect to the reduction of cases with social payment suspension during the period from Sep-tember 2016 – June 2017.

Figure 3.11. IDPs who have had social payments suspended, %


The largest numbers of cases of suspension of social assistance were for the monthly housing assistance for IDPs. As for other types of social assistance, there was an improvement in the timeliness of receiving retirement or long service pension and allowances for families with children (Figure 3.12).

Figure 3.12. Distribution of IDPs by types of suspended social payments, % of respondents who have had social payments suspended

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

IDP support (monthly housing support for IDPs) 82 86 89

Retirement or long service pension 16 14 9

Allowance for families with children 11 7 8

Disability pension 5 6 5

Other pension (in connection with the loss of breadwinner, social pension)

3 4 3

Unemployment benefits 1 0 0

Other 4 1 0


The gradual increase among such respondents re-porting the receipt of suspension notifications was observed (Figure 3.13).

Figure 3.13. IDPs who received suspension notification, % of respondents who have had social payments suspended


Also the number of IDPs who were aware of reasons behind the suspension of social payments increased from 58% to 72% (Figure 3.14).

Figure 3.14. IDPs, who were aware of the reasons behind suspension of social payments, % of respondents who have had social payments suspended


Among the IDPs that faced suspension of social pay-ments, the percentage of those familiar with the procedure to renew the social payments grew con-siderably since Round 4 (Figure 3.15).

Figure 3.15. IDPs, who were aware about the procedure on how to renew the social payments, % of respondents who have had social payments suspended




Among the respondents of Round 6 who faced the suspension of social payments, 89% addressed the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine on the issue (Fig-ure 3.16) and payments were renewed for 72% of those IDPs (Figure 3.17).

Figure 3.16. Distribution of IDPs addressing the suspension issue to the social protection structural unit on the renewal of social payments, % of respondents who have had social payments suspended

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Figure 3.17. Distribution of IDPs who have had social payments renewed, % of respondents who have had social payments renewed


According to the focus group discussion results, the suspension of social payments had extremely nega-tive consequences for the well-being of certain IDPs, as they lost their main source of income for a period of two to six months (Source: Focus group discus-sions with IDPs) .

Loans and debt obligationsAccording to the survey carried out in September 2016, 9% of IDPs had loans or debt obligations. In June 2017, only 5% of IDPs reported that they or their household members had loans or debt obliga-tions, which marks a decrease of 4% (Figure 3.18).

Figure 3.18. IDP households with loans or debts by rounds, %

Round 4 (September 2016)

Round 6(June 2017)

Had loans or debts 9 5

Did not had 90 95

No response 1 0


The respondents who reported having loans or debts indicated that they used various sources. In particu-lar, 91% of borrowers used bank funds, while 4% went through specialized credit and financial institu-tions (credit unions, companies financing instalment sales), 4% borrowed from employers’ funds and 4% from an individuals’ funds (friends, acquaintances, etc.) (Figure 3.19).

Figure 3.19. Loan source, % of IDP households who had loans or debt obligations


Key informants pointed out that although the IDPs had the right to obtain loans, in practice the banks often refused to work with them (Source: Focus groups with key informants).

19June 2017



The IDPs generally showed a high level of satisfac-tion with the accessibility of all basic social services, primarily health care (88%), administrative services (84%) and education services (84%). Seventy-nine (79%) per cent of IDPs were satisfied with acces-sibility of social protections (access to pensions or social assistance). And employment opportunities remained the category with the least satisfaction (69%) (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. IDP satisfaction with social services, % of satisfied


According to the focus group discussions with IDPs, the respondents were dissatisfied with the inacces-sibility of medical infrastructure in rural areas. In vil-

lages where there are no pharmacies and it is nec-essary to travel to another locality in order to buy medicines. There are also issues connected with emergency calls or ambulance rides such as, the need to pay for petrol (Source: Focus group discus-sions with IDPs).

Key informants observed that access to housing and employment were complicated for IDPs, only 19% of informants considered housing “fully accessible to IDPs” and 41% reported employment as accessible. All other areas – health care services, education, social protection, social services – were considered more accessible to IDPs (indicators higher than 70%) (Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants).

The vast majority of IDPs (90%) feel safe at their cur-rent place of residence (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2. IDPs assessment on the safety of the environment and infrastructure of the settlement, %

I feel safe 90

I feel unsafe in the evenings and in remote areas of the settlement

8

I feel unsafe most of the time 1

Other 0

No response 1


4. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES



Displacement experience Seventy-nine (79%) per cent of the interviewed IDPs lived in their current place of residence for more than 18 months (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. How long have you been staying in the current place of residence?, %

Till 6 months 6

7-12 months 11

13-18 months 4

19-24 months 13

25-30 months 28

More than 30 months 38


For most of the interviewed IDPs (76%), the current place of residence was also the first location after displacement (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2. Is this your first place of residence after displacement?, %


The majority of focus group participants also report-ed that they did not move to another settlement after initial displacement. Some participants noted that they changed their place of residence along with the changes of the location of the organiza-tion where they worked. As a criterion for choosing a new place of residence, the focus groups partici-pants often stated the presence of relatives in that settlement (Source: Focus groups with IDPs).

The proportion of persons who changed their place of residence after initial displacement significantly increased the further they moved from the NGCA: from 12% in the oblasts closest to NGCA to 27% in oblasts farthest from NGCA (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3. Change in place of residence, %

27%22%

21%18%

12%



The main reasons for the relocation of IDPs from their previous place of residence included housing issues (49%) and high rent (27%), as well as the lack of employment opportunities (34%) (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4. Reasons given for changing the previous residence, % of those who changed residence


5. IDP MOBILITY

21June 2017



Key informants often mentioned family reunification as an important reason IDPs moved (Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants).

The majority of respondents expect to return to their places of residence where they were living prior to their displacement, but they plan to do it after the end of the conflict or in the distant future. Within the last three rounds, the proportion of those planning to return after the end of conflict grew from 33% to 44%. The general intention to return (all types of “yes” answers) was 62% of respondents. However, a quarter of the respondents firmly expressed their intention not to return, even after the end of the conflict (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5. General IDP intentions on returning to live in the place of residence before displacement, %

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Yes, in the near future 2 1 0

Yes, after the end of conflict

33 39 44

Yes, maybe in the future 18 17 18

No 27 26 25

Difficult to answer 16 17 13

No response 4 0 0


The proportion of those who abandoned plans to return to their places of residence before the con-flict started was higher among men than among women. Also, the indicator of no intention to return increased dramatically the further the IDP was from the NGCA (Figure 5.6).

Figure 5.6. IDPs, who do not plan to return to live in place of residence before displacement, %

51%43%

43%23%

18%



Over the next three months, most IDPs (77.1%) plan to stay in their current place of residence . The plans to move abroad were reported only by 0.4% of the respondents (Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7. Distribution of IDPs by plans for the next three months, %


In general, the trend towards finding a job abroad was low. Only 0.2% of IDPs have experience working abroad in the past three years. About five per cent (4.8%) of IDPs reported that their relatives (spous-es, children, parents or other relatives) had worked abroad (Figure 5.8).



Figure 5.8. Distribution of IDPs by experience of work abroad during the last three years, %


Less than 2% of key informants reported that the IDPs from their oblast had gone to other countries within the past three months. At the same time, almost 30% of key informants indicated that there were adver-tised opportunities in their settlements to go abroad (Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants).

Poland, Canada and the USA were the most desir-able countries for IDPs in terms of job searches (Fig-ure 5.9). The attractiveness of the Russian Federation as a potential country of employment for IDPs was low, which was consistent with the general trend of reduced intentions towards seeking employment in the Russian Federation.

Figure 5.9. Distribution of IDPs by country they would prefer to look for a job (top 10 countries), %

Poland 32

USA 19

Canada 11

Czech Republic 8

Italy 8

Belarus 3

The Russian Federation 2

Spain 2

Hungary 2

Portugal 1


According to the survey, only 3% of the IDPs were offered refugee status abroad, and only 1% were offered jobs abroad without official employment (Fi gure 5.10 and Figure 5.11).

Figure 5.10. Distribution of IDPs by offers to obtain refugee status abroad, %


Figure 5.11. Distribution of IDPs by offers of a job abroad without official employment, %


Visits to the former places of residenceThe proportion of IDPs reporting that they returned to their place of residence in the conflict zone after the first displacement was steadily increasing, to about half (48%) in June 2017; a 6% increase in com-parison with the previous round (Figure 5.12).

Figure 5.12. IDPs reporting having visited NGCA, %


23June 2017



The main reasons to travel to the NGCA were visiting and maintaining housing (63%), transportation of belongings (52%) and visiting friends or family (49%). Such reasons, as visiting friends or family, increased from 35% (Round 5) to 49% (Round 6) (Figure 5.13).

Figure 5.13. Reasons for IDPs to visit NGCA after displacement, % of respondents who are visiting NGCA

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Visiting and / or maintaining housing 68 63

Transportation of belongings 53 52

Visiting friends and/or family 35 49

Special occasions, such as weddings or funerals

6 7

Research of return opportunities 6 4

Operations with property (sale, rent) 4 3

Other 2 1


For the IDPs that did not visit the NGCA after dis-placement, the main reason for this was the percep-tion that it was ‘life-threatening’ (Figure 5.14).

Figure 5.14. Reasons for IDPs not to visit NGCA after displacement, % of respondents who are not visiting NGCA

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Life-threatening 45 52

Because of the lack of financial possibilities

16 14

Because of health reasons 14 14

Because of political reasons 13 9

No property remains and/or no relatives or friends remain

10 7

Other 1 2

No response 1 2


The majority of IDPs (87%) said that they faced barri-ers to visiting the NGCA, while 13% said that they did not face any problem which is more than 1.5 times

less than in the previous round.

The most important barriers encountered were queues at the check points along the contact line (56%), availability of transportation (43%) and fear for life that increased from 24% in September 2016 to 41% in June 2017 (Figure 5.15). Men reported ‘’fear for life” less frequently than women (33% ver-sus 43% respectively).

Figure 5.15. Most important barriers to visits to NGCA, % of respondents who visited NGCA after displacement

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Queues on the contact line 58 77 56

Availability of transportation 40 50 43

Fear for life 24 38 41

Health status 14 13 13

Problems with registration crossing documents 17 8 10

Fear of robbery 4 7 5

Fear of violence 3 5 3

Other 4 2 2


The main sources of information for IDPs on the situa-tion in the NGCA were television (68%), Internet (53%) and information from their relatives or friends (47%) who continued to reside in the NGCA (Figure 5.16).

Figure 5.16. Distribution of IDPs by source of information on NGCA, %

Note: Respondents could choose more than one optionSource: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)



Integration ratesThe proportion of persons who felt integrated into the local community was 68% (an increase of 12%) and the proportion of IDPs that did not consider themselves integrated into the host community de-creased from 11% to 6% in June 2017 (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1. IDPs’ self-assessment of their integration in the local community, %

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Yes 56 68

Partly 32 25

No 11 6

No response 1 1


By geography, the IDPs residing in the first geograph-ic zone (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts – GCA) and the fifth zone (Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts) felt the most integrated .

Also IDPs in large cities felt less integrated than in towns or rural areas (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2. IDPs’ self-assessment of their integration in the local community by type of settlement, %


According to the survey, the majority of key infor-mants positively assessed the integration of IDPs into the life of the local communities: almost 45% of the key informants noted that the IDPs residing in their settlements were sufficiently integrated into the host communities, while another 45% of the key informants noted that the majority of IDPs were in-tegrated to some extent. The indication that the IDPs did not integrate into the community was reported by only 4% of informants (Source: Face-to-face inter-views with key informants) .

The results of focus groups with key informants showed that the integration of IDPs significantly de-pended on the motivation and individual character-istics of each person. The more active and sociable persons, in particular children, easily integrated into a new environment, whereas some IDPs could not adapt because of their tendency towards introver-sion (Source: Focus groups with key informants). The results of focus group discussions with IDPs con-firmed these findings.

The main conditions for successful integration were housing, regular income and employment, both for IDPs living in large cities and for those who live in small towns and villages (Figure 6.3). Housing re-mained the most important condition for the in-tegration of IDPs into the local community at their current place of residence (79%). The significance of this factor increased for IDPs living in cities, and even more so for those in rural areas. In March 2017, this was an important condition for integration for 57% of IDPs living in rural areas, whereas in June 2017 it was important for 82%. Thus, the influence of this factor on successful integration into the local com-munity increased .

The FGD results also confirmed the vital importance of housing availability and employment opportuni-ties for the integration of IDPs into host communities (Source: Focus group discussions with IDPs).

6. INTEGRATION IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES

25June 2017



Figure 6.3. Conditions for IDP integration in the current local community by type of settlement, %


In addition to the above integration conditions, key informants considered proper social protections a crucial factor. Overall, the priority factors contribut-ing to the integration of IDPs into the host commu-nities did not significantly change compared to the previous round of the survey (Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants) .

Discrimination experienceDiscrimination based on IDP status was experienced by 10% of respondents, which was much less than the survey results for March 2017 (Figure 6.4). At the same time, only 7% of the IDPs interviewed face-to-face af-firmatively answered the question “Did you or your household members experience any discrimination?”.

Figure 6.4. Distribution of IDPs by discrimination experienced directly by respondents or by their household members, by rounds, %

Round 4(September

2016)

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Yes 9 18 10

No 90 77 86

No response 1 5 4


The share of IDPs that experienced discrimination (directly or by their household members) decreased in this round to the level of September 2016. Thus, the increase in the proportion of IDPs, which experi-enced discrimination based on their status in March 2017 may be explained by the suspension of social payments and, as a consequence, the difficulties with the satisfaction of their basic needs, in partic-ular housing . The share of respondents that faced suspension of social payments, among those who experienced discrimination in March 2017 is con-siderably higher than in the totality, 45% compared to 24%, respectively. Most of them faced payment suspensions in 2016 (72%) and 2017 (20%) in con-nection with personal data authentication and the need to renew documents. The verification of actual residence of IDPs was carried out not less than once every six months and the aggravation in regards to discrimination in March 2017 may be related to the inspections of the places of residence of IDPs and the following suspension of social payments11 .

The IDPs noted that cases of discrimination based on their status mainly concerned housing (46%), em-ployment (31%), healthcare (22%), and daily inter-actions with the local population (19%) (Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.5. Spheres of discrimination, % of IDPs who experienced discrimination


11 Resolution of the Government of Ukraine #365 of June 8, 2016 ‘Some issues of social payments to IDPs’ http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/uk/cardnpd?docid=249110200



The known cases of discrimination based on other characteristics (not IDP status) in their settlements were reported by 5% of key informants and most of them referred to characteristics such as age, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, as well as disability. The cases of discrimination based on other characteris-tics related mainly to social interactions (respect), social protections, general education, employment and everyday life (Source: Face-to-face interviews key informants) .

According to FGD results in Round 6, most persons noted there was no discrimination, but there were cases where the attitude towards IDPs was biased. For example, they had limited access to social pro-tection services compared to the local population (Source: Focus groups with IDPs; Focus groups with key informants).

Key informants (6%) reported on known cases of tension between the IDPs and the host community population and 2% noted tensions between the IDPs and combatants who returned from the con-flict zone. Such cases concerned renting housing, employment and personal communication (Source: Face-to-face interviews key informants) .

The most effective channels for informing the public about the existing issues facing the IDPs and at the same time addressing the problems, according to 46% of interviewed IDPs, was communication with local authorities and informing the media according to 43% (Figure 6.6).

Figure 6.6. The best way for the voice of IDPs to be heard to find appropriate solutions to existing problems, %


However, key informants highlighted the media (38%) and considered communication with local authorities as the second most important channel (21%) (Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants) .

During the FGDs, the IDPs and key informants dis-cussed the need for more active informing of the local and central authorities and their direct in-volvement in addressing the issues faced by IDPs (Source: Focus groups with IDPs; Focus groups with key informants).

Electoral rightsAccording to the results of interviews with IDPs, only 4% of the respondents said that they voted at the place of IDP registration during the local elections in 2015 (Figure 6.7). IDPs and key informants discussed that the main reason why the IDPs failed to vote dur-ing the local elections in 2015, was the lack of local registration (residence registration) (Source: Focus groups with IDPs and key informants).

Figure 6.7. Distribution of IDPs’ responses to the question “Did you vote at the place of IDP registration at the local elections in 2015?”, %


Out of the IDPs who did not vote during the local elec-tions in 2015, 98% still have not applied to change their electoral address (Figure 6.8). Two years later such a large share of IDPs has not changed their elec-toral registration and if elections are held, they will not be able to vote again.

27June 2017



Figure 6.8. Applied for change of electoral address, % of those who did not vote


Out of those who did not apply for a change of lo-cal electoral address and therefore did not vote, the main reasons were lack of time (27%), lack of infor-mation on how to vote at the place of displacement (23%), unwillingness to participate in elections (19%) and lack of information on where to apply for a tem-porary electoral address (13%) (Figure 6.9).

Figure 6.9. Reasons for not applying for change of electoral address, % of those who did not apply for change of electoral address

I had no time 27

I did not know how to vote in displacement 23

I have never been interested in participating in elections 19

I wanted to but I did not know where to apply to get a temporary electoral address

13

I do not feel part of the host community enough to vote at local elections

7

I wanted to vote but did not manage to get a temporary electoral address

4

Other 2

No response 5


Exercising their right to vote and the opportunity to vote in elections was considered important by 45% of IDPs, however 50% said that it was not important for them (Figure 6.10).

Figure 6.10. Distribution of IDPs by importance of the right to vote, %


It was repeatedly suggested that the lack of oppor-tunities for IDPs to participate in elections was a dis-crimination against their civil rights (Source: Focus groups with IDPs; Focus groups with key informants).

According to IDPs, the main mechanisms aimed to ensure the fulfilment of their right to vote in elec-tions include the transfer of information about IDP registration to the State Register of Voters (74%) and the personal application of the person willing to vote (22%) (Figure 6.11).

Figure 6.11. Appropriate mechanism to ensure the implementation of the IDPs’ right to vote, % of respondents for whom the right to vote is important




When conducting the telephone survey, which in-cluded 3,109 interviews in all oblasts of Ukraine, 391 respondents were identified as IDPs who returned to the NGCA and currently live there.

The returnees most often indicated their former place of residence in Kharkiv (27%), Donetsk (18%) and Luhansk (10%) oblasts.

Women prevailed by number among surveyed re-turnee households to the NGCA, reaching 58%. About half of the returnees (44%) were older than 60 years of age (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1. Gender and age distribution of household members of surveyed returnees to the NGCA, %

Source: Telephone interviews with IDPs, returned to the NGCA

The level of employment of IDPs that returned to the NGCA was 24% (Figure 7.2). This is significantly low-er than the level of employment in the GCA, at 46%.

Figure 7.2. Employment of returnees to the NGCA after displacement, %


The returnees reported that they had problems with finding a job in the NGCA, stating that mines were closed (one of the largest industries before the con-flict) and that a pre-condition for getting a job was military registration. In these conditions, the rural residents benefitted from work on private farms (Source: Focus group with returnees).

Among the returnees to the NGCA, the proportion of urban residents was 96% and 4% resided in rural areas .

The level of well-being of returnees remained low. Focus group participants noted that food prices in the NGCA were higher than in the GCA, which exac-erbated the issue of well-being (Source: Focus group with returnees).

According to the respondents’ self-assessment, nearly half of them claimed that they had enough funds only for food or even had to limit expenses for food. Only 35% of returnees had enough funds for their basic needs (Figure 7.3).

Figure 7.3. Self-assessment of the financial situation of households of returnees to the NGCA, %


7. RETURNEES TO THE NON-GOVERMENT-CONTROLLED AREAS

29June 2017



The monthly income of most households of return-ees did not exceed 5,000 UAH (54%) (Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4 Distribution of households of returnees to the NGCA by monthly income, %

Up to UAH 1,500 16

UAH 1,500–3,000 19

UAH 3,001–5,000 19

UAH 5,001–7,000 6

UAH 7,001–11,000 1

Over UAH 11,000 0

Difficult to answer or no response 39


Average monthly income per individual returnee was 1,595 UAH, and is much lower than the average income of IDPs from the GCA (2,017 UAH) 12 .

The main sources of income for IDPs that returned to the NGCA were retirement pension (41%) and salary (34%). The third main source, which was the specific for the returnee category, was other retire-ment pensions (16%), which included (according to respondents) pensions paid by the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, by Luhansk People’s Republic and/or by the Russian Federation. In ad-dition, 13% of respondents noted social assistance among the main sources of income . The monthly IDP support from the Ukrainian Government was received by about 1% (Figure 7.5).

For comparison purposes, the IDPs in the GCA re-ferred to the government monthly IDP support (61%) and salary (61%) as the most important sources of income, while retirement pension and social assis-tance were noted as the most important by 35% and 32%, respectively.

12 To compare IDP income levels from the GCA and the NGCA is necessary to note that the NGCA data had significantly higher percentage of those refusing to answer questions about income .

Figure 7.5. Main sources of income in households of surveyed returnees to the NGCA in the past 12 months, %

Note: Respondents could choose more than one optionSource: Telephone interviews with IDPs, returned to the NGCA

Ninety-seven (97%) per cent of the returnees lived in their own apartments or houses (Figure 7.6). The remaining 3% reported their houses were destroyed or damaged as a result of the conflict and they there-fore live with relatives/host family or rented a house.

In addition, the returned IDP focus group partici-pants reported that in the NGCA, some returnees continued to live in damaged houses (Source: Focus groups with returnees).

Figure 7.6. Distribution of returnees to the NGCA by accommodation type, %




Safety remained the main problem for IDPs that returned to NGCA (33%). The issue of feeling safe is more acute for the population aged 18-59 years (41%) than for the population over 60 years old (26%). In addition, compared with the previous round (March 2017), the issue of social payment suspensions and pensions became more acute – the indicator rose from 6% to 17% (Figure 7.7).

Figure 7.7. The most problematic issues for households of returnees to the NGCA, %

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Safety 39 33

Suspension in social payments/ pensions

6 17

Payment for utilities 11 11

Access to medicines 7 5

Living conditions 5 3

Unemployment 4 2

Access to health services 3 1

Malnutrition 2 1

Delays in payment of wages 2 1

Payment for rent 0 1

Other 0 1

None of the above 21 24


The satisfaction related to living conditions was high for most of the parameters (electricity, living space, water supply) being around 90%, with the exception of safety where only 48% reported their satisfaction (Figure 7.8).

In general, the focus group participants were satis-fied with the prices for utility services, but some re-spondents said that during last winter the heating provided in the NGCA was not sufficient (Source: Fo-cus groups with returnees).

Figure 7.8. Returnees’ satisfaction with living conditions in the NGCA, % of satisfied


The IDPs that returned to the NGCA demonstrated high levels of satisfaction with the availability of health care (86%) and administrative (80%) services. The satisfaction with the availability of social protec-tion services, such as the opportunity to receive a pension or other social assistance was lower (60%) (Figure 7.9). The profile demonstrated by the IDPs in the GCA was slightly different – satisfaction with employment opportunities was lower than the pos-sibilities to receive a pension or social assistance, the ability to obtain education and the accessibility of administrative services.

The focus group participants mentioned that they had access only to basic medical services, while the access to specialized services is problematic because there are not enough specialists and the prices for medicines in the NGCA are more prohibitive than in the GCA (Source: Focus groups with returnees).

Figure 7.9. Returnees’ satisfaction with social services, % of satisfied


31June 2017



The difference in the assessment of safety of the IDPs in the GCA and the IDPs that returned to NGCA is 59% (Figure 7.10).

Figure 7.10. Assessment on the safety of the environment and infrastructure of the settlement, %

GCA NGCA

I feel safe 90 31

I feel unsafe in the evenings and in remote areas of the settlement

8 41

I feel unsafe most of the time 1 22

Other 0 1

No response 1 5

Source: GCA – interviews with IDPs (combined data), NGCA – telephone interviews with IDPs returned to the NGCA

Most respondents in the NGCA (73%) identified that the reason behind their return was that they own pri-vate property in the NGCA and there is no need to pay for rent. The second push factor was family rea-sons, which became stronger in this round, compared to the previous one in March 2017 (the indicator in-creased from 36% to 45%). In addition, the share of reasons such as the lack of employment opportunities increased from 9% to 19% and the failure to socially integrate increased from 9% to 18% (Figure 7.11).

Figure 7.11. Reasons for returning and living in the NGCA, %

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

There is private property and we do not have to pay rent 78 73

Family reasons 36 45

Lack of employment opportunities 9 19

Failure to social integrate to local community at the previous place of residence

9 18

Limited access to social services – health care, education etc. 9 8

Suspension in social payments/ pensions 0 3

Other 11 5

No response 3 1

Note: Respondents could choose more than one optionSource: Telephone interviews with IDPs, returned to the NGCA

Out of the focus group participants however, the main reasons behind their return were high costs of rent in the GCA and problems finding employment. Specifically they reported that the living conditions in accommodation provided by authorities for IDPs often did not meet the minimum standards and em-ployment services offer vacancies only for low-paid jobs (Source: Focus groups with returnees).

The subjective assessments of returnees’ satisfac-tion with the decision to return to NGCA in the cur-rent round were close to the assessments of the pre-vious one where about half (52%) are satisfied with their decision to return (in the previous round, it was slightly lower – 49%). However, a significant number (34%) of returnees refused to answer this question or did not know how to respond (Figure 7.12).

Figure 7.12. Satisfaction with decision of returning and living in the NGCA, %


The main factors of respondents’ satisfaction also remained the same from the previous round: return ‘home’ (psychological factor) and no need to pay for housing (economical factor). The availability of jobs was also an important factor for the working-age population (18-59 years) (Source: Telephone in-terviews with IDPs returned to NGCA – open-ended questions).

Seventy-three (73%) per cent of the returnees plan to stay in the NGCA during the next three months. Compared with the data of the previous round (March 2017), the number of those wanting to stay in the NGCA grew by 10%, while the share of those wanting to return to the GCA declined by 8% (Figure 7.13).



Figure 7.13. Returnees’ to the NGCA plans for the next three months, %

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

I plan to stay in the NGCA 63 73

I plan to move to the GCA 16 8

I plan to move abroad 1 1

Other 1 1

Difficult to answer 17 16

No response 2 1


More than half (54%) of the returnees stated that they did not visit the areas under government con-trol in order to receive support. Accordingly, those who visited the GCA for support did not go very of-ten, once a month or less (Figure 7.14). Compared to the previous round, the number of persons not visiting the GCA slightly increased from 48% to 54%.

Figure 7.14. Frequency of returnees travelling from the NGCA to the areas under government control for support, %

Round 5(March 2017)

Round 6(June 2017)

Once a week 1 0

2-3 times a month 3 1

Once a month 13 8

Once in two months 5 8

Once in three months 5 6

Less than once in three months

11 12

I do not come to the areas under government control

48 54

No response 14 11


Half of the respondents (50%) were not aware of the trade blockade between Ukraine and the Donbas, which began in February 2017 and 35% hesitated or refused to answer. Only 15% said they were aware of the blockade (Figure 7.15).

Figure 7.15. Awareness of the existence of a trade blockade between Ukraine and Donbass,%


Most of the respondents (about 74%) believe that the onset of the blockade and related events changed nothing in their households’ situation, while some respondents mentioned price increases as changes (Source: Telephone interviews with IDPs returned to NGCA – open-ended questions). This was also con-firmed by the focus group participants.

33June 2017



8. ANNEXESANNEX 1. Methodology

ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into zones by distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts

ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls from telephone survey

ANNEX 4. Characteristics of IDP households (face-to-face and telephone data)

ANNEX 5. Additional results of interviews with IDPs (combined data)

ANNEX 6. Results of face-to-face interviews with key informants by zones



The survey methodology, developed within the framework of the project, ensured data collection in 24 oblasts of Ukraine and Kyiv city, as well as, data processing and analysis in terms of IDP location, their movements or intentions to move, return intentions, major social and economic issues, citizens’ perception of the IDPs’ situation, IDPs integration into the local communities, among other socioeconomic character-istics of IDPs in Ukraine.

The NMS is performed by combining data obtained from multiple sources, namely:

• Data from sample surveys of IDP households via face-to-face and telephone interviews.

• Data from key informants interviewed in the areas where IDPs reside via face-to-face in-terviews.

• Data from focus groups discussions with key informants, IDPs and returnees to the NGCA.

• Administrative data.

The sample size of IDP households in 205 randomly selected territorial units selected for face-to-face in-terviews totalled 1,025 IDP households (sample dis-tribution by oblast is provided in Figure 1 and Figure 3. The sampling of territorial units was devised for all oblasts of Ukraine and distributed in proportion to the number of registered IDPs in each oblast. It should be

noted that about 42% of this round’s face-to face IDP sample were surveyed in the previous round. The pur-pose of preservation of IDP households in the sample was to ensure a more accurate assessment of chang-es in the indicators between adjacent rounds.

Included in each territorial unit selected for moni-toring were, 5 IDP households and 2 key informants (representatives of the local community, IDPs, local authorities, as well as NGOs addressing the issues faced by IDPs). The distribution of the number of interviewed key informants by oblasts is presented in Figure 2 .

The sampling for the telephone survey was derived from the IDP registration database maintained by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine. Between April-June 2017, 3,109 IDP households were interviewed with this method in 24 oblasts of Ukraine. Out of them, 391 interviews were conducted with return-ees to the non-government controlled area. The dis-tribution of the number of interviewed households by oblasts is presented in Figure 4 .

During the survey period there were 5 focus groups with representatives from: IDP population (2 FGDs in Dnipropetrovsk and Chernihiv Oblasts), key infor-mants (2 FGDs in Lviv and Kherson Oblasts) and those who had IDP status but returned to the non-govern-ment controlled areas (1 FGD in Donetsk Oblast).

ANNEX 1. Methodology

35June 2017



Figure 1. Distribution of the sample for territorial units within oblasts of Ukraine

Oblast Number of territorial units selected

Total 205

Vinnytsia 4

Volyn 4

Dnipropetrovsk 14

Donetsk 48

Zhytomyr 4

Zakarpattya 4

Zaporizhia 14

Ivano-Frankivsk 4

Kyiv oblast (without Kyiv city) 6

Kirovohrad 4

Luhansk 24

Lviv 4

Mykolaiv 4

Odesa 5

Poltava 4

Rivne 4

Sumy 4

Ternopil 4

Kharkiv 14

Kherson 4

Khmelnytskyi 4

Cherkasy 4

Chernivtsi 4

Chernihiv 4

Kyiv city 12

Figure 2. Distribution of key informants for face-to-face interviews by oblast

Oblast Number of key informants

Total 411

Vinnytsia 8

Volyn 8

Dnipropetrovsk 28

Donetsk 96

Zhytomyr 8

Zakarpattya 7

Zaporizhia 28

Ivano-Frankivsk 8


Kirovohrad 8

Luhansk 48

Lviv 8

Mykolaiv 8

Odesa 10

Poltava 8

Rivne 8

Sumy 8

Ternopil 8

Kharkiv 30

Kherson 8

Khmelnytskyi 8

Cherkasy 8

Chernivtsi 8

Chernihiv 8

Kyiv city 24



Figure 3. Distribution of IDP households for face-to-face interviews by oblast

Oblast Number

Total 1,025

Vinnytsia 20

Volyn 20

Dnipropetrovsk 70

Donetsk 240

Zhytomyr 20

Zakarpattya 20

Zaporizhia 70

Ivano-Frankivsk 20


Kirovohrad 20

Luhansk 120

Lviv 20

Mykolaiv 20

Odesa 25

Poltava 20

Rivne 20

Sumy 20

Ternopil 20

Kharkiv 70

Kherson 20

Khmelnytskyi 20

Cherkasy 20

Chernivtsi 20

Chernihiv 20

Kyiv city 60

Figure 4. Distribution of IDP households for telephone interviews by oblast

Oblast Number

Total 3,109

Vinnytsia 59

Volyn 59

Dnipropetrovsk 202

Donetsk 780

Zhytomyr 59

Zakarpattya 59

Zaporizhia 204

Ivano-Frankivsk 59


Kirovohrad 59

Luhansk 404

Lviv 61

Mykolaiv 62

Odesa 74

Poltava 59

Rivne 59

Sumy 59

Ternopil 61

Kharkiv 158

Kherson 60

Khmelnytskyi 59

Cherkasy 63

Chernivtsi 59

Chernihiv 59

Kyiv city 182

37June 2017



ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into geographic zones by distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts

Zone Oblast

1Donetsk Oblast (GCA)

Luhansk Oblast (GCA)

2

Dnipropetrovsk Oblast

Kharkiv Oblast

Zaporizhia Oblast

3

Kirovohrad Oblast

Mykolaiv Oblast

Poltava Oblast

Sumy Oblast

Kherson Oblast

Cherkasy Oblast

4

Vinnytsia Oblast

Zhytomyr Oblast

Kyiv Oblast

Kyiv city

Odesa Oblast

Chernihiv Oblast

5

Volyn Oblast

Zakarpattya Oblast

Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast

Lviv Oblast

Rivne Oblast

Ternopil Oblast

Khmelnytskyi Oblast

Chernivtsi Oblast



ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls from telephone survey

Summary of callsTotal 7,305

Complete interviews (GCA) 2,718 37%

Complete interviews (NGCA) 391 5%

No answer/nobody picked up the phone 1,173 16%

No connection 1,228 17%

Out of service 711 10%

Not IDPs (the respondents told they are not IDPs, not often – relatives were registered as IDPs on this number)

204 3%

Refusal to take part in the survey 880 12%

No connectionTotal 1,228

Vodafone 707 58%

Kyivstar 411 33%

lifecell 110 9%

Other 0 0%

Out of serviceTotal 711

Vodafone 460 65%

Kyivstar 149 21%

lifecell 92 13%

Other 10 1%

39June 2017



ANNEX 4. Characteristics of IDP households (face-to-face and telephone data)

Figure 1. Distribution of IDP households in Ukraine, by number of members, %

Number of members

in the household

Face-to-face interviews with IDPs (weighted)

Telephone interviews with

IDPs (unweighted)

1 18 36

2 27 35

3 31 17

4 and more 24 12

Figure 2. Distribution of households with or without children, %


(weighted)


(unweighted)

Households with children 49 25

Households without children

51 75

Figure 3. Gender distribution of IDP surveyed household members, %

Face-to-face interviews with IDPs (weighted)

Telephone interviews with IDPs (unweighted)

Male 43 44

Female 57 56

Figure 4. Age distribution of IDP surveyed household members, %


(weighted)


(unweighted)

0 – 4 y.o. 7 7

5 – 17 y.o. 20 9

18 – 34 y.o. 22 21

35 – 59 y.o. 34 31

60 + y .o . 17 32

Figure 5. Distribution of IDP households with people with disabilities (I-III disability groups, children with disabilities), %


(weighted)


(unweighted)

Households with disabilities 8 13

Households without disabilities

92 87



ANNEX 5. Additional results of interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Figure 1. Were you or members of your family forced to work against your will, %

Figure 2. Were you or members of your family forced to provide sexual services against your will, %

Figure 3. Were you or members of your family involved in criminal activity against your will, %

Figure 4. Were you or members of your family forced to take part in military conflict against your will, %

41June 2017



ANNEX 6. Results of face-to-face interviews with key informants (KIs) by geographic zones

Figure 1. Most relevant issues for IDPs residing in the key informants’ locality, %

Tota

l

Zone

1

Zone

2

Zone

3

Zone

4

Zone

5Unemployment 69 .8 68 .2 78 .8 73 .2 63 .4 61 .6

Suspension of salary 8 .7 5 .0 18 .7 8 .4 9 .7 0 .0

Suspension of social payments/pensions

33 .2 35 .4 29 .4 28 .3 31 .3 41 .2

Living conditions 69 .3 68 .7 65 .4 73 .9 73 .0 86 .7

Payment for utilities 48 .3 41 .9 60 .1 49 .6 56 .6 34 .9

Payment for rent 45 .5 35 .3 62 .9 29 .0 63 .2 50 .2

Malnutrition 8 .7 11 .4 9 .1 2 .6 0 .9 2 .5

Safety 11 .8 12 .6 17 .4 4 .7 4 .7 0 .0

Access to medicines 27 .9 35 .3 24 .8 13 .2 13 .3 2 .8

Access to healthcare services 20 .7 20 .3 19 .0 11 .9 29 .1 7 .1

Access to education 6 .6 2 .1 10 .7 0 .0 19 .7 0 .8

Self-employment 12 .5 7 .6 32 .4 10 .6 4 .4 6 .6

Payment for bank loans 4 .4 3 .6 6 .7 7 .3 3 .2 5 .8

Lack of opportunity to return to the place of permanent residence

30 .8 30 .5 31 .9 31 .8 28 .7 43 .8

Exercising voting rights 6 .2 4 .3 12 .9 12 .7 2 .0 7 .6

Interactions with local population 3 .0 2 .1 1 .4 8 .0 5 .6 14 .4

Leisure 5 .6 5 .0 4 .5 10 .0 8 .1 4 .3

Other 8 .0 3 .6 18 .0 10 .2 9 .2 12 .3

None of the above 0 .9 0 .7 0 .0 4 .9 1 .6 0 .0

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Figure 2. Did IDPs contact your organization to resolve the above issues?, %

Total Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5

Yes 72 .6 59 .6 88 .5 89 .2 90 .1 93 .2

No 27 .4 40 .4 11 .5 10 .8 9 .9 6 .8

Figure 3. Distribution of KIs’ responses to the question “Are there any regional or state programs of IDP support implemented in your locality?”, %

Zone Yes No

Total 36 .9 63 .1

Zone 1 29 .6 70 .4

Zone 2 36 .6 63 .4

Zone 3 48 .3 51 .7

Zone 4 57 .7 42 .3

Zone 5 57 .6 42 .4



Figure 4. Distribution of KIs’ responses to the question “In your opinion, what kind of support do IDPs in your locality require the most?”, %

Tota

l

Zone

1

Zone

2

Zone

3

Zone

4

Zone

5

Monetary Government support 63 .0 57 .5 85 .9 56 .8 56 .1 43 .0

Monetary support from other donors 32 .5 20 .8 76 .3 15 .6 21 .6 19 .9

Resolution of housing issues 83 .4 83 .5 82 .9 78 .9 86 .2 78 .0

Getting new qualification through additional training 31 .8 28 .1 55 .2 15 .3 20 .7 14 .2

Getting decent job 71 .6 78 .8 73 .4 53 .4 53 .0 38 .8

Business start-up support 27 .8 23 .7 53 .7 19 .4 12 .0 10 .8

Enrolment of children in kindergartens and schools 17 .1 11 .0 35 .7 5 .4 19 .1 3 .2

Reissuance of documentation 23 .6 19 .6 40 .8 6 .7 22 .1 8 .0

Support in the interaction with local population 15 .6 11 .1 34 .0 16 .1 7 .3 7 .5

Psychological support 34 .5 27 .7 65 .1 12 .4 26 .4 15 .5

Medical care 22 .4 16 .8 37 .1 14 .8 27 .0 6 .1

Humanitarian assistance 31 .7 33 .0 42 .0 21 .1 18 .9 10 .3

Legal support 26 .5 23 .8 39 .2 30 .1 17 .8 27 .9

Other 1 .2 0 .9 0 .6 3 .7 1 .6 3 .7

Hard to say 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

No answer 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 1 .7 0 .0 0 .0


Figure 5. Distribution of KIs’ responses to the question “What is your assessment of IDPs’ access to the following sectors?”, % of respondents that answered “Fully accessible”

Tota

l

Zone

1

Zone

2

Zone

3

Zone

4

Zone

5

Employment 49 .2 52 .1 40 .9 40 .8 54 .8 31 .7

Housing 43 .5 52 .3 38 .3 18 .5 29 .8 20 .0

Health care 75 .1 75 .9 72 .0 74 .1 75 .5 84 .3

Education 83 .5 83 .3 80 .9 87 .9 84 .8 95 .0

Social protection 75 .4 73 .8 72 .6 81 .4 80 .9 91 .7

Social services 75 .5 76 .9 70 .4 73 .6 77 .6 80 .5

Figure 6. Distribution of KIs’ responses to the question “What is your assessment of integration of the majority of IDPs’ into the local community?”, %

Tota

l

Zone

1

Zone

2

Zone

3

Zone

4

Zone

5

Integrated 44 .8 57 .9 18 .3 40 .3 32 .4 64 .3

Non-integrated 4 .4 5 .2 3 .3 7 .0 2 .3 5 .7

Integrated to some extent

44 .7 29 .7 70 .5 45 .8 65 .3 30 .1

No answer 6 .1 7 .2 7 .8 6 .9 0 .0 0 .0

Figure 7. Distribution of KIs’ responses to the question “Can you name THREE most important factors contributing to IDPs’ integration?”, %

Tota

l

Zone

1

Zone

2

Zone

3

Zone

4

Zone

5

Employment opportunities 88 .9 91 .0 94 .5 85 .4 76 .3 78 .0

Affordable housing 91 .7 92 .9 88 .5 87 .5 93 .0 91 .6

Education opportunities 7 .4 5 .1 12 .4 8 .0 9 .1 3 .4

Enabling social environment 14 .6 12 .7 19 .0 18 .2 11 .7 33 .3

Adequate social protection 40 .6 42 .0 44 .0 43 .2 33 .1 15 .2

Quality medical and psychological care

23 .4 22 .5 22 .9 6 .4 34 .0 9 .1

Effective community support

13 .2 10 .4 13 .6 23 .4 15 .0 51 .8

Other 1 .1 0 .7 1 .6 7 .5 0 .0 0 .0

No answer 0 .6 0 .7 0 .0 2 .1 0 .0 6 .0


Social cohesion event for IDP and local children, organized by IOM in Drohobych, Lviv Region, in June 2017, attracted over a hundred of participants

© Petro Zadorozhnyy/AP Images for ESN


For more information please contact International Organization for Migration (IOM) Mission in Ukraine:

8 Mykhailivska Street, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01001

Tel: (044) 568-50-15 • Fax: (044) 568-50-16

E-mail: [email protected]

Date post:	13-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM...

Documents