Ministry of Social Policy

of Ukraine

NATIONAL MONITORING
SYSTEM REPORT
ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY
DISPLACED PERSONS
June 2018
Cover, internal cover page and other photos in this publication: Valerii and his family
were displaced to Novyi Donbas village, Donetsk Oblast. They run a chicken farm.
Valerii received a rotary cultivator from IOM within one of EU-funded economic
empowerment projects that helped his family expand their business.
© Muse Mohammed / IОМ

This publication was produced with funding from the European Union (EU).
The views and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect
the position of the EU and the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY OF ROUND 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

OVERALL SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

• IDP household members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

• Gender and age structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
• IDPs with disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
• Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. EMPLOYMENT OF IDPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

• Employment rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
• Unemployment rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. WELL-BEING OF IDPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

• Livelihood opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
• Living conditions and types of accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
• Suspension of social payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
• Safety of the environment and infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
• Loans and debt obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
• Human trafficking and labour exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5. IDP MOBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

• Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
• Intentions on return. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
• Intentions to move abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
• Visits to places of residence before the displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6. INTEGRATION INTO LOCAL COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

• Integration rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
• Discrimination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
• Electoral rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7. RETURNEES TO THE NON-GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

8. ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

June 2018 3
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
OF ROUND 10
The  objective of the  National Monitoring System Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
(NMS) in Ukraine, drawing from IOM’s Displace-
A total of 2,406 IDPs were interviewed with this
ment Tracking Matrix (DTM) approach, is to sup-
method in cooperation with the Center ‘Social In-
port the Government of Ukraine in collecting and dicators’ in 300 territorial units across the coun-
analyzing information on the  socio-economic try during April-May  2018. The  sampling of ter-
characteristics of internally displaced persons ritorial units was devised for all government-
(IDPs) and IDP  households, as well as the  chal- controlled oblasts of Ukraine and distributed in
lenges they face. IOM adapted the DTM, a system proportion to the number of registered IDPs.
designed to regularly capture, process and dis-
seminate information on displacement situations, Telephone interviews with IDPs
to the Ukrainian context. The NMS provides a bet-
ter understanding of the evolving movements and A total of 4,006  were interviewed with this
locations, numbers, vulnerabilities and needs of method by IOM in April-May 2018. Out of the to-
tal, 3,246  interviews were with IDPs residing in
displaced populations in Ukraine.
the governmentcontrolled area (GCA) and 760 in-
The survey collected information on socio-economic terviews were with returnees to the non-govern-
characteristics of IDPs at individual and household ment controlled area (NGCA). The sampling was
levels, including trends and movement intentions, derived from the IDP registration database main-
employment, livelihood opportunities, access to so- tained by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine.
cial services and assistance needs in 24  oblasts of
Data from telephone interviews was combined
Ukraine and the city of Kyiv.
with data from face-to-face interviews. The com-
During the  NMS Round  10, data collection was ex- bining of these two data sets was done using a
panded based on coordination with relevant counter- statistical weighting tool. Both data sets were
parts, including the Food Security and Livelihood Clus- weighted according to the regional distribution
ter and the Health Cluster, to incorporate information of registered IDPs. Data from telephone inter-
on additional challenges faced by IDPs and returnees. views was also weighted according to the socio-
demographic characteristics of IDPs interviewed
Main information sources used for the NMS: face-to-face.
i) Data from sample surveys of IDPs via face-to-
face interviews; Face-to-face interviews with key informants
ii) Data from sample surveys of IDPs via A total of 605  key informants (KIs) were inter-
telephone interviews; viewed with this method. They were identified
iii) Data from sample surveys of key informants in cooperation with the Center ‘Social Indicators’
via face-to-face interviews; across the country and were engaged to monitor
iv) Data from sample surveys of the  people the  developments of the  situation with IDPs in
crossing the  contact line via face-to-face the oblasts. Most of the key informants worked in
interviews; non-governmental organizations (36%) and a sig-
v) Data from focus group discussions; nificant share of key informants represented insti-
vi) Administrative data and relevant data tutions of social protection (27%). While 11% were
available from other sources. employed as local authorities, 9% were engaged in

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)

educational institutions, 5%  in healthcare estab- tion for the sections on ‘IDP mobility’ and ‘Returnees
lishments and 12% worked in other organizations. to the non-government controlled areas’.

Face-to-face interviews with people crossing Focus group discussions

the contact line
Six focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted
In cooperation with the  Center ‘Social Indicators’, in cooperation with the  Center ‘Social Indicators’
1,277 people crossing the  contact line were inter- during May 2018, specifically two FGDs with key in-
viewed with this method during May 2018. The sur- formants, two FGDs with IDPs, and two FGDs with
vey was conducted at the five entry-exit checkpoints returnees to the  NGCA. The  FGDs with IDPs took
(EECPs) to the non-government controlled area place in Chernihiv and Lviv; with key informants in
(NGCA), which currently function in Luhansk and Do- Odesa and Kharkiv and with returnees in Mariupol
netsk oblasts. and Starobilsk. The FGDs covered both people living
in urban and rural areas.
Data from the survey of people crossing the contact
line was used to complement ongoing data collec- Please see Annex 1 for more details on methodology.

June 2018 5
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

OVERALL SUMMARY
1. Characteristics of IDPs and their households.
Average size Age distribution of household Gender distribution Households with Households with persons
of household members of household members children with disabilities
60 and over – 18%
Female – 57% 46% of IDP 15% of IDP
2.62 persons 18–59 years – 54%
Male – 43% households households
Under 18 years – 28%

2. Employment of IDPs. The employment situation of IDPs has worsened slightly compared to the previous
round and as of June 2018, the share of employed IDPs amounted to 42%, which is a 6% decrease compared
to March 2018. Among the total population of Ukraine, the level of employment remained stable, and in
the first quarter of 2018 amounted to 56% of population aged 15–70 years.1

Employment of IDPs after the displacement, by rounds, %

49 50 48
41 46 42

Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

1 (March (June (September (December (March (June
2017) 2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)

Eleven  (11%)  per  cent of IDPs reported that they 3. Well-being of IDPs. The  well-being of IDPs
had been actively seeking employment and had has  worsened slightly, as demonstrated by a de-
been ready to start working within a two-week pe- crease in the average monthly income per IDP
riod. The  vast majority  (89%) of them noted that household member.
they had faced difficulties when looking for a job
and the most frequently mentioned were low pay
for proposed vacancies (54%) and lack of vacancies Average income per person (per month),
in general (51%). by rounds, UAH
2,340 2,446
The  economically inactive population amounted to 2,005
2,239
2,090
47% among surveyed IDPs, with the largest portion
of retired persons or pensioners (19%) and persons
who were doing housework, looking after children
or other persons in the household (17%).
Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10
(June (September (December (March (June
2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)

1
Employment and unemployment of the population in
the first quarter of 2018. Express Issue 25.06.2018. State
Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2018.

6 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)

The data reflected the general economic insecurity of IDPs who stated their intention not to return ex-
of IDP households, as the average monthly income ceeded the portion of those IDPs who have an inten-
per IDP household member was considerably low- tion to return after the end of the conflict.
er compared to Ukrainian households (UAH  2,090
The  intention to look for a job abroad remained
and UAH  3,640, respectively).2 Furthermore,
low: only 1% of IDPs reported that they had already
the average monthly income level of IDPs was still
found a job abroad and were about to move, while
low compared with the actual subsistence level cal-
4%  noted that they had an intention to find a job
culated by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine
abroad soon.
(UAH 3,327).3 IDPs continue to rely heavily on gov-
ernment support, which was the  most frequently Fifty-seven (57%) per cent of IDPs reported that they
mentioned source of income. had visited their place of residence in the  conflict
zone after the displacement. ‘Maintaining housing’
The most problematic issues identified by IDPs were a
and ‘visiting friends/family’ remained the main rea-
lack of owning a house (28%) and lack of money (18%).
sons to travel to the NGCA.
Most IDPs continue to live in rented housing:
6. Integration in local communities. The  shift to-
48% live in rented apartments, 10% in rented houses
wards more moderate responses in terms of IDPs’
and 4% in rented rooms.
self-assessment of their integration in the local com-
4. Access to social services. The level of satisfaction munity has been observed since March  2018. As of
with the  accessibility of basic social services among June 2018, the share of IDPs who reported that they
IDPs remained stable compared to the previous round. had integrated into the local community amounted
Respondents were least satisfied with the availability to  45%, while 35%  stated that they had partly inte-
of employment opportunities  (53%) as well as with grated. The  main conditions for successful integra-
accessibility of health care services (60%). tion indicated by the  IDPs remained housing, regu-
lar income and employment. Compared to Decem-
When asked IDPs about their satisfaction with differ-
ber 2017 there was a substantial increase in the share
ent aspects of healthcare in their current place of resi-
of IDP who mentioned ‘family and friends in the same
dence, cost of medicine and healthcare services were
place’ as a necessary condition for integration, which
the categories with the lowest level of satisfaction.
was reported by 44% of surveyed IDPs in June 2018.
5. IDP mobility. In June  2018, 62%  of the  inter-
The  share of IDPs who reported perceived dis-
viewed IDPs reported that they had been stay-
crimination based on their IDP status was 12%  in
ing in their current place of residence for over
Round 10, which was at the same level in Round 9.
three years. As the findings demonstrate, IDPs gen-
Perceptions of discrimination or unfair treatment
erally continue to stay in their place of residence
noted by IDPs mainly concerned housing (34%), em-
and do not move further.
ployment  (32%), healthcare  (29%) and interactions
The  portion of those intending to return to their with the local population (24%).
place of origin after the end of the conflict amount-
Forty-one (41%) per cent of interviewed IDPs stated
ed to 28% of respondents. At the same time, 38% of
their intention to vote in the  next presidential and
the respondents expressed their intention not to re-
parliamentary elections of Ukraine, while 33%  in-
turn, even after the end of the conflict. The portion
tended not to vote, 24% reported ‘do not know’ and
2% did not respond to the question. The most com-

2
Expenses and resources of households in Ukraine mon reasons for intending not to vote in the  next
(according to the data of the sample survey of living presidential and parliamentary elections was a no-
conditions of households) for 9 months of 2017. Statistical tion that, as an IDP, they had no right to vote in
Bulletin. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2017.
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2018/gdvdg/ the  elections (31%), followed by disbelief in elec-
vrdu9m_w.zip tions or authorities (24%) and lack of awareness of

3
The actual subsistence minimum in 2015–2018. Ministry the  voting procedure in the  displacement (16%).
of Social Policy of Ukraine: http://www.msp.gov.ua/
news/15627.html
In general, only 38%  of IDPs reported their aware-

June 2018 7
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

ness of the  voting procedure in the  displacement. Generally, the  surveyed returnee population was
The data showed an association between the voting older than the IDP population; the average age was
intention and awareness of the  procedure. Com- 53.5  years, compared to 36.2  years, respectively,
pared to all respondents who reported their inten- based on combined data.
tion regarding the next presidential and parliamen-
The  economically inactive population amounted to
tary elections, IDPs who reported their awareness
72%  among surveyed returnees to the  NGCA, with
of the voting procedure reported their intention to
the  largest share of retired persons or pensioners
vote more frequently.
(63%).
7. Returnees to the  NGCA. When conducting
One major difference noted between IDPs in GCA
the  telephone survey, 19% of respondents were
and returnees to the NGCA was how they assess
identified as IDPs who returned to the  NGCA and
their safety. Only 43%  of surveyed returnees to
currently live there.
the NGCA reported that they felt safe in comparison
Seventy-eight  (78%)  per  cent of respondents in with 77% of IDPs in GCA.
the NGCA reported that their reason to return was
Seventy-seven  (77%)  per  cent of the  returnees in-
the possession of private property, resulting in them
tended to stay in the  NGCA for at least the  next
not having to pay rent.
three months.

8 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)

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPS
AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS
Almost all interviewed IDPs stated that they had reg- During the focus group discussions, the IDPs and key
istered with the social protection system of the Min- informants noted that, typically, persons that did not
istry of Social Policy. The percentage of IDPs register- register were those who were not in need of gov-
ing with the social protection system has remained ernment support. However, occasionally the lack of
relatively stable across the NMS rounds (Figure 1.1). registration was connected to bureaucratic barriers
(Source: Focus groups with IDPs; Focus groups with
key informants).

Figure 1.1. IDP registration with Ministry of Social Policy System, by rounds, %

Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(March 2017) (June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Yes 96.5 94.4 94.5 95.2 94.2 95.6
No 3.5 5.4 5.3 4.8 5.1 4.2
Do not know/
0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2
No response

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

IDP (female, 44) from Donetsk Oblast: IDP (female, 35) from Luhansk Oblast:
“We are not registered because the money we “My child went to a camp and lost his birth
could get isn’t worth all the effort and time that certificate in the train. He was born and regis-
could be used to work, not to sit in the queue.” tered in Krasnodon, so I had to renew the cer-
tificate through the  court, since there was no
Source: FGDs with IDPs
contact with the occupied oblasts and no ac-
cess to the  database. We submitted an appli-
cation for registration to establish a legal fact
IDP (male, 45) from Donetsk Oblast: that the child was registered and possessed
“There are cases when landlords don’t want the birth certificate.”
tenants to get registered at their address. I
Source: FGDs with IDPs
personally experienced this: my landlord was
afraid of something, she was thinking, they
would charge her for providing tenement
for IDPs.”
Source: FGDs with IDPs

June 2018 9
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

During the  interviews, the  respondents were

asked about the  composition of their households. Figure 1.3. Distribution of households with
The  average household size was identified as or without children, %
2.62 persons, which is slightly higher than the average
of the total population of Ukraine (2.58 persons), ac-
cording to 2017 data.4 Twenty-one (21%) per cent Households with children
of surveyed IDP  households consist of one person, 54 46
Households without children
which is the same as among the total population of
Ukraine (20%)5 (Figure  1.2). Among these 21%  of
households, 68% were women.
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) 

Figure 1.2. Distribution of IDP households Women represented 57% of surveyed IDP household
in Ukraine by number of members, % members, which is slightly higher than the propor-
tion of women in an average Ukrainian household
1 person 21 (54%  as of 1  January 2018)7 (Figure 1.4). Among
these 57% of women, 19% were women aged over
2 persons 32 60  years, which is slightly higher than the  share of
IDP men of the  same age (15%). It is the case of
3 persons 25
Ukraine in general, as of January 2018,8 the share of
4 persons and more 22 women aged over 60 years amounted to 27%, while
the share of men of the same age was 18%. The larg-
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)  er share of women among IDPs was observed in all
age groups 18 years and older and was consistent
Households with children made up 46%  of all sur- with the results of previous NMS rounds.
veyed IDP households, which is slightly higher than
the average Ukrainian household (38%)6 (Figure 1.3).
IDP  households with one child comprised 56%  of Figure 1.4. Gender and age distribution of IDP
the  total number of households with children. household members, %
The share of large families with three or more chil-
10
dren amounted to 12% of IDP households with chil- 0–4 years
7
dren, while the  share of single parent households
was 40% of IDP households with children. 5–17 years 25
17 Male (43%)
Female (57%)
18–34 years 21
24

35–59 years 29
33

60+ years 15
19

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) 

4
Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households
of Ukraine. Statistical Bulletin. State Statistics Service of
Ukraine. – K., 2017.

5
Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households
7
Distribution of the permanent population of Ukraine
of Ukraine. Statistical Bulletin. State Statistics Service of by gender and age as of January 1, 2018. Express Issue
Ukraine. – K., 2017. 21.06.2018. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2018.

6
Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households
8
Distribution of the permanent population of Ukraine
of Ukraine. Statistical Bulletin. State Statistics Service of by gender and age as of January 1, 2018. Express Issue
Ukraine. – K., 2017. 21.06.2018. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2018.

10 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)

The  share of IDPs aged  60 and over was 1.3  times The  level of education among heads of IDP  house-
lower compared to the general population, whereas holds was high, with 55% possessing some form of
the share of IDPs aged under 18 was 1.6 times high- higher education (Figure 1.6).
er.9 Households consisting of only persons aged over
60 years made up 16% of all surveyed IDP households.
Figure 1.6. Distribution of IDP heads of household
Fifteen  (15%)  per  cent of IDP  households reported by educational attainment, %
having a family member with a disability (Figure 1.5).
Advanced degree 34

Figure 1.5. Distribution of IDP households University degree 12

with people with disabilities (I–III disability groups,
children with disabilities), % Incomplete higher education 9

Vocational education 27
15
Households with people Secondary education 15
with disabilities
Households without Incomplete secondary education 2
people with disabilities
85
No response 1

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) 

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) 

9
Distribution of the permanent population of Ukraine
by gender and age as of January 1, 2018. Express Issue
21.06.2018. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2018.

June 2018 11
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

2. EMPLOYMENT OF IDPs
Employment rates Key informant (male, 38):
The  employment situation of IDPs has worsened “I talked with a head of a company; he said that
slightly compared to the previous round. Compared he hired nonresidents of Kharkiv on purpose.
to March 2017, the share of employed IDPs increased They tried to keep their job at any price, since
from 41% in Round 5 to 46% in Round 6, then started they had to pay for a flat.”
to stabilize and amounted to 48% in March 2018 (Fi-
Source: FGDs with KIs
gure  2.1). As of June  2018, the  share of employed
IDPs was 42%, which is a 6% decrease compared to
the previous round. Among these 42% of employed
IDPs, 2% were self-employed persons. Among the to- Key informant (male, 46):
tal population of Ukraine, the level of employment is “Mainly in 2014–2015, when we had a lot of
considerably higher and remained stable. The share IDPs, people weren’t hired for a single rea-
of employed persons among population of Ukraine son: because they were temporarily displaced
aged 15–70 years amounted to 56% in the period persons. Everyone used to think that what
from January to March 201810 and 55% in the period was happening in the East would last for a
from October to December 2017.11 month or two. You would have just trained a
person – and she or he would have already
gone. So why to hire them? However, even
now, when everyone understands that this

10
Employment and unemployment of the population in entire situation is for a long time, employers
the first quarter of 2018. Express Issue 25.06.2018. State
Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2018. still hesitate whether to hire IDPs.”

11
Employment and unemployment of the population in
the fourth quarter of 2017. Express Issue 26.03.2018. State Source: FGDs with KIs
Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2018.

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

60 61 62 64 64 61
49 50 48
46
41 42

Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(March (June (September (December (March (June
2017) 2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)

Before displacement After displacement

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

12 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)

Kyiv remained a city with the highest rate of employ- The share of long-term employment (of more than
ment among IDPs (79%) (Figure 2.2), which is the 12 months) remained high and amounted to 70% in
case of Ukraine in general. Round 10 (Figure 2 .3) . The percentage has remained
consistent since June 2017 .

Figure 2.2. Employment of IDPs after

the displacement, by geographic zones,12
% of IDPs 18–59 years old

79%
64% 49%
56%
50%
41%

– Zone 5 – Zone 4 (excluding Kyiv) – Kyiv

– Zone 3 – Zone 2 – Zone 1

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

Figure 2.3. Distribution of IDPs by duration of employment in current job, by rounds,

% of employed respondents

Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(March 2017) (June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Less than a month 3 1 2 2 2 2
1–6 months 10 12 12 13 9 10
7–12 months 23 19 14 14 17 14
More than 12 months 62 67 71 71 68 70
No response 2 1 1 0 4 4

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

12
Grouping of oblasts into zones is by distance from
the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Zone 1 –
Donetsk (GCA) and Luhansk (GCA) oblasts; zone 2 – Dnipro,
Kharkiv and Zaporizhia oblasts; zone 3 – Kirovohrad,
Mykolaiv, Poltava, Sumy, Kherson and Cherkasy oblasts;
zone 4 – Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia and Odesa
oblasts; zone 5 – Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv,
Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts.

June 2018 13
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

In the  tenth round of the  NMS, the  share of IDPs

whose current employment corresponded to their Figure 2.5. Changes in sectors of employment
qualifications was  67% (Figure  2.4). The  majority before and after the displacement,
(79%) of IDPs whose current employment corre- % of IDPs 18–59 years old
sponded to their qualifications resided in the  first
22
geographic zone (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in Services
20
the GCA). 18
Trade 18
The  difference between employment rates before
and after the displacement was the largest in the ‘in- Public administration 13
11
dustrial’ sector. In particular, there was a 7%  de-
Education 11
crease in the number of IDPs working in the ‘indus- 10
trial’ sector after the displacement (Figure 2.5). 11
Industry
18
Health care 6
7
Transportation 5
5
Construction 5
2 Employed after
displacement
Agriculture 1
2 Employed before
displacement
Other 4
4
No response 4
3

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

Figure 2.4. Correspondence of IDPs’ current job with their qualification, by rounds,
% of employed respondents

Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(March 2017) (June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Corresponds 67 74 75 78 69 67
Does not
33 26 25 22 31 33
correspond

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

14 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)

Unemployment rates The  economically inactive population amounted to

47% among surveyed IDPs in Round 10 (Figure 2.6).
Among surveyed IDPs, the  share of the  eco- The  largest share was retired persons or pension-
nomically active population amounted to  53% in ers  (19%), 17%  were persons who were doing
Round  10, including respondents who were either housework, looking after children or other persons
employed  (42%) or actively seeking employment in the household, 6% were persons with disabilities,
and ready to start working within a two-week pe- 3% were students and 2% were unemployed but not
riod (11%) (Figure 2.6). seeking employment.

Figure 2.6. Current employment status of IDPs, by rounds, %

Round 9 Round 10
(March 2018) (June 2018)

In paid work 48 42

Unemployed and actively

12 Economically 11 Economically
looking for a job
active: 60% active: 53%
Economically Economically
Retired, pensioners 16 inactive: 40% 19 inactive: 47%

Doing housework,
looking after children or 13 17
other persons

People with disabilities 5 6

Student 4 3

Unemployed, wanting
a job but not actively 2 2
looking for a job

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

June 2018 15
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Among those 11% of IDPs who were actively seeking Other frequently mentioned issues were lack of
employment, 78% were women and 22% were men. vacancies which corresponded to a person’s quali-
Over half of IDPs who were actively seeking employ- fications (24%), vacancies with unsuitable work
ment  (57%) had been unemployed for more than schedules (18%), as well as difficulties combining
a year, while 36%  had been unemployed for more work and family responsibilities (18%). The latter
than three years and 5% had not ever worked before was much more frequently reported by women
(Figure 2.7). than men.

Figure 2.7. Duration of unemployment, % of IDPs Figure 2.8. Difficulties that IDPs face when looking
who are actively seeking for employment for a job, % of IDPs who are actively seeking
employment
Up to 12 months 28
Low pay for proposed
vacancies 54
13–24 months 11

Lack of job opportunities 51

25–36 months 10
Lack of vacancies
corresponding to 24
37–48 months 29
qualifications
Unsuitable work
More than 48 months 7 schedule 18

Difficulties combining
Never worked before 5 work and family 18
responsibilities
Difficult to answer 9 Restrictions on health,
disability 9

No response 1 It takes a long time

to get to work 8
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
Discrimination by IDP
7
status, registration
Eighty-nine (89%) per cent of IDPs who were active-
ly seeking employment reported facing difficulties. Discrimination by age 7
Among those 89%  of IDPs who faced difficulties,
80% were women and 20% were men. The most Lack of knowledge
and skills 6
frequently mentioned issues were low pay for pro-
posed vacancies (54%) and lack of vacancies in gen-
Other 3
eral (51%) (Figure  2.8). The  latter was much more
frequently reported by IDPs residing in rural areas.
No response 8

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

16 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)

Direct employment was recognized as the most

effective means of support among unemployed Figure 2.10. Method of job search, % of IDPs who
IDPs, reported by  79% of those interviewed (Fi- are actively looking for employment
gure 2.9). Among IDPs who were looking for a job,
59% searched through friends and relatives, 47% via Friends or relatives 59
the  Internet, and 44%  through the  State Employ-
ment Centre (Figure 2.10). 47
Internet

Figure 2.9. Type of preferred support, % of IDPs State Employment Centre 44

who are actively looking for employment
Newspapers 29
Direct employment 79
Recruiting agencies 8
Start-up of own business 15
Other 3
Retraining 14
No response 3
Consultation in
employment centre 8
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
Education 3

No response 3

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

June 2018 17
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

3. WELL-BEING OF IDPs
Livelihood opportunities Figure 3.2. IDPs’ self-assessment of the financial
situation of their households, by type of
The IDPs’ self-assessment of their financial situation settlement, %
remained constant compared to the previous round
with over half of IDPs (55%) assessed their financial 10
Have to limit expenses
situation as ‘enough funds only for food’ or had to even for food
17
‘limit their expenses even for food’ (Figure 3.1). 13

The largest share of IDPs residing in cities estimated 35

Enough funds
the financial situation of their households as ‘enough only for food 47
for basic needs’ (46%), while the  largest share of 58
households residing in towns and villages estimated
their financial situation as ‘enough funds only for Enough funds for food, 46
food’, 47% and 58%, respectively (Figure 3.2). necessary clothing, 33
footwear, basic needs 27

Enough funds 6
for basic and other 1
needs. Have savings 2 City (over 100,000)
Town (less 100,000)
3 Village
No response 2
0
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

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

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Have to limit expenses even for food 10 7 11 16 13
Enough funds only for food 37 40 33 38 42
Enough funds for food, necessary
44 48 51 40 39
clothing, footwear, basic needs
Enough funds for basic and other
5 5 4 4 4
needs. Have savings
No response 4 0 1 2 2

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

18 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)

The average monthly income per IDP household The average monthly income per IDP household
member continued to decrease since Decem- member was considerably lower compared to an
ber  2017, and as of June  2018 was UAH  2,090 average Ukrainian household; the  average month-
(Figure  3.3). The  data for Round  10 showed that ly income per person amounted to UAH  3,640 in
the monthly income of most IDP households (58%) the period from January to September 2017.13 Fur-
did not exceed UAH  5,000 (Figure  3.4). The  de- thermore, the average monthly income level of IDPs
crease might be related to the decline in employed was still low compared with the actual subsistence
IDPs and those who reported ‘salary’ as their main level calculated by the  Ministry of Social Policy of
source of income. Ukraine, which published rates in June  2018 at
UAH 3,327.14

Figure 3.3. Average income per person

(per month), by rounds, UAH

2,340 2,446 2,239

2,005 2,090

13
Expenses and resources of households in Ukraine
(according to the data of the sample survey of living
conditions of households) for 9 months of 2017. Statistical
Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10 Bulletin. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2017.
(June (September (December (March (June http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2018/gdvdg/
2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018) vrdu9m_w.zip

14
The actual subsistence minimum in 2015–2018. Ministry
of Social Policy of Ukraine: http://www.msp.gov.ua/
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) news/15627.html

Figure 3.4. Distribution of IDP households by monthly income, by rounds,

% of IDPs who responded to the question

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Up to UAH 1,500 6 5 5 4 4
UAH 1,500–3,000 27 22 16 22 23
UAH 3,001–5,000 30 28 27 27 31
UAH 5,001–7,000 21 21 25 22 19
UAH 7,001–11,000 12 16 18 16 14
Over UAH 11,000 4 8 9 9 9

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 19
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Average monthly income levels were uneven To deepen the understanding of how IDPs adapt
across geographic zones and settlement types, with to displacement and longer-term coping capaci-
the highest average monthly income per person in ties of their households, IDPs were asked whether
Kyiv at UAH 3,529 (Figure 3.5). The average monthly anyone in their household engaged in any coping
income in cities (UAH 2,515) was higher compared strategies due to lack of food or a lack of money
to income in towns (UAH 1,759), while the average to buy food. Coping strategies differed in their se-
monthly income was the lowest in rural areas verity, from stress strategies, such as borrowing
(UAH 1,480). Among the total population of Ukraine, money, to emergency strategies, such as selling
the average monthly income was higher in cities one’s land or house .17
and towns than in villages (UAH 3,725 in cities and
towns, UAH 3,476 in villages).15
• Stress strategies, such as borrowing money
Figure 3.5. Average income per person or spending savings, are those which indi-
(per month), by geographic zones,16 UAH cate a reduced ability to deal with future
shocks, due to a current reduction in re-
sources or increase in debts .
3,529 • Crisis strategies, such as selling productive
assets, directly reduce future productivity,
2,165 1,931 including human capital formation.
2,221
2,019 • Emergency strategies, such as selling one’s
1,751 land or house, affect future productivity, but
are more difficult to reverse or more dra-
matic in nature.

– Zone 5 – Zone 4 (excluding Kyiv) – Kyiv

– Zone 3 – Zone 2 – Zone 1

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

15
Expenses and resources of households in Ukraine 17
Food Security & Socio-Economic Trend Analysis – Eastern
(according to the data of the sample survey of living Ukraine, FSLC, March 2018: http://fscluster.org/sites/
conditions of households) for 9 months of 2017. Statistical default/files/documents/fslc_report_trend_analysis_
Bulletin. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2017. food_security_and_socio-economic_situation_29_
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2018/gdvdg/ march_2018_0.pdf
vrdu9m_w .zip
16
Grouping of oblasts into zones is by distance from
the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Zone 1 –
Donetsk (GCA) and Luhansk (GCA) oblasts; zone 2 – Dnipro,
Kharkiv and Zaporizhia oblasts; zone 3 – Kirovohrad,
Mykolaiv, Poltava, Sumy, Kherson and Cherkasy oblasts;
zone 4 – Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia and Odesa
oblasts; zone 5 – Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv,
Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts.

20 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)

The  data reflected the  general economic insecurity At least one ‘stress’ coping strategy was used by
of IDP  households, as 51%  reported using at least 44%  of IDPs together with at least one ‘crisis’ cop-
one coping strategy in Round 10. The most frequent- ing strategy (27%). Emergency strategies, specifically
ly mentioned coping strategies were ‘spending sav- selling one’s land or house, begging or accepting
ings’ (36%), ‘borrowing money’ (24%) and ‘reducing work with a high level of risk, were used by 3%  of
essential health expenditures’ (25%) (Figure 3.6). IDPs during the past 12 months. The changes are mi-
nor compared to the previous round.

Figure 3.6. Livelihood coping strategies, used by IDP household due to a lack of food or a lack of money
to buy food during the past 12 months, by rounds, %

Round 9 Round 10
(March 2018) (June 2018)

Spent savings 39 36

Borrowed money 28 Stress strategies 24 Stress strategies

(50% of IDPs used (44% of IDPs used
Sold household at least one of at least one of
7 5
goods stress strategies) stress strategies)

Reduced
essential health 28 25
expenditures
Crisis strategies Crisis strategies
Sold productive (31% of IDPs used (27% of IDPs used
assets 3 3
at least one of crisis at least one of crisis
Sold means of strategies) strategies)
transport 2 2

Take a job with a

0 2
high level of risk
Emergency strategies Emergency strategies
(2% of IDPs used at (3% of IDPs used at
Sold house or land 2 1
least one of emergency least one of emergency
strategies) strategies)
Begging 0 1

Migrated
elsewhere in 2 Neutral strategy 2 Neutral strategy
search of work

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 21
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Furthermore, large families and families with peo-

ple with special needs more frequently reported Figure 3.8. Salary as the main source of income
applying coping strategies. IDP households with in IDP households, by rounds, %
three or more children more frequently reported
63
using stress coping strategies, compared to house- 56 58 59
54
holds without children (74% and 38%, respectively),
coupled with the crisis coping strategies (39% and
26%,  respectively) (Figure  3.7). The  same holds
true for households with persons with disabilities,
which more frequently reported using both stress
Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10
and crisis coping strategies, compared to house- (June (September (December (March (June
holds without persons with disabilities. 2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)
Fifty-four (54%) per cent of surveyed IDPs indicated Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
salary as their main source of income (Figure  3.8),
which is a 9% decrease compared to the previ- Government support to IDPs was the most frequent-
ous round. IDPs who indicated salary as their main ly mentioned source of income (56%), the  share
source of income more frequently assessed their of which remained almost the  same compared to
financial situation as ‘enough funds for food, neces- the previous round (Figure 3.9). The share of respon-
sary clothing, footwear, basic needs’, compared to all dents receiving support from the  Government was
surveyed IDPs. still large, which demonstrates that IDPs continue to
rely strongly on government assistance.

Figure 3.7. Coping strategies, by household structure, %

No coping strategies Stress coping strategies Crisis coping strategies Emergency coping strategies

74

53 51 52
46 48 46
38 39 43
34
26 26 25 24

3 3 5 3 4

HHs without HHs with HHs with HHs without people HHs with people
children 1–2 children 3+ children with disabilities with disabilities

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

22 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)

Other frequently mentioned sources of income were

retirement or long service pension (34%) and social Key informant (female, 38):
assistance (27%). The share of IDPs who reported hu- “Large families can now receive up to five thou-
manitarian assistance was minor (7%) (Figure 3.9). sand hryvnas. If anyone from the family makes
some additional money, they are able to pay for
a flat. But if social payments are cancelled, fam-
ilies will simply find themselves on the street.”
Source: FGDs with KIs

Figure 3.9. Sources of income of IDP surveyed households in the past 12 months, by rounds, %

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Government IDP support 43 34 41 55 56
Salary 56 58 59 63 54
Retirement or long service pension 37 38 37 32 34
Social assistance 23 26 27 29 27
Irregular earnings 11 9 10 9 10
Financial support from relatives residing in
9 10 10 9 8
Ukraine
Humanitarian assistance 7 6 5 6 7
Disability pension 4 4 4 5 7
Social pension 4 3 2 3 3
Other incomes 2 4 4 3 4

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 23
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Based on IDP responses from the category ‘other’

received in Round  9 (11%), two new categories IDP (female, 38) from Donetsk Oblast:
were added into the survey in Round 10, specifical- “I’m against loans. I bought a house for my-
ly ‘lack of owning a house’ and ‘lack of money’. As self working hard in Donetsk Oblast, and now I
a result, the most problematic issues identified by have to live with the burden of a loan? I’m not
IDPs was a lack of owning a house, reported by 28% so healthy and young anymore.”
(Figure  3.10). It was more frequently reported by
employed IDPs aged 18–59  years, IDPs with chil- Source: FGDs with IDPs
dren and those who reside in cities. ‘Lack of money’
was the  second most frequently mentioned prob- Key informants’ view of IDP problems differed, as liv-
lematic issue, reported by 18%  of IDPs and more ing conditions were considered the  most problem-
commonly noted by those over 60 years old resid- atic issue (31%), followed by unemployment (22%),
ing in rural areas. lack of possibility to return to the  place of perma-
nent residence  (15%), payment for rent  (7%) and
Key informant (female, 45): suspension of social payments/pensions  (6%).
Other mentioned issues were payment for utili-
“I believe that IDPs should have their own hous- ties  (4%), access to health services  (2%), access to
ing, at least in a dormitory, so that people can medicines (1%), suspension of salaries (1%) and lack
pay less money.” of owning a house  (1%). Other issues were named
Source: FGDs with KIs by 3%, while 4% did not choose any issue and 3% did
not respond to the question (Source: Face-to-face in-
terviews with key informants).

Figure 3.10. The most problematic issues for IDP households, by rounds, %

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Lack of owning a house – – – – 28
Lack of money – – – – 18
Lack of opportunity to return to
9 8 9 10 8
the place of permanent residence
Living conditions 18 12 13 20 7
Payment for rent 18 22 23 15 7
Payment for utilities 20 15 16 15 6
Unemployment 7 6 6 7 4
Access to medicines 3 4 6 4 2
Access to health care 1 1 1 3 1
Suspension of social payments 4 4 3 2 1
Safety 1 1 1 1 1
Other 1 6 1 11 5
None of the above 17 20 20 11 9
No response 1 1 1 1 3

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

24 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)

According to key informants, the  most important

types of IDP support included housing (87%), decent IDP (female, 54) from Donetsk Oblast:
jobs (65%) and the provision of monetary assistance “We accept worse housing conditions con-
from the  Government  (63%). Other mentioned is- sciously, to pay less. Otherwise, we simply be-
sues were provision of psychological support (45%), come insolvent.”
humanitarian assistance (42%), monetary assistance
from non-governmental organizations (42%), medi- Source: FGDs with IDPs
cal aid (37%) and legal assistance (35%) (Source:
Face-to-face interviews with key informants; respon- Most IDPs continued to live in rented housing:
dents could choose more than one option). 48% lived in rented apartments, 10% in rented hous-
es and 4% in rented rooms (Figure 3.11). The share
of IDPs residing with relatives or host families was
Living conditions and types 13% and remained unchanged compared to the pre-
of accommodation vious round. Twelve (12%) per cent of IDPs lived in
their own housing, while 5% continued to reside in
dormitories and 4% in collective centres for IDPs.
Key informant (female, 45):
“When people come here, they don’t have any- IDP (female, 53) from Donetsk Oblast:
thing. They live in whatever accommodation
“When we just arrived, we lived with ac-
and have no future perspectives. They have also
quaintances but decided to move to a rented
lost everything there. That’s why there is a feel-
flat, because we had understood that our ac-
ing that only uncertainty is ahead.”
quaintances could only host guests for a week
Source: FGDs with KIs or two, a month was the longest. They didn’t
tell us that we were excessive, but we realized
this ourselves.”
Source: FGDs with IDPs

Figure 3.11. IDP accommodation types, by rounds, %

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Rented apartment 46 49 47 47 48
Host family/relatives 26 25 24 13 13
Own housing 9 10 11 12 12
Rented house 8 6 8 9 10
Dormitory 3 3 3 7 5
Rented room in an apartment 4 4 3 5 4
Collective centres for IDPs 2 1 1 4 4
Other 2 2 3 3 4

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 25
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Thirty-seven (37%) per cent of IDPs reported having heat insulation (78%) and the  size of the  living
changed their accommodation at least once within space (76%).
the current settlement. High cost of accommodation
The remaining percentage of respondents expressed
was the main reason for moving to another dwelling,
dissatisfaction with living conditions. Among
as reported by 54% of IDPs who moved within their
these respondents, the  level of dissatisfaction was
current settlement. Other frequently mentioned
expressed differently across geographic zones (Fi-
reasons were poor living conditions (34%) and evic-
gure  3.13). In the  first zone, ‘not satisfied’ or ‘not
tion initiated by the owner (25%) (respondents could
fully satisfied’ were the  most frequently reported
choose more than one option).
with water supply (21%), living space (19%), heat
The  level of satisfaction among all surveyed IDPs insulation (19%) and heating (19%). In the  second
with the basic characteristics of housing remained zone, IDPs most frequently reported dissatisfaction
relatively the same as in the previous round. Satis- with living space (33%), heat insulation (29%), heat-
faction with heat insulation increased by 6%, pos- ing (28%) and sewerage (27%). In Kyiv, IDPs most
sibly due to the fact that it is less acute in summer frequently reported dissatisfaction with living space
months (Figure 3.12). Electricity remained the cat- (21%). In the third, fourth and fifth zones, IDPs most
egory with the  highest level of satisfaction (91%), frequently reported dissatisfaction with living space,
while IDPs were least satisfied with heating (78%), heat insulation and heating.

Figure 3.12. IDPs’ satisfaction with living conditions, by rounds, % of satisfied

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Electricity 96 92 93 92 91
Safety 93 88 90 82 86
Sewerage 91 89 90 80 82
Water supply 91 86 86 78 79
Heating 87 85 83 77 78
Heat insulation 86 85 83 72 78
Living space 84 81 84 72 76

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

26 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)

Figure 3.13. IDPs’ dissatisfaction with living conditions, by geographic zones,18 % of dissatisfied

Electricity 3
Safety 7
Electricity 7
Sewerage 5 Electricity 8
Safety 9
Water supply 9 Safety 8
Sewerage 15
Heating 10 Sewerage 15
Water supply 15
Heat insulation 9 Water supply 18
Heating 19 20
Living space 21 Heating
Heat insulation 20 21
Heat insulation
Living space 22 22
Living space

Electricity 8
Safety 12
Sewerage 16
Water supply 21
Heating 19
Heat insulation 19
Living space 19

Electricity 13 Electricity 8
Safety 21 Safety 13
Sewerage 22 Sewerage 27
Water supply 22 Water supply 23
Heating 27 Heating 28
Heat insulation 26 Heat insulation 29
Living space 32 Living space 33

– Zone 5 – Zone 4 (excluding Kyiv) – Kyiv – Zone 3 – Zone 2 – Zone 1

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

18
Grouping of oblasts into zones is by distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Zone 1 – Donetsk (GCA) and
Luhansk (GCA) oblasts; zone 2 – Dnipro, Kharkiv and Zaporizhia oblasts; zone 3 – Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Poltava, Sumy, Kherson
and Cherkasy oblasts; zone 4 – Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia and Odesa oblasts; zone 5 – Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-
Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts.

June 2018 27
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Figure 3.14. IDPs’ dissatisfaction with living conditions, by type of settlement, % of the dissatisfied

46 47 47
41
City (over 100,000)
Town (less 100,000)
Village
28

21 21 22 23
20
18 17
14 15
13 13
10 11 10
9
6

Electricity Safety Sewerage Water supply Heating Heat insulation Living space

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

The  level of dissatisfaction varied across different Half of IDPs (53%) reported that their dwelling re-
types of settlements. The level of dissatisfaction was mained empty, 29%  had their relatives living in
higher in villages than in large cities and towns. In vil- the  dwelling, 2%  had their dwelling occupied by
lages, dissatisfaction with water supply (47%), heat- other people with their permission and 1% report-
ing (47%), sewerage (46%) and heat insulation (41%) ed their dwelling occupied by other people without
was reported most frequently (Figure 3.14). their permission (Figure 3.16).
The absolute majority of IDPs (88%) owned a dwell-
ing before displacement and 81%  reported having Figure 3.16. Сurrent residents of the dwelling
official documentation declaring their ownership. where IDPs lived before the displacement, %
At the time of data collection, about one quarter of
IDPs knew that their dwelling was either damaged No residents
(21%) or ruined (6%); over half of IDPs (59%) were 11 6 Relatives live there
8
aware that their dwelling had not been affected by 2
Other people live there
with our permission
the conflict (Figure 3.15).
53 Other people live there
29 without our permission
Other
Figure 3.15. The condition of the dwelling where
IDPs lived before the displacement, % Difficult to say
No response

1 5 Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

8 Not affected
6 Damaged
Ruined
59
Other
21
Difficult to say
No response

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

28 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)

Suspension of social eligibility for pensions, which have been ongoing by

the Pension Fund of Ukraine.
payments
Figure 3.17. IDPs who have had social payments
IDP (female, 53) from Luhansk Oblast: suspended, by rounds, %
“We have three pensioners in the family and 18 18
the pension wasn’t paid to anyone. But what 12
13
to do, if it is the only source of income, how do 8
people have to live?”
Source: FGDs with IDPs
Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10
(June (September (December (March (June
Eighteen  (18%)  per  cent of IDP  households report- 2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)
ed facing the  suspension of social payments since
the beginning of the conflict, which is the same as Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
in Round 9, but considerably higher than the same
share in Round  8 (Figure  3.17). Among these  18%, The  largest number of suspended payments were
15%  were in the  period from July  2017 to Decem- for monthly housing assistance to IDPs (75%) (Fi-
ber  2017 and 25%  were in the  period from Janu- gure  3.18). Another frequently mentioned type of
ary 2018 to June 2018. The increase could be related suspended social payments was a retirement or long
to changes in the mechanism for verification of IDPs service pension, reported by 19%.

Figure 3.18. Distribution by types of suspended social payments, by rounds, % of respondents who have
had social payments suspended

Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
IDP support (monthly housing support for IDPs) 46 40 73 75
Retirement or long service pension 48 49 22 19
Disability pension 3 7 4 4
Allowance for families with children 4 6 6 5
Other pensions (in connection with the loss of
1 3 2 3
breadwinner, social pension)
Assistance for families with low income 1 0 3 4
Other 0 1 2 2
No response 0 0 1 1

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 29
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Among those IDPs who faced the suspension of so- 4.8  months for IDPs who faced the suspension of
cial assistance, 73% were aware of the reasons be- social payments during 2017 and 2018.
hind the suspension, which is slightly higher than in
the previous rounds (68%) (Figure 3.19).
Figure 3.20. IDPs who were aware about
the procedure on how to renew social payments,
Figure 3.19. IDPs who were aware of the reasons by rounds, % of respondents who have had social
behind the suspension of social payments, by payments suspended
rounds, % of respondents who have had social 68
72
payments suspended
73 48
68
42 41

37 40
35

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(June (September (December (March (June
2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)
Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10
(June (September (December (March (June
2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018) Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Safety of the environment
The majority of IDPs who faced the suspension of and infrastructure
their social payments (72%) reported that they had
been familiar with the procedure for renewing their The  vast majority of IDPs (77%) felt safe in their
payments, which was slightly higher compared current place of residence, although a decline was
to previous rounds (68%) (Figure 3.20). In addi- observed in the  share of IDPs who reported that
tion, the  average duration of the suspension was they felt safe since December  2018 (Figure  3.21).

Figure 3.21. IDPs’ assessment of the safety of the environment and infrastructure of their settlement,
by rounds, %

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
I feel safe 91 83 86 70 77
I feel unsafe in the evenings and in remote
8 14 10 22 16
areas of the settlement
I feel unsafe most of the time 1 3 2 5 4
Other 0 0 0 0 0
No response 0 0 2 3 3

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

30 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)

Sixteen  (16%)  per  cent  of respondents noted that months, as days are longer. In addition, 6% of IDPs
they felt unsafe in the  evenings and in remote ar- reported that they felt unsafe in terms of military
eas of their settlement, which was a 6% decrease actions (Figure 3.22) and 7% felt unsafe in terms of
compared to the previous round. It is possibly due criminal actions (Figure  3.23). The  changes are mi-
to the  fact that it might be less acute in summer nor compared to the previous round.

Figure 3.22. IDPs’ safety assessment of the situation on military actions, by rounds, %

Round 9 Round 10
(March 2018) (June 2018)

I feel safe 74 78

Neither yes nor no 17 14

I feel unsafe 7 6

No response/
2 2
Do not know
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Figure 3.23. IDPs’ safety assessment of the situation on criminal activities, by rounds, %

Round 9 Round 10
(March 2018) (June 2018)

I feel safe 60 65

Neither yes nor no 27 24

I feel unsafe 8 7

No response/
5 4
Do not know

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 31
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Loans and debt obligations Human trafficking

Only 8% of IDPs reported having loans or debt obliga-
and labour exploitation
tions (Figure 3.24). The vast majority (81%) of those During the  interviews, respondents were asked
IDPs who had loans or debt obligations used bank whether anyone in their household had encoun-
funds and 14% borrowed from individuals (friends, tered situations involving deceit on the  part of
acquaintances, among others). Other mentioned the  employer or forced labour since the  beginning
options were specialized credit and financial institu- of the conflict. Eight (8%) per cent of IDPs reported
tions (3%), employers (1%), and ‘other’ (2%), while having encountered at least one such situation since
1%  did not respond to the  question (respondents the  beginning of the  conflict, based on combined
could choose more than one option). data collected through telephone and face-to-face
IDPs reported borrowing money to buy (10%) or interviews in the GCA.
renew (10%) accommodation, pay for healthcare ‘Worked without getting the expected payment’ was
(22%), buy equipment (22%), medicines (19%), food reported by 5% of surveyed IDPs as well as ‘worked in
products (19%), pay rent and utility bills (10%), buy conditions that were significantly worse than prom-
clothes (7%), open their own business (3%), pay for ised’ (5%) (Figure 3.25). The data showed that these
an education (2%) and ‘other’ needs (10%) (respon- situations were more frequently  reported among
dents could choose more than one option). IDPs who had been engaged in the agricultural sec-
tor of employment (37%) and construction (22%).

Figure 3.24. IDP households with loans or debts, by rounds, %

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Had loans or debts 5 3 4 8 8
Did not have 94 97 94 89 88
No response 1 0 2 3 4

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

32 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)

IOM’s experience highlighted that being affected by Furthermore, among IDPs who reported ‘payment of
crises, including armed conflicts or natural disasters, bank loans and debt obligations’ as the most prob-
insecure economic situation of population and as a lematic issue for their households, 41%  reported
result the adoption of negative coping mechanisms encountering at least one of these two situations.
might lead to an increase in vulnerability to traffick- Among IDPs who stated their intention to move
ing and exploitation.19 The NMS data support these abroad in the next three months, 19% reported en-
findings as there was an association between apply- countering such situations as ‘worked without get-
ing coping strategies and reporting ‘worked without ting the expected payment’ or ‘worked in conditions
getting the expected payment’ or ‘worked in condi- that were significantly worse than promised’ since
tions that were significantly worse than promised’. the beginning of the conflict.
Among IDPs who had to engage in stress coping
strategies due to lack of food or a lack of money to Key informant (male, 46):
buy food during the  past 12  months, 9% reported
encountering at least one of these two situations, “A good acquaintance of mine is year to year
10% of IDPs who had to engage in crisis coping strat- dealing with human trafficking problems. And
egies and 25% of IDPs who had to engage in emer- while earlier the  victims of human trafficking
gency coping strategies. were female sex-workers, now they are labour
migrants. The most widespread kind of human
trafficking is labour exploitation. Due to their
Figure 3.25. Situations involving deceit on the part poor earnings, people leave their jobs and are
of the employer or compulsion to work since ready to go anywhere to feed themselves and
the beginning of the conflict, % their families.”
Source: FGDs with KIs
Worked without getting
5
the expected payment

Key informant (male, 40):

Worked in conditions that were
significantly worse than promised 5
“Employers are not too eager to hire displaced
people officially. They understand that they can
Forced to perform work or other activities offer displaced people conditions, which local
against their will 1
people won’t accept. Also, after completion of
Received an offer for employment that works, if there is no employment contract, they
promised to cover expenses that you would 1 can do whatever they want with a person.”
have to repay to the employer at a later stage
Source: FGDs with KIs
Obliged to do housework or give their
pension/salary in exchange for the possibility 1
of free accommodation/meals

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

19
Addressing human trafficking and exploitation in times of
crisis. Evidence and recommendations for further action to
protect vulnerable and mobile populations. International
Organization for Migration. – Geneva, 2015. https://
publications.iom.int/system/files/addressing_human_
trafficking_dec2015.pdf

June 2018 33
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

4. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES

Generally, most surveyed IDPs showed a high level
of satisfaction with the accessibility of all basic social Figure 4.2. Reasons for dissatisfaction when
services. The  situation remained unchanged com- accessing public services, % of those dissatisfied
pared to the  previous round, although a decrease with accessibility of at least one type of social
services
in the level of satisfaction was observed in Round 9.
IDPs were most satisfied with access to education
(79%) and were least satisfied with accessibility of Lack of funds 37
health care services (60%), as well as with availability
of employment opportunities (53%) (Figure 4.1). Lack of information 32

Key informants also assessed IDPs’ access to employ- Lack of employment 27

opportunities
ment and housing as restricted; ‘fully accessible’ was
reported by only 31% and 18%, respectively. Areas Negative treatment 18
such as health care services, education, social pro-
tection and social services were assessed as more Transport accessibility 16
accessible (67% and higher) (Source: Face-to-face
interviews with key informants). Corruption 12

Dissatisfaction with access to basic social services Lack of necessary

8
documents
among IDPs was mainly due to lack of funds, report-
ed by  37%  of respondents (Figure  4.2). Other fre- Other 16
quently mentioned reasons were lack of information
(32%) and lack of employment opportunities (27%). No response 6
Less often reported dissatisfaction stemmed from Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
negative treatment  (18%), transport accessibil- Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
ity  (16%), corruption (12%) and lack of necessary
documents (8%).

Figure 4.1. IDPs’ satisfaction with the accessibility of basic social services, by rounds, % of the satisfied
among those respondents who expressed a need for a particular type of service

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Possibilities to obtain education and enrol
84 89 90 80 79
children in schools/ kindergartens
Accessibility of administrative services 84 81 81 69 69
Possibility of receiving a pension
79 74 79 68 68
or social assistance
Accessibility of health care services 88 84 85 62 60
Availability of employment opportunities 69 66 69 56 53

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

34 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)

Taking a closer look at the different aspects of health- those 35% of IDPs who did not see a doctor during
care, the  amount of time required to travel from the  past year, 20%  reported having been told that
home to healthcare facilities was below 30-minutes they had a chronic disease.
for most respondents. The  majority of IDPs (91%)
had a pharmacy within 30-minutes  walking dis-
tance, and over half of IDPs reported having access Figure 4.4. IDPs’ last visit to a therapist
or a family doctor, %
to polyclinic outpatient care (62%), ambulatory out-
patient  care (57%) and hospital/dispensary (55%) 4
within 30-minutes  walking distance (Figure  4.3). Up to 6 months ago
The absence of pharmacy, polyclinic outpatient care 6–12 months ago
35 43
and hospital was more frequently mentioned in rural More than 1 year ago
areas (13%, 53% and 55%, respectively). No response
Over half (61%) of surveyed IDPs reported visiting a 18
therapist or family doctor during the past year, while
35% saw a doctor for the last time more than a year Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
ago (Figure 4.4). Among those 35% of IDPs who did
not see a doctor during the past year, 84% stated that
there was no need. In addition, among those 35% of Figure 4.5. Reasons for not seeing a doctor during
IDPs, 33% were people aged 18–34 years, 46% were the past year, % of respondents who expressed a
people aged 35–59 years and 21% were people aged need for seeing a doctor
over 60 years. Other mentioned reasons for not see-
ing a doctor for those IDPs who expressed a need for
Could not afford it 42
it were lack of money (42%), lack of trust (21%) and
lack of time (14%) (Figure 4.5). Did not trust doctors 21
Thirty-one  (31%)  per  cent  of IDPs mentioned that
Did not have time 14
they had been told by a doctor or other health care
provider that they had a chronic disease.20 Among Other 14

No response 15

20
The following description of chronic disease was used in Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
the questionnaire: a chronic disease is an illness that will Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
not go away or takes a long time to go away, even when
treated.

Figure 4.3. Time to travel to healthcare facilities, %

Pharmacy Polyclinic outpatient care Ambulatory outpatient care Hospital / Dispensary

Up to 15 minutes by foot 61 19 24 16
15–30 minutes 30 43 33 39
30–60 minutes 4 20 13 23
Above 1 hour by foot 2 5 3 8
Do not have such facilities in
2 10 15 8
current place of residence
Do not know 1 2 9 5
No response 0 1 3 1

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 35
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Generally, most IDPs (65%) reported going to state

medical institutions to treat their health issues (Fi- Figure 4.6. Usual way of treating health issues, %
gure  4.6). The  most frequently mentioned reasons
for this were low cost (35%), the  absence of an- Going to state medical
65
other alternative (12%) and trust in medical staff institution
(9%). ‘Other’ reasons were reported by 27%, while Going directly to pharmacy 15
17%  did not respond to the  question. At the  same
time, 15% reported going directly to a pharmacy or Going to private medical
6
institution
taking a home remedy (5%). The  most frequently
Taking home remedy 5
mentioned reasons for going directly to a pharmacy
were absence of severe diseases  (22%), awareness Other 4
of treatment plans  (15%), affordability (15%) and
saving of time (14%). ‘Other’ reasons were reported No response 5
by 24%, while 10% did not respond to the question.
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
The  most commonly reported reasons for taking a
home remedy were affordability (38%), absence of
With regards to IDPs’ satisfaction with different as-
severe diseases  (9%) and lack of trust in medical
pects of healthcare, cost of medicine and services
staff  (7%). ‘Other’ reasons were reported by 35%,
were the categories with the lowest level of satisfac-
while 11%  did not respond to the  question. Visit-
tion. When asked about their satisfaction with dif-
ing a private medical institution was reported by
ferent aspects of healthcare in their current place
only 6%  of IDPs and the  mentioned reasons were
of residence, a substantial portion of IDPs reported
the  quality of the  services (30%), trust in medical
‘not satisfied’ with the cost of medicine and services,
staff (22%) and the efficiency of the services (16%).
59% and 40%, respectively (Figure 4.7).
‘Other’ reasons were reported by 20%, while 12% did
not respond to the question.

Figure 4.7. IDPs’ satisfaction with different aspects of healthcare in their current place of residence,
% of respondents who expressed a need for a particular type of service

Satisfied Neither yes nor no Not satisfied No response/Do not know

Proximity to the nearest facilities 64 19 12 5

Hospitals facilities 57 27 8 8

Availability of medicine 55 22 14 9

Availability of qualified staff 44 27 18 11

Availability of specialized care 37 27 23 13

Cost of services 17 25 40 18

Cost of medicine 10 25 59 6

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

36 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)

Furthermore, only one third of IDPs (33%) noted that The vast majority of IDPs (83%) estimated their ac-
the  medicines they usually need were affordable, cess to healthcare services as the same as for the lo-
while almost half of IDPs (48%) assessed it as unaf- cal population and only 4% stated a difference in
fordable for them (Figure  4.8). In the  past month, accessibility (Figure 4.9). When asked whether they
the average IDPs’ expenses for healthcare and medi- had experienced any changes in their access to
cines were UAH 1,569 and UAH 1,222, respectively. healthcare since the beginning of the conflict, almost
Those who did not spend money on healthcare and half (49%) of IDPs stated that there were no changes
medicines in the past month amounted to 59% and for them. Thirteen (13%) per cent mentioned restric-
31%, respectively, while 20% and 17%, respectively, tion of access to healthcare services and worsening
did not respond to these questions. of service quality, and 9% reported a rise of prices.
‘Other’ reasons were reported by 6%, while 23% did
Generally, IDPs frequently reported satisfaction
not respond to the question.
with proximity to the  nearest facilities; ‘satisfied’
was reported by  64%. Less frequently reported
satisfaction was with hospital facilities  (57%) and Figure 4.9. IDPs’ assessment of difference in access
availability of medicine  (55%); less than half of to healthcare services between IDPs and local
IDPs noted satisfaction with availability of qualified population, %
staff (44%) and availability of specialized care (37%) 1
(Figure 4.7). Although healthcare appears to be re­
12
latively accessible, data shows that it is not afford- 4 No differences
able for many IDPs. On the other hand, the level of There were differences
satisfaction was expressed differently across types Difficult to answer
of settlements; ‘not satisfied’ with almost all as- No response
83
pects of healthcare was more frequently reported
by IDPs residing in rural areas.
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
Figure 4.8. IDPs’ assessment of affordability
of medicine they usually need, %

3
16 Affordable
33
Not affordable
Difficult to answer
No response
48

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 37
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

5. IDP MOBILITY
Displacement
The share of IDPs who reported that they had been
staying in their current place of residence for over
three years reached 62% in Round 10 (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Length of time spent in the current place of residence, by rounds, %

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Up to 6 months 5 3 3 4 4
7–12 months 10 6 6 5 4
13–18 months 4 4 2 4 3
19–24 months 13 10 10 8 7
25–30 months 28 11 8 4 3
31–36 months 36 49 42 22 14
More than 36 months 1 15 25 48 62
No response 3 2 4 5 3

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Intentions on return
IDP (female, 53) from Donetsk Oblast: IDP (female, 39) from Donetsk Oblast:
“My children are already grown-up, I will con- “I am planning to stay. But, when you are under
tinue to help them until they stand firmly on fire, it is not as scary as when your children see
their own feet, then leave them here, and re- your miseries.”
turn home. I am ready to return because I find it
Source: FGDs with IDPs
hard here, both morally and physically.”
Source: FGDs with IDPs

38 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)

The share of IDPs who reported their intention to At the same time, the share of IDPs who chose the re-
return to their places of residence after the  end sponse ‘difficult to answer’ was as high as  18% (Fi-
of the  conflict was 28%, which was slightly high- gure 5.2). These results might indicate the uncer-
er than in the previous round (Figure 5.2). On tainty of IDPs’ about their future, as this was also
the  other hand, 38%  of IDPs expressed an inten- identified by the participants of the focus group dis-
tion not to return even after the  end of the  con- cussions. When asked about their plans for the next
flict, which was the same as in the previous round. three months, the vast majority of IDPs (84%) stated
Since March 2018, the portion of IDPs who stated an intention to stay in their current place of residence.
their intention not to return continued to exceed Others mentioned a return to the place of residence
the portion of those IDPs who had an intention to before displacement  (2%), move to another oblast
return after the end of the conflict. (move across Ukraine) (2%), move abroad (2%), ‘dif-
ficult to answer’  (8%), while 2%  did not respond to
the question.

Figure 5.2. General IDPs’ intentions on returning to live in the place of residence before the displacement,
by rounds, %

Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Yes, in the near future 1 2 1 1
Yes, after the end of the conflict 32 25 25 28
Yes, maybe in future 17 18 14 12
No 29 28 38 38
Difficult to answer 21 25 20 18
No response 0 2 2 3

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 39
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

The intention to stay was higher among IDPs who re- ing in the NGCA. IDPs who had close family residing
sided further away from the NGCA (Figure 5.3). These in the NGCA more frequently expressed their inten-
results remained consistent across all NMS rounds . tion to return (58%) than those IDPs who had no
In addition, data showed that over half (56%) of IDPs close family there (46%).
had close family members who were currently resid-

Figure 5.3. IDPs’ intentions to return/not to return to live in their place of residence before
the displacement, by geographic zones,21 %

Yes, in the near future 1

Yes, after the end of the conflict 19
Yes, maybe in future 10
No 46
Yes, in the near future 0
Difficult to answer 24
Yes, after the end of the conflict 13
Yes, maybe in future 12
No 53
Difficult to answer 22 Yes, in the near future 1
Yes, after the end of the conflict 38
Yes, maybe in future 11
No 28

53% Difficult to answer 22

53%
46% 28%
44%

Yes, in the near future 1 Yes, in the near future 2

Yes, after the end of the conflict 15 Yes, after the end of the conflict 20
Yes, maybe in future 13 Yes, maybe in future 14
No 53 No 44
Difficult to answer 18 Difficult to answer 20

– Zone 5 – Zone 4 – Zone 3 – Zone 2 – Zone 1

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

21
Grouping of oblasts into zones is by distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Zone 1 – Donetsk (GCA) and
Luhansk (GCA) oblasts; zone 2 – Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv and Zaporizhia oblasts; zone 3 – Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Poltava, Sumy,
Kherson and Cherkasy oblasts; zone 4 – Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia and Odesa oblasts; zone 5 – Volyn, Zakarpattia,
Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts.

40 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)

Intentions to move abroad Visits to places of residence

In general, intentions to find a job abroad were
before the displacement
low. Only 1%  of IDPs reported that they had al- The share of IDPs who visited their place of residence
ready found a job abroad and were about to move, after becoming displaced was 57% in Round 10 (Fi-
while 5% noted that they had an intention to find gure 5.5).
a job abroad soon (Figure 5.4). The changes were
minor compared to the  previous round. Fifty-
one (51%) per cent of IDPs reported that, although Figure 5.5. Share of IDPs who visited their places
they had nothing against working abroad, they had of living before the displacement, by rounds, %
no intention of going abroad; 34% stated that they
58 57 57
would never work abroad. 54
51
During the  interviews with key informants, they
were asked whether IDPs had left their settle-
ment during the past three months, whether they
had information about the places where IDPs had
moved for and what was the main reason for their
moving. Only 4% of key informants reported that
IDPs from their settlement had gone to other
countries to find a job in the past three months. A Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10
total of 30% of key informants indicated that ad- (June (September (December (March (June
2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)
vertisements for employment abroad were avail-
able in their settlements (Source: Face-to-face in- Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
terviews with key informants).

Figure 5.4. General IDPs’ intentions to find a job abroad, by rounds, %

Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Had already found a job abroad and were about to move 1 1 1
Had an intention to find a job abroad soon 4 5 5
Had nothing against working abroad, but personally they
45 48 51
were not going to
Would never work abroad 31 28 34
Other 0 2 2
Difficult to answer 8 10 5
No response 11 6 2

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 41
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

The main reasons to travel to the NGCA were visiting added into the  survey in Round  10, specifically ‘no
and maintaining housing (69%), and visiting friends need to visit’. For IDPs who had not visited the NGCA
or family (58%) (Figure 5.6). These results remained since the displacement, the main reason for not go-
consistent across the survey period. ing back was the perception that it was ‘life-threat-
ening’, as reported by 52%  of respondents, and
Based on IDPs’ responses from the category ‘other’
‘no need to visit’ was reported by 29% of IDPs (Fi-
received in Round  9 (10%), the  new category was
gure 5.7).

Figure 5.6. Reasons for IDPs to visit NGCA since the displacement, by rounds,
% of respondents visiting NGCA

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Visiting and/or maintaining housing 75 75 75 62 69
Visiting friends and/or family 53 54 58 57 58
Transportation of belongings 26 25 22 28 20
Special occasions, such as weddings
6 7 4 5 5
or funerals
Research of return opportunities 5 7 4 4 5
Operations with property (sale, rent) 2 2 1 2 2
Other 1 1 2 3 2
No response 2 1 6 1 1

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Figure 5.7. Reasons for IDPs NOT to visit the NGCA after the displacement, by rounds,
% of IDPs who did not visit the NGCA

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Life-threatening 44 33 36 55 52
No need to visit – – – – 29
Lack of financial possibilities 11 13 15 18 21
Political reasons 16 20 16 27 19
No property remained and/or no
10 10 14 14 11
relatives or friends remained
Health reasons 9 13 8 13 14
Other 7 9 3 10 4
No response 3 2 8 8 5

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

42 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)

Based on IDPs’ responses from the category ‘other’

IDP (female, 35) from Donetsk Oblast: received in Round  9 (7%), the  new category was
“I had even been crying that I couldn’t get to my added into the survey in Round 10, specifically ‘high
relatives, but when we were home in 2016, no financial expenditures’. As a result, the major barri-
single neighbour even greeted us.” ers identified by IDPs visiting the NGCA were queues
at the checkpoints along the contact line (61%), high
Source: FGDs with IDPs financial expenditures (33%) and lack of transporta-
tion (30%) (Figure 5.8).

Figure 5.8. Most significant barriers to visit the NGCA as reported by respondents who visited the NGCA
since the displacement, by rounds, %

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Queues on the contact line 55 55 63 61 61
High financial expenditures – – – – 33
Availability of transportation 30 26 24 37 30
Fear for life 21 13 12 25 23
Health status 13 10 16 12 12
Problems with registration crossing
6 11 3 9 8
documents
Fear of robbery 3 3 2 3 2
Fear of violence 2 2 2 3 3
Other 2 2 2 7 2
No response 2 1 5 1 1
Had no barriers 16 30 25 18 15

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 43
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

The data from the survey of people crossing the con- The expense of crossing the contact line differed de-
tact line showed that the reasons why respondents pending on the way of crossing, i.e. by car or on foot.
chose a  certain checkpoint were mainly the  pro­ The  largest share  (63%) of respondents who trav-
ximity to their place of residence and place of des- elled to the NGCA by car reported spending up to
tination (Figure  5.9). ‘Hnutove’ was the  checkpoint UAH 500 on their current trip, while 77% of respon-
which was most frequently chosen because of short- dents who travelled to the  NGCA on foot reported
er queues (25%) and shorter crossing time (22%), spending up to UAH 250 (Figure 5.10).
while ‘Stanytsia Luhanska’, being the  only check-
point in the Luhansk Oblast, was frequently chosen
because of cheaper transportation (28%).

Figure 5.9. Reasons to travel through a certain checkpoint, %

Stanytsia
  Hnutove Maiorske Mariinka Novotroitske
Luhanska
Close to the place of residence 80 60 97 56 64
Close to the place of destination 79 63 5 85 79
Cheaper transportation 28 5 0 3 5
Shorter queue 1 25 0 6 11
Shorter crossing time 1 22 0 4 7
Available transportation 1 6 0 2 4
Better waiting conditions 2 2 0 2 4
Better security situation 0 1 0 0 0
There is no other checkpoint 21 0 0 0 0
Other 1 1 0 0 1

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line

Figure 5.10. Cost of the current one-way trip, by direction and mean of transportation, %

Up to UAH 250 UAH 251–500 UAH 501–1,000 Over UAH 1,000 No response

From GCA to NGCA (by foot) 77 16 7

From NGCA to GCA (by foot) 87 10 3

From GCA to NGCA (by auto) 20 43 34 21

Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line

44 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)

The main purposes of IDPs current trip to the NGCA

were visiting friends/family  (78%) and visiting/ Figure 5.12. Purpose of visit to the NGCA
maintaining housing (56%), based on the data from in the past three months, % of GCA residents
the  survey of people crossing the  contact line (Fi-
Other
gure 5.11). ‘Visiting friends or family’ was more fre-   IDPs GCA
quently mentioned by other GCA residents (92%) as residents
a purpose of their current visit to the NGCA.22 Banking services (opening an account,
8 7
receiving or closing a loan etc.)
Medical care (incl. psychological services) 6 10
Figure 5.11. Purpose of current visit to the NGCA,23
% of GCA residents Buying medicines 2 1
Renewing or receiving documents
Other (incl. obtaining certificates, registration of 2 1
  IDPs GCA business, inheritance, or property rights)
residents
Buying food items 1 1
Visiting friends and/or family 78 92
Buying non-food products 0 1
Visiting and/or maintaining housing 56 17
Other services 1 3
Solving the documents issues 3 2
Had not crossed the contact line for
Transportation of things 2 1 the last three months for mentioned 86 81
For treatment 2 4 purposes

Special occasions, such as weddings or Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
1 3
funerals Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line
For business purpose/for the job 1 3
Operations with property (sale, rent) 1 1 The main sources of information for IDPs on the si­
tuation in the NGCA were internet (48%), television
Buying goods 0 1
(48%), and relatives or friends residing in the NGCA
Other 5 4
(47%) (Figure 5.13).
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line
Figure 5.13. Sources of information regarding
The  vast majority of both IDPs  (86%) and oth- the NGCA used by IDPs, %
er GCA residents (81%) surveyed while crossing
the  contact line reported not visiting the  NGCA Internet 48
for the  last three  months for the mentioned pur-
TV 48
poses (Figure 5.12). Those respondents who visited
the NGCA for the last three months most frequently Relatives or friends
47
residing in the NGCA
did so in order to obtain banking services (8% and
7%,  respectively) and medical treatment  (6% and Personal visits 21
10%, respectively). Relatives or friends
visiting the NGCA 14

Newspapers 4

State authorities 4

NGO 2

Other 2

No response 5

22
The trip that took place at the time of survey. Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

23
The trip that took place at the time of survey Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2018 45
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

6. INTEGRATION INTO LOCAL

COMMUNITIES
Integration rates In Round 10, the share of IDPs who reported that they
had integrated into their local community amounted
to 45%, and 35% of surveyed IDPs stated that they
IDP (male, 40) from Donetsk Oblast: had partly integrated (Figure 6.1). Generally, the to-
tal share (80%) of IDPs who reported some level of
“The trouble has united us. The local people
integration did not change compared to the previous
have met us with great warmth. They under-
round (80%). At the same time, a shift towards more
stand us, cooperate with us, and in such an alli-
moderate responses was observed since Round  9,
ance, we are making the life of our community
as the  share of IDPs who reported that they had
better in general.”
completely integrated decreased and the  share of
Source: FGDs with IDPs those who reported that they had partly integrated
increased in Round 9. In Round 10, the share of IDPs
who reported that they had not integrated was 17%,
IDP (male, 46) from Donetsk Oblast: which was similar to the results of Round 9.
“We want to become permanent residents of Data from the  key informants survey showed mi-
Kharkiv, we want to live, work, earn, give birth nor changes compared to the previous round.
to children here.” The  majority (66%) of key informants reported that
IDPs were partly integrated into their local communi-
Source: FGDs with IDPs ties and 26% stated that they were completely inte-
grated (Figure 6.2). The change towards more moder-
ate responses was also observed since Round 9.

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

Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(March 2017) (June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Yes 56 68 59 65 38 45
Partly 32 25 27 27 42 35
No 11 6 13 7 14 17
No response 1 1 1 1 6 3
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

Figure 6.2. Key informants’ assessment of IDPs integration in the local community, by rounds, %

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

 
(June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)
Yes 45 58 54 27 26
Partly 46 37 39 62 66
No 4 2 2 4 3
No response 5 3 5 7 5
Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants

46 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)

According to the respondents’ self-assessment of est rate of IDPs who reported being integrated into
their integration, Kyiv was the location with the high- the local community in Round 10 (Figure 6 .3) .

Figure 6.3. IDPs’ self-assessment of their integration in the local community, by geographic zones,24 %

Yes 66
Partly 24
No 10
No response 0
Yes 53
Partly 39
Yes 53
No 7
Partly 36
No response 1
No 11
66% No response 0

53% Yes 41
43% 41% Partly 35

41%
No 19
53% No response 5

Yes 43
Yes 41
Partly 36
Partly 42
No 20
No 16
No response 1
No response 1

– Zone 5 – Zone 4 (excluding Kyiv) – Kyiv – Zone 3 – Zone 2 – Zone 1

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

24
Grouping of oblasts into zones is by distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Zone 1 – Donetsk (GCA) and
Luhansk (GCA) oblasts; zone 2 – Dnipro, Kharkiv and Zaporizhia oblasts; zone 3 – Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Poltava, Sumy, Kherson
and Cherkasy oblasts; zone 4 – Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia and Odesa oblasts; zone 5 – Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-
Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts.

June 2018 47
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

The main conditions for successful integration indi- of trust and sense of belonging. The  data demon-
cated by IDPs were housing (86%), regular income strated that the IDPs’ self-assessment of their inte-
(66%) and employment (48%), which remained gration in the local community correlated the most
consistent throughout all NMS rounds (Figure 6.4). with the  sense of trust in locals and neighbours as
The data continues to support the trend towards an well as sense of belonging to people in their current
increased share of IDPs who mentioned ‘family and place of residence.
friends in the same place’ as a necessary condition
Seventy-one (71%) per cent of all surveyed IDPs not-
for integration since March 2018, which was report-
ed that among people they regularly interacted with,
ed by 44% of surveyed IDPs in Round 10 and 47% in
almost all or far more than half belonged to the local
Round 9.
population (Figure 6.5). This rate was higher among
Further analysis was conducted regarding the differ- IDPs residing in villages (85%). Only 1%  of all IDPs
ent aspects of social integration of IDPs into the host who took part in the survey said they had no interac-
communities, in particular social surroundings, level tion with members of their host community.

Figure 6.4. IDPs’ conditions for integration in the local community, by rounds, %

Round 5 (March 2017)
Round 6 (June 2017)
83 84 82 86 Round 7 (September 2017)
79
Round 8 (December 2017)
67 64 61 66 62 66 Round 9 (March 2018)
55 52 54 52 53
48 47 44
Round 10 (June 2018)
42
30 33 33
35 34 37 31 35 33 34 31
28 29
26 24 25 24
18 21
14 14 15 17
8 8 6 5 7

Housing Regular Employment Family and Access Support Easy access to Possibility to
income friends in to public of local documentation vote in local
the same place services community elections

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

Figure 6.5. The share of the local population IDPs regularly interact with, by settlement type, %

Almost Far more About Far less None Do not know/

all than a half a half than a half No response

City (over 100,000) 36 31 15 13 1 4

Town (less 100,000) 40 32 11 12 2 3

Village 47 38 6 31 5

All respondents 39 32 12 11 1 5

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

48 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)

The data indicated that the sense of trust was rather Examining the  level of trust further, far fewer IDPs
strong among IDPs and the  host community. Fifty- reported relying on host community members for
four (54%) per cent of IDPs reported ‘trusted fully’ everyday favours such as transportation, borrow-
or ‘trusted a lot’ towards locals in their current place ing money or childcare. Sixteen (16%) per cent of all
of residence (values 1 and 2 on a five-point scales), surveyed IDPs reported relying on the local popula-
51% to people in their neighbourhood and 49% to tion ‘always’ or ‘frequently’, while ‘rarely’ or ‘never’
co-workers (Figure 6.6). The share of IDPs reporting were reported by 43% of all IDPs who took part in
trust to local population and people in their neigh- the survey (Figure 6.7). The share of IDPs who noted
bourhood was higher among IDPs residing in villag- that they relied ‘always’ or ‘frequently’ on host com-
es, 68% and 63%, respectively. munity members for everyday favours was higher
among IDPs residing in villages (26%) and substan-
tially lower among IDPs residing in towns (10%).

Figure 6.6. The IDPs’ level of trust to the local population, %

1 2 3 4 5 Do not know/
Can be Can be Moderately Can be Cannot be No response
trusted fully trusted trusted trusted
a lot a little at all

Locals in your current place of residence

(not IDPs) 16 38 33 4 2 7

People in your neighbourhood 14 37 35 5 2 7

People you work with (or study with)* 18 31 33 5 2 11

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

*The question was only asked if IDPs were working or studying at the moment the survey was conducted

Figure 6.7. Frequency of IDPs reliance on locals for everyday favours, in the past six months,
by settlement type, %
Always Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never Do not know/
No response
City (over 100,000) 4 15 33 19 22 7

Town (less 100,000) 2 8 31 26 23 10

Village 3 23 42 22 6 4

All respondents 3 13 33 22 21 8

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

June 2018 49
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

The  data indicated that IDPs still had a stronger

sense of belonging to people in their former place of
Discrimination
residence than to people in their current residence. The share of IDPs who reported perceived discrimi-
In total, ‘very strong’ or ‘strong’ sense of belonging nation or the feeling of being treated unfairly based
to people in the  former place of residence was re- on their IDP status was 12% in Round 10 (Figure 6.9),
ported by 40% of IDPs, compared to 25% to people a minor difference compared to the previous round.
in the current place of residence (Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.8. Strength of IDPs’ sense of belonging to people in current/former place of residenсe, %

1 2 3 4 5 No Do not know/
Very Strong Moderate Weak Very sense of No response
strong weak belonging

People in the current place

of residence (town, city or village) 6 19 48 8 4 5 10

People in the former place of residence

(town, city or village) 11 29 36 6 3 3 12

People in the current region of residence 4 20 45 9 5 4 13

People in the former region of residence 9 30 35 7 3 3 13

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

Figure 6.9. Distribution of IDPs by perceived discrimination based on their IDP status, by rounds, %

Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

  (March (June (September (December (March (June
2017) 2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)
Yes 18 10 15 14 13 12
No 77 86 84 85 81 85
No response 5 4 1 1 6 3

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

50 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)

Based on IDP responses from the  category ‘other’ respondents aged over 60  years; and perceived
received in Round  9 (13%), the  new category was discrimination regarding healthcare was more fre-
added into the survey in Round 10, specifically ‘ob- quently reported by respondents aged over 60 years
taining administrative services’. Perceptions of dis- and those residing in rural areas.
crimination or unfair treatment noted by IDPs main-
According to key informants, known cases of dis-
ly concerned housing  (34%), employment  (32%),
crimination were reported by 8%  and mainly con-
healthcare  (29%), interactions with the  local popu-
cerned employment (41%), access to social benefits
lation  (24%) and obtaining administrative servic-
and IDP documentation processing by authorities
es  (16%) (Figure  6.10). Generally, perceptions of
(26%), communications with the  local population
discrimination or unfair treatment regarding hous-
(23%), as well as housing (18%) (Source: Face-to-face
ing  was more frequently reported by respondents
interviews with key informants, respondents could
aged 18–34 years; employment was more frequently
choose more than one option).
mentioned by respondents aged 18–59  years than

Figure 6.10. Spheres of discrimination, by rounds, % of IDPs who experienced perceived discrimination

Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

  (June (September (December (March (June
2017) 2017) 2017) 2018) 2018)
Housing 46 65 50 25 34
Employment 31 28 19 29 32
Health care 22 26 16 31 29
Interactions with local population 19 23 39 32 24
Obtaining administrative services – – – – 16
Education 12 6 16 8 6
Other 7 11 7 13 6
No response 0 1 1 2 3

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

June 2018 51
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

According to IDPs, the  most effective channels for of a passport and documents confirming the  need
sharing existing issues faced by IDPs with the  pub- to change the  place of voting: travel documents, a
lic were informing the media (52%), communication certificate from a place of study, lease contract, etc.
with international organizations and international There is an exemption for IDPs whose voting ad-
non-governmental organizations (42%), communi- dress is in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and
cation with local authorities (39%), with the central the  city of Sevastopol from submission of the  sup-
government (38%) and with non-governmental or- porting documents to confirm the  need for a tem-
ganizations (35%) (Figure 6.11). porary change of the place for voting. However, lost
or destroyed identity documents, absence of a lease
contract and lack of awareness of the  procedure
Electoral rights for voting in the  displacement prevents IDPs from
the  active participation in the  elections, despite
The Constitution of Ukraine grants equal rights for all
the existing procedures.
citizens, including electoral rights. Furthermore, po-
litical participation is a necessary condition for IDPs In practice, IDPs face several obstacles that prevent
integration into the local communities. IDPs exercise them from exercising their right to vote. In accor-
their right to vote according to the  procedure for dance with the  Central Election Commission, IDPs
temporarily changing voting place without changing are not eligible to vote in elections that are held in
the  voting address, in accordance with the  Law of the  place of their actual residence, as they do not
Ukraine ‘On ensuring the rights and freedoms of in- belong to the territorial community they have been
ternally displaced persons’. The procedure requires displaced to. For local elections, the  electoral ad-
submission of a written request as well as copies dress of the  voter is determined by the  registered

Figure 6.11. Most effective method of communicating issues as identified

by the IDP population, by rounds, %

Round 5 (March 2017) Round 8 (December 2017)

Round 6 (June 2017) Round 9 (March 2018)
Round 7 (September 2017) Round 10 (June 2018)
54 52
49
46 44 44
43 41 43 42 41 40
39 38
36 37 36 35
32 33 35 34 35
31 30
25
20 19
13
10

Media Communication Communication with Communication Communication

with international local authorities with the central with NGOs
organizations/INGOs government

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

52 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)

place of residence. Thus, IDPs will be able to vote in

local elections if they become members of the ter- Key informant (male, 46):
ritorial community, i.e. register in a new place of “If displaced people were voters, officials
residence in accordance with the Law of Ukraine ‘On would try hard for them. I guess, programmes
freedom of movement and free choice of place of would be launched, and they would travel, and
residence in Ukraine’. However, the majority of IDPs make public statements, and so on. This is their
do not have their own housing to register or cannot legal right! They have been living in the city for
register in their rented accommodations. such a long time?”
Forty-one  (41%)  per  cent of interviewed IDPs
Source: FGDs with KIs
stated their intention to vote in the next presiden-
tial and parliamentary elections in Ukraine, while
The most common reason for not intending to vote
33% had no intention to vote and 24% were unde-
in the next presidential and parliamentary elections
cided (Figure 6.12).
was a notion that, as an IDP, they had no right to
vote in the  elections (31%) (Figure  6.14). Further-
Figure 6.12. IDPs’ intention to vote in the next more, 24% reported that they did not believe in elec-
presidential and parliamentary elections of tions or did not trust the authorities, and 16% men-
Ukraine, % tioned that they did not know how to vote while in
displacement. Other mentioned reasons were lack
2
of interest in participation in elections  (11%), lack
of candidates for whom they could vote  (9%), reli-
24 I am going to vote
41 gious reasons (2%), lack of time (1%) and ‘other’ rea-
I am not going to vote
Do not know
sons (1%), while 5% did not respond to the question.
No response
33
Figure 6.14. Reasons for not intending to vote in
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
the next presidential and parliamentary elections,
% of those intending not to vote
In addition, 58%  stated that they would vote in As IDP I have no right
the next local elections if there was such a possibility to vote 31
(Figure 6.13). The changes were minor compared to I do not believe in elections,
the previous round. 24
do not trust the authorities
I do not know how to vote in
16
displacement
Figure 6.13. IDPs’ intention to vote in the next
local election in their current place of residence, I have never been interested
11
in participation in election
if there was such a possibility, %
There are no candidates for
1 9
whom I could vote

For religious reasons 2

19 Yes, if there is
a possibility
58 I have no time 1
No
22 Do not know
Other 1
No response

No response 5
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

June 2018 53
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Over half of IDPs (60%) did not know how to vote

in their current place of residence, while 38%  of Figure 6.15. IDPs’ awareness of procedure
IDPs reported being aware of the procedure for vot- for voting in the displacement in the presidential
ing in the displacement and 2% did not respond to and parliamentary elections, %
the question (Figure 6.15). The data showed an as-
2
sociation between voting intention and awareness
of the procedure. Compared to all respondents who
38 Yes
stated an intention regarding the  next presidential
No
and parliamentary elections, IDPs who reported
60 No response
awareness of the voting procedure more frequently
reported an intention to vote. In particular, among
IDPs who stated being familiar with the voting pro-
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
cedure, 82% reported an intention to vote compared
to 40% of IDPs who noted that they were not familiar
with the voting procedure.

54 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)

7. RETURNEES TO THE NON-

GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AREAS
When conducting the  telephone survey, which in through telephone and face-to-face interviews in
Round  10 included 4,006  interviews in all oblasts the  GCA. The  largest share of surveyed returnee
of Ukraine, 760  respondents (19%) were identi- households consisted of two  persons (41%), and
fied as IDPs who returned and are currently lived 38%  of surveyed returnee households consisted of
in the  NGCA, which was considerably higher than one person (Figure 7.2). Among these 38% of single-
in the previous round (Figure 7.1). It is worth men- person households, 68% were women.
tioning that during the implementation of the tele-
phone survey in February  2018, interruption of
mobile services was experienced in Donetsk Oblast Figure 7.2. Distribution of returnee households by
number of members, %
(NGCA). As a result, a lower number of respondents
were identified as IDPs who returned and currently
lived in the NGCA. 1 person 38

During the  interviews, the  respondents were 2 persons 41

asked about the  composition of their households.
3 persons 13
The  average size of surveyed returnee house-
holds was 1.94 persons, which was smaller than 4 persons and more 8
the  average size of IDP  households in the  GCA
(2.62  persons), based on combined data collected Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

Figure 7.1. Respondents identified as returnees when conducting the telephone survey, by rounds, %
19
16 14
13
10
8

Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10

(March 2017) (June 2017) (September 2017) (December 2017) (March 2018) (June 2018)

Source: Telephone interviews

June 2018 55
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Households with children made up only 14% of all Ten (10%) per cent of returnee households reported
returnee households  (Figure  7.3), which is lower having a family member with a disability (Figure 7.5).
than among IDP households (46%) based on com-
bined data. Households with one child made up
64%  of the  total number of returnee households Figure 7.5. Distribution of returnee households
with people with disabilities (I–III disability groups,
with children. The share of large families with three
children with disabilities), %
or more children amounted to only 4% of returnee
households with children, and the  share of single
10
parent households was 37%  of returnee  house-
holds with children. Households with people
with disabilities
Households without
Figure 7.3. Distribution of returnee households people with disabilities
90
with or without children, %

Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

14
The  largest share of returnee heads of household
Households with children had a vocational education (39%) (Figure 7.6), while
Households without children 55%  of IDP heads of household had some form of
86 higher education, based on combined data. This
corresponds to the age composition of the respon-
dents, as higher education is more common among
Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA
the younger generation.
Women represented 57%  of surveyed returnee
household members, which was the same as the por- Figure 7.6. Distribution of returnee heads
tion of women among IDP  households based on of household by educational attainment, %
combined data. Among these 57%  of women, 49%
were aged over 60 years, which was slightly higher
Advanced degree 16
than the  share of men of the  same age  (41%)  (Fi-
gure 7.4). Generally, the surveyed returnee popula- University degree 12
tion was older than the  IDP population, 53.5  years
Incomplete higher
compared to 36.2 years, based on combined data. education 5

Vocational education 39
Figure 7.4. Gender and age distribution of returnee
household members, % Secondary education 19
Incomplete secondary
3 education 2
0–4 years
2
No response 7
5–17 years 11
6 Male (43%) Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA
11 Female (57%)
18–34 years
11

35–59 years 34
32

60+ years 41
49

Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

56 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)

The  majority of respondents (78%) indicated that

the reason behind their return was the possession Key informant (female, 45):
of private property and that they did not need to “Pensioners have left there, because the major-
pay rent (Figure  7.7). The  second most frequent- ity of them do not have money to go anywhere.
ly mentioned cause was family reasons (39%). They say: “Blown up or not blown up, we will
The reasons for return remained consistent across live and die here.”
the NMS rounds. In addition, the data from the sur-
vey of people crossing the contact line also showed Source: FGDs with KIs
that the possession of private property (97%) and
family reasons (40%) were the  most frequently Among surveyed returnees to the NGCA, the share
mention reasons behind the  return. At the  same of the  economically active population amounted
time, failure to integrate socially into local com- to  28%  (Figure  7.8), specifically respondents who
munity was reported more frequently, 4% based were either employed (25%) or unemployed actively
on the data from telephone survey and 27% based seeking employment and ready to begin work within
on the  data from the  survey of people crossing two weeks (3%). The share of the economically ac-
the contact line. tive population in the NGCA was considerably lower
than in the GCA (53%).

Figure 7.7. Reasons for returning and living The economically inactive population amounted to
in the NGCA, % 72% among surveyed returnees to the NGCA (Fi-
gure 7.8). The largest share was retired persons or
There is private property
pensioners (63%), 5% were persons who were do-
and we do not have to pay 78 ing housework, looking after children or other per-
for rent sons in the household, 2% were persons with dis-
abilities, and 2% were unemployed but they were
Family reasons 39
not seeking employment.

Lack of employment
opportunities 9
Figure 7.8. Current employment status of surveyed
returnees to the NGCA, %
Failure to integrate to local
community at the previous 4
place of residence
Limited access to social In paid work 25
services – health care, 3
education etc. Economically
Unemployed and actively
3 active: 28%
looking for a job
Other 9

Retired, pensioners 63
No response 6
Doing housework, Economically
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option looking after children or 5 inactive: 72%
Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA  other persons

People with disabilities 2

Unemployed, wanting
a job but not actively 2
looking for a job
Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

June 2018 57
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

The data from the survey of people crossing the con-

tact line showed that 20% of returnees had lost their Returnee (male, 21):
jobs as a result of the  conflict, which was almost “My parents have been going a lot to different
the same as the portion of people who had lost their cities to earn: to Zaporizhia, to Kyiv. But they go
jobs due to the conflict among other NGCA residents in turns: first one of them, then another, as you
who were surveyed while crossing the contact line cannot leave your house unattended.”
(18%) (Figure 7.9).
Source: FGDs with returnees

Figure 7.9. Loss of job due to the conflict, %

Returnee (male, 43):
Lost job due to the conflict
Did not lose job due “I go for the temporary jobs. Right now
to the conflict the season begins, I work with air conditioning
systems.”
Returnees 20 80
Source: FGDs with returnees
Other NGCA residents 18 82

Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line Returnee (female, 42):
Generally, business or job were mentioned as a pur- “There is no job in the village. Basically, people
pose of the current visit25 to the  GCA by 2%  of re- survive thanks to the garden and household.
turnees and by 2% of other NGCA residents, based If people get enough of foods for themselves,
on data from the survey of people crossing the con- they can sell the rest at the market. If they have
tact line. In addition, 10% of returnees who were in a cow, they sell milk.”
paid work reported that they had to cross the con- Source: FGDs with returnees
tact line for business and 6%  did it at least once a
month (Figure 7.10).

Figure 7.10. Frequency of crossing the contact line

for business by returnees to the NGCA,
% of employed respondents

At least once a month 6

At least once a quarter 2

Less than once a quarter 2

Do not cross the contract line

for business 90

Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line

25
The trip that took place at the time of survey.

58 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)

In general, intentions to find a job abroad were low; According to the  respondents’ self-assessment of
only 1% of returnees reported that they had already their financial situation, the majority of returnees as-
found a job abroad and they were about to move, sessed their financial situation as ‘enough funds only
and 2% had an intention to find a job abroad, which for food’ or ‘enough funds for basic needs’, 37% and
was the same as in the GCA (1% and 5%, respective- 38%,  respectively (Figure  7.12). If compared with
ly) (Figure 7.11). Seventeen (17%) per cent of return- combined data collected through telephone and
ees reported that they had nothing against working face-to-face interviews in the GCA, the share of most
abroad, but personally they were not interested to vulnerable IDPs who reported that they had to ‘lim-
go. Sixty-five (65%) per cent stated they would never it their expenses even for food’ was slightly higher
work abroad, while 14%  did not respond or chose than in the GCA, 17% and 13%, respectively.
the option ‘difficult to answer’.

Figure 7.12. Returnees’ to the NGCA

Figure 7.11. General returnee intentions self-assessment of the financial situation
to find a job abroad, % of their households, %

Would never work abroad 65 Have to limit expenses even

17
for food
Have nothing against working
abroad, but personally they 17 Enough funds only for food 37
are not going to
Enough funds for food,
Have an intention to find a necessary clothing, footwear,
2 38
job abroad soon basic needs
Have already found a job
abroad and are about to Enough funds for basic and
1 4
move other needs. Have savings

Other 1 No response 4

Difficult to answer 4 Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

No response 10

Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

June 2018 59
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Returnee households faced high level of insecuri-

ty, as 24% employed at least one negative coping • Stress strategies, such as borrowing money
strategydue to a lack of food or a lack of money to or spending savings, are those which indi-
buy food.26 The  most frequently mentioned nega- cate a reduced ability to deal with future
tive coping strategies were ‘spending savings’, re- shocks due to a current reduction in re-
ported by 16%  of returnees, ‘reducing essential sources or increase in debts.
health expenditures’ (13%) and ‘borrowing money’ • Crisis strategies, such as selling productive
(10%) (Figure 7.13). At least one of the ‘stress’ cop- assets, directly reduce future productivity,
ing strategies was used by 19%  of returnees, to- including human capital formation.
gether with at least one of the ‘crisis’ coping strate-
gies was used by 13%  of returnees. Employing at • Emergency strategies, such as selling one’s
least one of the emergency strategies was reported land or house, affect future productivity, but
by 1% of respondents. are more difficult to reverse or more dra-
matic in nature.

26
Food Security & Socio-Economic Trend Analysis – Eastern
Ukraine, FSLC, March 2018: http://fscluster.org/sites/
default/files/documents/fslc_report_trend_analysis_
food_security_and_socio-economic_situation_29_
march_2018_0.pdf

Figure 7.13. Livelihood coping strategies, used by returnee households due to a lack of food
or a lack of money to buy food during the past 12 months, %

Spent savings 16
Stress strategies
Borrowed money 10 (19% of returnees
used at least one
Sold household goods of stress strategies)
4

Reduced essential health expenditures 13

Crisis strategies
(13% of IDPs used
Sold productive assets 1
at least one of crisis
strategies)
Sold means of transport 1

Took a job with a high level of risk 1

Emergency strategies
Sold house or land 0 (1% of returnees
used at least one of
Begging emergency strategies)
0

Migrated elsewhere in search of work 2 Neutral strategy

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

60 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)

During the survey of people crossing the contact line, cus group participants continued to note that food
respondents were asked how their household would and medicine prices in the NGCA were higher than
cover unexpected expenditures of UAH 1,700 (sub- in the  GCA, which exacerbated their vulnerabilities
sistence minimum provided by the State Budget of (Source: Focus group with returnees).
Ukraine as of December 2017) and UAH 3,700 (mini-
mum monthly wage as of January 2018). Only 7% of
returnees and 5% of other NGCA residents answered Figure 7.15. Distribution of returnee households
by monthly income, %
that it would be easy for them to cover UAH 1,700
(Figure 7.14). Furthermore, an unexpected expendi- Up to UAH 1,500 6
ture of UAH  3,700 would be unaffordable for over
UAH 1,500–3,000 19
80% of the respondents from both groups.
UAH 3,001–5,000 23
The  data for Round  10 showed that the  monthly UAH 5,001–7,000 9
income of most returnee households did not exceed
UAH 7,001–11,000 5
UAH  5,000  – 48%  (Figure  7.15). At the  same time,
Over UAH 11,000 3
35%  of returnees to the  NGCA did not respond to
this question. The  average monthly income per in- Difficult to answer or no response 35
dividual returnee was UAH 2,245. Furthermore, fo- Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

Figure 7.14. Capacity of the household to manage unexpected expenditures with its own resources,
% of NGCA residents

Yes, easily Yes, with difficulty No Difficult to say, refuse

Returnees: UAH 1,700 7 34 47 12

Other NGCA residents: UAH 1,700 5 27 54 14

Returnees: UAH 3,700 1 10 81 8

Other NGCA residents: UAH 3,700 2 8 82 8

Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line

June 2018 61
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

The main source of income for the largest share of Lack of money was reported as the most problematic
surveyed returnees to the NGCA was retirement or issue by 34% of returnees to the NGCA (Figure 7.17).
long service pension (68%) (Figure 7.16). The sec- Another frequently mentioned issue was safety
ond most frequently mentioned source of income (11%), which remained consistent across the  NMS
was salary at 32%, which was much lower than rounds. The level of satisfaction with the basic char-
the 54% reported in the GCA based on combined acteristics of housing (living space, sewerage, heat
data. Other frequently mentioned sources were fi- insulation and electricity) was high – between 90%
nancial support from relatives (12%), irregular earn- and 93%. Satisfaction was slightly lower with heating
ings (8%) and social assistance (5%). (88%) and water supply (85%).

Figure 7.16. Sources of income of returnee Figure 7.17. The most problematic issues
households in the past 12 months for returnee households to the NGCA, %
(five most frequently mentioned), %
Lack of money 34
Retirement or long service
68 Safety 11
pension
Suspension in social payments/pensions 5

Salary 32 Access to medicines 4

Access to health care services 2
Financial support from Other 15
relatives 12
None of the above mentioned issues 29

Irregular earnings 8 Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

One of the  major differences between IDPs in

Social assistance 5 the GCA and returnees to the NGCA is how they as-
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option sess their safety. Only 43%  of surveyed returnees
Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA to the  NGCA reported that they felt safe in com-
parison to 77% of IDPs in the GCA based on com-
bined data (Figure 7.18). Thirty-one (31%) per cent
of the  returnees noted that they felt unsafe in
the evenings and in remote areas of the settlement,
and 20%  reported that they felt unsafe most of
the time. If compared with combined data collected
in the GCA, the share of respondents who reported
that they felt unsafe most of the  time amounted
to 4%. In addition, returnees more frequently men-
tioned that they felt unsafe in terms of military ac-
tions than criminal activities, 27% and 12%, respec-
tively  (Figure  7.19 and Figure  7.20). The  share of
IDPs who reported that they felt unsafe in terms
of military action in the GCA was much lower and
amounted to 6% based on combined data.

62 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)

Figure 7.18. Returnees’ assessment of the safety Figure 7.20. Returnees’ safety assessment
of the environment and infrastructure of their of the situation on criminal activities, %
settlement, %

I feel safe 43 I feel safe 54

I feel unsafe in the evenings and in remote areas

31 Neither yes nor no 28
of the settlement
I feel unsafe most of the time 20
I feel unsafe 12
Other 1
No response 5 No response/
6
Do not know
Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA
Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

Figure 7.19. Returnees’ safety assessment Returnee (female, 59):

of the situation on military actions, %
“I know that without documents they may de-
tain you, they even won’t let you make a call,
I feel safe 36
that’s why you try to avoid a police car. There
was no such fear before, that you had to go ev-
Neither yes nor no 32
erywhere with your documents.”
I feel unsafe 27 Source: FGDs with returnees

No response/
5
Do not know
Returnee (female, 53):
Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA “There are many armed people in military uni-
form in Donetsk. They appear with Kalashnikov
rifles in shopping malls. They put three or four
of their AKs in bulk. Also, there are many people
with apparently non-Slavic appearance. And
they go in groups. I try to avoid such groups at
any means, even if they are not armed.”
Source: FGDs with returnees

June 2018 63
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Generally, returnees showed a moderate level of spectively) (Figure 7.21). The category with the low-
satisfaction with the  accessibility of all basic social est level of satisfaction among returnees was em-
services. Accessibility of administrative services and ployment opportunities (66%).
possibilities to obtain education and enrol children
With regards to healthcare, returnees were least sat-
in schools/kindergartens were the  categories with
isfied with the  cost of medicine, reported by  50%,
the  highest level of satisfaction (80%  and  79%,  re-
and the cost of services (31%) (Figure 7.22).

Figure 7.21. Returnees’ satisfaction with accessibility of basic social services,

% of the satisfied among those respondents who expressed a need for a particular type of service

Satisfied Neither yes nor no Not satisfied No response/Do not know

Accessibility of administrative services 80 8 4 8

Possibilities to obtain education
and enrol children in schools/ 79 4 4 13
kindergartens
Accessibility of health care services 72 15 12 1

Possibility of receiving pension 70 14 11 5

or social assistance

Employment opportunities 66 14 13 7

Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

Figure 7.22. Returnees’ satisfaction with different aspects of healthcare in their current place
of residence, % of respondents who expressed a need for a particular type of service

Satisfied Neither yes nor no Not satisfied No response/Do not know

Proximity to the nearest facilities 76 11 8 5

Availability of medicine 67 14 14 5

Hospitals facilities 65 22 6 7

Availability of qualified staff 59 20 13 8

Availability of specialized care 57 19 16 8

Cost of services 38 23 31 8

Cost of medicine 22 23 50 5

Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

64 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)

Forty-four (44%) per cent of returnees stated that The  main purposes of the  current visit to the  GCA
they did not visit the areas under government con- for both returnees and other NGCA residents were
trol (Figure 7.23). ‘Once in two months’ or more visiting friends and family (65%  and 53%,  respec-
frequently was reported only by 23%. At the same tively), receiving payments or withdrawing cash
time, 17% of surveyed returnees did not respond to (36%  and  41%) and buying goods (12%  and  11%),
this question. based on data from the  survey of people crossing
the contact line (Figure 7.25).27

Figure 7.23. Returnees’ to the NGCA frequency of

visiting areas under government control, % Figure 7.25. Purposes of current visit to the GCA,28
% of NGCA residents
Once a week 0
2–3 times a month 2 Other
Returnees NGCA
Once a month 8
residents
Once in two months 13
Visiting friends and/or family 65 53
Once in three months 6
Receiving payments/withdrawing
Less than once in three months 10 36 41
cash
I did not come to the areas under government Buying goods 12 11
44
control
Visiting and/or maintaining housing 5 2
No response 17
Solving the documents issues 4 6
Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA For business purpose/for the job 2 2
Special occasions, such as weddings
1 1
However, it should be noted that the  data from or funerals
the survey of people crossing the contact line indi- Transportation of things 1 1
cated that the  vast majority of returnees crossed Operations with property (sale, rent) 1 0
the line of contact at least once a quarter or more
For treatment 1 0
frequently (87%), as well as other NGCA residents
Other 3 5
(87%) (Figure 7.24). At the same time, the share of
those who crossed the contact line at least once Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
a month was higher among returnees than among Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line
other NGCA residents, 44% and 34%, respectively.

Figure 7.24. Frequency of crossing the contact line,

% of NGCA residents
Returnees
Other NGCA residents

49
44
40
34

12 10
3 4 1 3

At least At least At least Every six No

once a once a once a months response
week month quarter or less

27
The trip that took place at the time of survey.
Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line

28
The trip that took place at the time of survey.

June 2018 65
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

The  most frequently mentioned purposes of visits Among those returnees who reported visiting
to the  GCA in the  past three months for both re­ the  GCA to buy food items, the  most common-
turnees and other NGCA residents were buying food ly mentioned ones were vegetables  (48%) and
items (36% and 32%, respectively), banking services fruits (45%) (Figure 7.27). The differences are minor
(35% and 39%) and buying medicines (34% and 36%) compared to other NGCA residents. Only 10% of re-
(Figure  7.26). Only 20%  of returnees and 22%  of turnees noted that the mentioned food items were
other NGCA residents reported that they had not not available at their current place of residence.
crossed the contact line for the past three months to However, eight out of ten returnees (82%) who had
receive services or buying goods. crossed the contact line to buy food items, although
they were available at their place of residence, not-
ed that in their settlement the respective products
Figure 7.26. Purposes of visit to the GCA in were more expensive, also mentioning that their
the past three months, % of NGCA residents
quality was often poorer (22%).
Other
Returnees NGCA
residents Figure 7.27. Top-5 food items bought in the GCA,
% of respondents who crossed the contact line in
Buying food items 36 32
the past three months to buy food items
Banking services (opening an account,
35 39
receiving or closing a loan etc.)
Returnees
Buying medicines 34 36
Other NGCA residents
Buying non-food products 16 13 48 45 45
44
Renewing or receiving documents
(incl. obtaining certificates, 26
6 9 20 20 20
registration of business, inheritance, 18 16
or property rights)
Medical care (incl. psychological
6 2
services)
Vegetables Fruits Sausage Confectionery Cheese
Birth/death registration 2 1
Legal advice and support services 1 3
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
Education 1 1 Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line
Receiving humanitarian aid 1 0
Employment placement 1 0 With regards to non-food items, the  most com-
Other services 1 1
monly mentioned ones by returnees were house-
hold chemicals (53%), clothes (25%), goods for chil-
Have not crossed the contact line for
the last three months for mentioned 20 22 dren  (20%), footwear  (17%) and hygiene products
purposes (11%) (Figure 7.28). Buying hygiene products was
more frequently reported by other NGCA residents
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option than returnees (26% and 11%, respectively) as well
Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line
as household chemicals (60%  and  53%,  respective-
ly). Only 10% of returnees mentioned that the non-
food items purchased were not available at their
current place of residence. Among those return-
ees (86%) who reported that the purchased non-
food items were available at their current place of
residence, the  majority  (86%) decided to purchase
them in the GCA due to the lower price.

66 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)

Figure 7.28. Top-5 non-food items bought Figure 7.29. Top-5 medicines bought in the GCA,
in the GCA, % of respondents who crossed % of respondents who crossed the contact line in
the contact line in the past three months the past three months to buy medicine
to buy non-food items
61
Returnees
60 48
Returnees Other NGCA residents
53 39
Other NGCA residents 31

26 15
25
20 7 9
16 17 5 5
12 11 2
9
Cardio­ Hyper­ Painkillers Diabetes Vitamins
vascular tension medications
Household Clothes Goods for Footwear Hygiene medications medications
chemicals children products

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line Source: Interviews with people crossing the contact line

Seventy-seven  (77%)  per  cent of the  return-

Returnee (male, 48): ees planned to stay in the  NGCA during the  next
“Doctors sometimes recommend taking three  months, and only 11%  planned to move
Ukrainian medicine, as the materials from to the  GCA  (Figure  7.30). The  returnee plans for
which pills are produced in the NGCA do not next three  months remained consistent across
meet standards, or they just aren’t supplied.” the NMS rounds.

Source: FGDs with returnees

Figure 7.30. Returnees’ plans for the next three
With regards to medicine, the  most frequently months, %
mentioned types by returnees were medications
for cardiovascular diseases  (61%) and medicines I plan to stay in the NGCA 77
for hypertension  (39%), which was higher than
the same share among other NGCA residents (Fi- I plan to move to the GCA 11
gure  7.29). In addition, 20%  of the  returnees re-
ported that the medications they needed could not I plan to move abroad 1
be bought at their place of residence. Among those
Other 1
respondents who reported that they had access
to the  medications they needed, 75%  mentioned No response/
Difficult to answer 10
that the  price was higher, and 23%  reported that
the quality was lower. Source: Telephone interviews with returnees to the NGCA

June 2018 67
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

8. ANNEXES
ANNEX 1. General methodology
ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into geographic zones by distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls from telephone survey

68 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)

ANNEX 1. General the  Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine. Between

April  and May  2018, 4,006  IDP  households were
methodology interviewed using this method in 24  oblasts of
Ukraine. Out of them, 760 interviews were conduct-
The  survey methodology, developed within ed with returnees to the non-government controlled
the  framework of the  project, ensured data collec- area. The distribution of the number of interviewed
tion in 24  oblasts of Ukraine and Kyiv city, as well households by oblasts is presented in Figure 4.
as data processing and analysis in terms of IDP loca-
tion, their movements or intentions to move, return During the survey period, there were six focus groups
intentions, major social and economic issues, IDPs’ with representatives from IDP population (two FGDs
integration into the local communities, among other in Chernihiv and Lviv), key informants (two FGDs
socio-economic characteristics of IDPs in Ukraine. in Odesa and Kharkiv), and returnees to the  NGCA
(two FGDs in Mariupol, Donetsk Oblast GCA, and
The NMS is performed by combining data obtained Starobilsk, Luhansk Oblast GCA). The FGDs covered
from multiple sources, namely: people living in urban and rural areas; specifically,
• Data from sample surveys of IDP households the FGD in Lviv was conducted with IDPs living in ru-
via face-to-face and telephone interviews. ral area, the FGD in Kharkiv was conducted with key
• Data from key informants interviewed in informants whose activities covered the rural areas,
the areas where IDPs resided via face-to-face and both FGDs with returnees to the NGCA included
interviews. the residents of rural settlements.
• Data from focus groups discussions with key The  survey of the  people crossing the  contact line
informants, IDPs and returnees to the NGCA. was conducted at the  five operating EECPs located
• Data from sample surveys of people crossing in Donetsk (Hnutove, Maiorske, Mariinka, Novo-
the contact line via face-to-face interviews. troitske) and Luhansk (Stanytsia Luhanska) oblasts. A
• Administrative data. total of 1,277 interviews were conducted. The num-
The sample size of IDP households in 300 randomly ber of interviews per checkpoint was distributed in
selected territorial units totalled 2,406  IDP  house- proportion to the number of trips across the contact
holds for face-to-face interviews (sample distribu- line per day which was published on a daily basis by
tion by oblast is provided in Figure 1 and Figure 3). the State Border Service of Ukraine. The survey was
The sampling of territorial units was devised for all conducted by means of face-to-face interviewing us-
oblasts of Ukraine and distributed in proportion ing tablets, in the  queues and at exits from check-
to the  number of registered IDPs in each oblast. It points. The interviewers worked in both pedestrian
should be noted that about 37% of this Round’s face- queue and vehicle queue on the territory of check-
to face IDP sample were surveyed in the  previous points from the  side of the  areas under control of
round. The  purpose of preservation of IDP  house- Ukrainian authorities, as well as near the exit out to
holds in the sample was to ensure a more accurate the GCA. The interviews were distributed between
assessment of changes in the indicators between ad- weekdays and weekends, as well as between different
jacent rounds. time periods ranging from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Quota sampling was applied in the survey. In addi-
There were eight IDP  households and two key in-
tion, quotas were set for the number of respondents
formants (representatives of the  local community,
in the pedestrian and automobile queue, as well as
IDPs, local authorities, as well as NGOs responding
for the  number of those travelling to the  GCA and
to the  issues faced by IDPs) included in each terri-
the  NGCA. At each EECP, approximately the  same
torial unit and selected for monitoring. The distribu-
number of respondents from each of the following
tion of the number of interviewed key informants by
groups were interviewed: IDPs, returnees, other res-
oblasts is presented in Figure 2.
idents of the GCA, and other residents of the NGCA.
The sampling for the telephone survey was derived More details on the  distribution of the  number of
from the  IDP registration database maintained by interviews can be found in Figures 5 and 6.

June 2018 69
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Figure 1. Distribution of the sample for territorial Figure 2. Distribution of key informants

units within oblasts of Ukraine for face-to-face interviews by oblast

Number of territorial units Oblast Number of key informants

Oblast
selected
Total 605
Total 300 Vinnytsia 13
Vinnytsia 6 Volyn 12
Volyn 6 Dnipro 36
Dnipro 18 Donetsk 142
Donetsk 70 Zhytomyr 12
Zhytomyr 6 Zakarpattia 12
Zakarpattia 6 Zaporizhia 36
Zaporizhia 18 Ivano-Frankivsk 12
Ivano-Frankivsk 6 Kyiv Oblast (without Kyiv city) 20
Kyiv Oblast (without Kyiv city) 10 Kirovohrad 12
Kirovohrad 6 Luhansk 72
Luhansk 36 Lviv 12
Lviv 6 Mykolaiv 12
Mykolaiv 6 Odesa 16
Odesa 8 Poltava 12
Poltava 6 Rivne 14
Rivne 6 Sumy 12
Sumy 6 Ternopil 12
Ternopil 6 Kharkiv 36
Kharkiv 18 Kherson 12
Kherson 6 Khmelnytskyi 12
Khmelnytskyi 6 Cherkasy 12
Cherkasy 6 Chernivtsi 12
Chernivtsi 6 Chernihiv 12
Chernihiv 6 Kyiv city 40
Kyiv city 20

70 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)

Figure 3. Distribution of IDP households Figure 4. Distribution of IDP households

for face-to-face interviews by oblast for telephone interviews by oblast

Oblast Number Oblast Number

Total 2,406 Total 4,006
Vinnytsia 48 Vinnytsia 81
Volyn 48 Volyn 81
Dnipro 146 Dnipro 236
Donetsk 559 Donetsk GCA 537
Zhytomyr 48 Zhytomyr 73
Zakarpattia 48 Zakarpattia 81
Zaporizhia 144 Zaporizhia 213
Ivano-Frankivsk 48 Ivano-Frankivsk 77
Kyiv Oblast (without Kyiv city) 85 Kyiv Oblast (without Kyiv city) 276
Kirovohrad 48 Kirovohrad 133
Luhansk 289 Luhansk GCA 65
Lviv 48 Lviv 168
Mykolaiv 48 Mykolaiv 82
Odesa 64 Odesa 81
Poltava 48 Poltava 117
Rivne 48 Rivne 79
Sumy 48 Sumy 76
Ternopil 48 Ternopil 77
Kharkiv 142 Kharkiv 76
Kherson 49 Kherson 238
Khmelnytskyi 48 Khmelnytskyi 81
Cherkasy 48 Cherkasy 80
Chernivtsi 48 Chernivtsi 78
Chernihiv 48 Chernihiv 80
Kyiv city 160 Kyiv city 80
Donetsk NGCA 425
Luhansk NGCA 335

June 2018 71
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

Figure 5. Distribution of people crossing

the contact line by checkpoint

Checkpoint Number of respondents

Total 1,277
Hnutove 142
Maiorske 280
Mariinka 304
Novotroitske 258
Stanytsia Luhanska 293

Figure 6. Distribution of people crossing the contact line between pedestrian and vehicle queue
in each direction by checkpoint

  Total Hnutove Maiorske Mariinka Novotroitske Stanytsia Luhanska

Total 1,277 142 280 304 258 293
Vehicle queue to NGCA 333 51 101 100 81 0*
Pedestrian queue to NGCA 320 24 39 54 65 138
Pedestrian exit to GCA 624 67 140 150 112 155

* Stanytsia Luhanska is currently open only for pedestrian crossing

72 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)

ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into geographic zones by

distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
Zone Oblast
Donetsk Oblast (GCA)
1
Luhansk Oblast (GCA)
Dnipropetrovsk Oblast
2 Kharkiv Oblast
Zaporizhia Oblast
Kirovohrad Oblast
Mykolaiv Oblast
Poltava Oblast
3
Sumy Oblast
Kherson Oblast
Cherkasy Oblast
Vinnytsia Oblast
Zhytomyr Oblast
Kyiv Oblast
4
Kyiv city
Odesa Oblast
Chernihiv Oblast
Volyn Oblast
Zakarpattia Oblast
Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast
Lviv Oblast
5
Rivne Oblast
Ternopil Oblast
Khmelnytskyi Oblast
Chernivtsi Oblast

June 2018 73
 The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)

ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls from telephone survey

Summary of calls No connection

Total 15,537 Total 4,849
Complete interviews (GCA) 3,246 21% Vodafone 3,887 80%
Complete interviews (NGCA) 760 5% Kyivstar 717 15%
No answer/nobody picked up the phone lifecell 242 5%
2,104 13%
(after three attempts)
Other 3 0%
No connection 4,849 31%
Out of service 2,598 17%
Not IDPs 420 3% Out of service
Refusal to take part in the survey 1,560 10% Total 2,598
Vodafone  1,437 55%
Kyivstar 372 14%
lifecell 775 30%
Other 14 1%

74 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)

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]