U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS June 2020 After the six years of displacement and the months of COVID-19 pandemic, people in Ukrainian communities keep supporting each other. Pictured: a family evacuating from Lysychansk after their house was hit by shelling in 2014. Photo: Maks Levin

This publication was produced with funding from the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM). The views and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the position of the PRM, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps used in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

CONTENT

LIST OF ACRONYMS...... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 • Key findings...... 6 OVERVIEW OF ROUND 17 METHODOLOGY...... 8 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS ...... 9 • IDP household members...... 9 • Sex and age structure...... 9 • IDPs with disabilities ...... 10 2 . LABOUR MARKET SITUATION ...... 11 • Employment rates ...... 11 • Unemployment rates ...... 12 • Labour rights violation...... 15 3 . FINANCIAL SITUATION AND BASIC NEEDS...... 16 • Livelihood opportunities...... 16 • Housing...... 21 • Housing programmes...... 22 • Major issues...... 23 • Access to social payments ...... 25 • Safety of the environment and infrastructure...... 26 4 . ACCESS TO SERVICES...... 27 • Medical services...... 27 5 . AWARENESS OF CORONAVIRUS PREVENTION MEASURES...... 28 6 . IDP MOBILITY ...... 29 • Displacement ...... 29 • Intentions to return...... 29 7 . INTEGRATION INTO LOCAL COMMUNITIES ...... 32 • Integration rates...... 32 • Discrimination...... 34 8 . RETURNEES TO THE NON-GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED AREAS ...... 35 9 . ANNEXES ...... 38

June 2020 3 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

LIST OF ACRONYMS

DTM – Displacement Tracking Matrix FGD – focus group discussion GCA – government-controlled areas GoU – Government of Ukraine IDPs – internally displaced persons IOM – International Organization for Migration KI – key informant MoSP – Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine NGCA – non-government controlled areas NMS – National Monitoring System Report on the Situation of Internally Displaced Persons SSSU – State Statistics Service of Ukraine

4 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

According to the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, the government and non-government stakeholders in July 2020, there were 1,448,615 people registered in designing evidence-based policies and program- as internally displaced persons (IDPs), that is indi- matic responses on IDPs. viduals who have left their homes and moved to a The NMS annually reaches more than 15,000 con- different area and/or region of Ukraine. Almost half flict-affected persons across all the 24 oblasts of of the registered IDPs settled in government-con- Ukraine, including IDPs residing in government- trolled areas (GCA) of Donetsk Oblast (510,861) and controlled areas (GCA), those who have returned to Luhansk Oblast (280,520). Areas with the highest the non-government controlled areas (NGCA) and shares of IDPs located further away from the men- other groups. The survey collects information on tioned oblasts included the city of Kyiv (160,036) the different aspects of IDPs’ lives: financial situa- and Kyiv Oblast (63,267), Kharkiv Oblast (134,335), tion, employment, needs, mobility, and integration Dnipropetrovsk Oblast (71,277) and Zaporizhia into the local communities. The NMS methodology Oblast (56,107). ensures data collection using both quantitative and In 2016, IOM began conducting a regular com- qualitative research methods including face-to-face plex survey of the situation with IDPs in Ukraine – and telephone sample surveys, focus group discus- the National Monitoring System (NMS) to support all sions (FGDs) as well as other relevant data sources.

KYIV CITY 160,036

VOLYN CHERNIHIV 3,081 SUMY RIVNE 7,269 3,026 11,205 ZHYTOMYR 7,049

LVIV KYIV 11,055 KHARKIV KHMELNYTSKYI POLTAVA 63,267 134,335 TERNOPIL 6,493 22,522 CHERKASY LUHANSK 2,143 10,817 280,520 VINNYTSIA IVANO- FRANKIVSK 11,188 DNIPRO ZAKARPATTIA 3,803 3,347 KIROVOHRAD 71,277 6,487 DONETSK CHERNIVTSI 2,439 510,861

ZAPORIZHIA MYKOLAIV 56,107 ODESA 8,283 37,621 KHERSON TOTAL NUMBER 14,384 OF REGISTERED IDPS IN UKRAINE 1,448,615 ACCORDING TO THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL POLICY AS OF 2 JULY 2020

June 2020 5 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

The data collection process within the NMS population of Ukraine, approximately 17 per cent Round 17 was carried out in April–June 2020 amid of workers were placed on unpaid leave2,3 . the COVID-19 outbreak. Due to the introduction of The reduced income, problems with keeping the COVID-19 quarantine measures in Ukraine by the ability to cover rent and receiving social pay- the Government of Ukraine (GoU)1, it was impossi- ments heighten IDPs vulnerability, especially dur- ble to carry out face-to-face interviews. Within this ing the COVID-19 quarantine. The findings indicate Round, 2,401 IDPs were surveyed via telephone the need for enhanced socioeconomic interven- in 300 randomly selected territorial units across tions by the GoU and other stakeholders to address the country and additional 3,708 (including NGCA the constant needs of IDPs for housing and employ- returnees) were surveyed with the IOM telephone- ment as well as the overall socioeconomic situation based tool. Five Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) of the group. This process should take into account were held with the key informants (KIs), IDPs and the IDP families’ profiles and their specific needs. NGCA returnees. Among all the households with children, twenty-nine The results of the analysis reveal that the main con- (29%) per cent of the respondents were the female- ditions for successful integration indicated by IDPs headed households. Fourteen (14%) per cent of IDP remained the same as in the previous NMS rounds, households reported having a family member with i.e. housing, regular income, and employment. a disability. The proportion of households consisting Sixty (60%) per cent of the surveyed IDPs lived of only people aged 60 and over was 22 per cent. in rented housing. Twenty-seven (27%) per cent of the respondents renting housing confirmed a risk of being evicted from their current dwelling Key findings because of their inability to pay the rent. During Labour market situation. The employment rate the FGDs, the participants mentioned cases when among IDPs did not change since February–March IDPs could not pay the rent and had to return to 2020. As of April–June 2020, the share of employed NGCA during the quarantine period. As of April– IDPs was 46 per cent. Twenty-four (24%) per cent of June 2020, the average monthly income per IDP the respondents confirmed being placed on unpaid household member was UAH 3,350 which was still or partially paid leave during the quarantine. The re- lower compared to September 2019 (UAH 3,631). sults of the analysis demonstrated the significant dif- Fifty-one (51%) per cent of the respondents con- ferences between shares of men and women placed firmed relying on governmental support to IDPs on unpaid or partially paid leave (20 per cent and and 38 per cent on pensions. During April–June, 26 per cent respectively). The employment level 35 per cent of IDPs reported facing problems with among the total population of Ukraine aged 15– receiving social payments. The most frequently 704 was 58 per cent. The employment rate among mentioned problem was related to the fear to IDPs aged 20–64 did not change since February– leave home because of the risk of being infected March 2020 and was significantly lower than the em- and was mostly reported by IDPs aged 60 and over (33%). The employment rate among all IDPs did not change since February–March 2020 (46%). How- ever, twenty-four (24%) per cent of the respond- 2 Employment during quarantine. Centre for Economic Strategy. 28 July 2020. https://ces.org.ua/wp-content/ ents confirmed being placed on unpaid or partially uploads/2020/07/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD paid leave during the quarantine. Among the total %D1%8F%D1%82%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C- %D0%BF%D1%96%D0%B4-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81- %D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0 %B8%D0%BD%D1%83-11.08.2020.pdf 3 1 The government has taken a number of decisions to Note: For the purposes of interpretation, the differences in protect Ukrainians from COVID-19 https://www.kmu. the survey tools need to be considered. gov.ua/npas/pro-vstanovlennya-karantinu-z-metoyu- 4 Employment rates by gender, type, location, and age. zapobigannya-poshirennyu-na-teritoriyi-ukrayini-gostroyi- The State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2020. respiratornoyi-hvorobi-covid-19-sprichinenoyi-koron- http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2020/rp/ avirusom-sars-cov-i200520-392 eans/znsmv2020_u.xls

6 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

ployment rate in the same age group of the total about the inaccessibility of the public or other trans- population of Ukraine (56 per cent and 67 per cent portation means in cities and towns was 36 per cent respectively). The employment rate among IDPs and 32 per cent, respectively. aged 20–64 residing in Kyiv remained unchanged Awareness of COVID-19 prevention measures. Dur- compared to February–March 2020 and was lower ing the interviews, the respondents were asked to than in the third quarter of 2019 (74 per cent and name the COVID-19 preventive measures. The best- 90 per cent respectively). The data gathered in April– known coronavirus prevention measures among June 2020 demonstrated a decrease in the employ- IDPs were using a medical mask (94%) and thorough ment level of the mentioned age group living in geo- and frequent handwashing with soap (80%). Other graphical zones 4 and 5 by 8 per cent and 6 per cent frequently mentioned measures were hand treat- respectively. ment with an antiseptic (69%), using gloves (67%), Financial situation and basic needs. As of April–June keeping distance from other people (66%), and ob- 2020 the average monthly income per one IDP house- serving cough hygiene (40%). hold member was UAH 3,350. However, it was still IDP mobility. In April–June 2020, 82 per cent of lower compared to September 2019. Furthermore, the interviewed IDPs reported that they had been the average monthly income of IDPs was still low staying in their current settlement for over three compared to the actual subsistence level calculated years. The share of those intending to return to by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, which is their place of origin after the end of the conflict was set at UAH 3,9745. Twenty-seven (27%) per cent of 19 per cent. At the same time, 39 per cent of the re- the respondents living in rented housing confirmed spondents expressed their intention not to return, facing the risk of being evicted from their current even after the end of the conflict. dwelling due to the inability to pay the rent. IDPs continue to rely on government support, which is Integration in local communities. Fifty (50%) per cent the second most frequently mentioned source of of the interviewed reported that they had integrated their income. Thirty-five (35%) per cent of IDPs re- into the local community, while 39 per cent stated ceiving social payments reported facing payment ac- that they had partially integrated. The data showed cess problems during the quarantine. The most com- that the employment rate among the respondents mon problem was the fear to leave home because of who acknowledged feeling partially integrated was the risk of getting infected (28%). The fear to leave lower compared to those who self-assessed them- home to get a payment was more frequently report- selves as fully integrated (38% and 52% respectively). ed by IDPs aged 60 and over compared to younger NGCA returnees. Twenty (20%) per cent of the re- IDPs (33% and 25% respectively). spondents identified themselves as NGCA ­retur Access to services. The data demonstrated a high nees during IOM’s telephone survey. Generally, level of presence of health-care facilities in cities the surveyed returnee population was older than and towns while in rural areas, health-care facili- the IDP population; the share of returnee household ties were significantly less numerous. Only half of members aged 60 years and over was 65 per cent. the respondents living in rural areas confirmed hav- The monthly income of 19 per cent of returnee ing medical emergency points and pharmacies in households was lower than UAH 3,000. their settlements (50%). Fifty-two (52%) per cent of the surveyed IDPs living in villages reported that the public or other transportation means were una- vailable to them when they needed to go the health- care facilities. The share of those who informed

5 The actual subsistence minimum in June 2020. The Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine / https://www. msp.gov.ua/news/18878.html

June 2020 7 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

OVERVIEW OF ROUND 17 METHODOLOGY

The National Monitoring System (NMS) is based on controlled areas of Ukraine and distributed in pro- the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) approach portion to the number of registered IDPs. designed by IOM at the global level6. Consisting of During the second survey, a total of 3,708 individu- the mobility tracking, registration, flow monitoring als registered in the Unified Information Database of and survey components, the DTM is designed to Internally Displaced Persons maintained by the Min- capture, process, and disseminate information to istry of Social Policy of Ukraine were interviewed by provide a better understanding of the movements IOM using telephone interviews between April and and evolving needs of displaced populations. IOM June 2020. Out of these, 2,963 interviews were with Ukraine adapted the DTM to the Ukrainian context IDPs residing in the government-controlled areas via the NMS to collect and process data as well as (GCA), and 745 interviews were with returnees to disseminate information on the displaced popula- the non-government controlled areas (NGCA)7 . tions in Ukraine. The main objective of the NMS is to support the Government of Ukraine and non- The data sets gathered within the two surveys were government stakeholders in collecting and analysing combined using a statistical weighting tool. Both data information on the socioeconomic characteristics of sets were weighted according to the regional distri- IDPs and their households to design evidence-based bution of registered IDPs. Data from telephone inter- policies and programmatic responses on IDPs. views carried out by IOM were also weighted accord- ing to the sociodemographic characteristics of IDPs The survey collected information on socioeconomic reached out in a telephone survey conducted in 300 characteristics of IDPs at individual and household lev- randomly selected territorial units across the country. els, including trends and movement intentions, em- ployment, financial situation and basic needs, access Focus group discussions to services in 24 oblasts of Ukraine and the city of Kyiv. Five focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted Main information sources used for the NMS: in May 2020 using online means of communication. Two FGDs were conducted with the key informants ii) data from sample surveys of IDPs via tele- (KI) residing in Kharkiv Oblast and Zaporizhia Oblast. phone interviews; The KI included personnel of the civil society organi- iv) data from focus group discussions; zations, national NGOs, local authorities, and admin- v) administrative data and relevant data avail- istrative and social governmental services. One FGD able from other sources. was carried out with IDPs living in rural settlements Interviews with IDPs of Mykolaiv Oblast and one FGD with the displaced Due to the introduction of the COVID-19 quarantine population residing in the town of Sloviansk. One measures in Ukraine, it was impossible to carry out FGD was held with NGCA returnees. face-to-face interviews. Please see Annex 1 for more details on methodology. Two surveys were undertaken. During the first sur- vey, a total of 2,401 IDPs were interviewed via tel- ephone in 300 randomly selected territorial units across the country in May–June 2020. The sampling of territorial units was devised for all government-

7 The sampling was derived from the IDP registration database maintained by the Ministry of Social Policy 6 https://dtm.iom.int/about of Ukraine.

8 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS

Women represented 58 per cent of the surveyed IDP person households, which is higher than among household members, which is slightly higher than the total population of Ukraine (19%)11 (Figure 1.2). the share of women in an average Ukrainian house- Among these 25 per cent of households, 73 per cent hold (54% as of 1 January 2020)8 (Figure 1.1). Among were women. those women, 23 per cent were aged over 60 years, which was higher than the share of men of the same age (16%). This is similar to the general population Figure 1.2. Distribution of IDP households in Ukraine by number of members of Ukraine. As of January 20209, the share of women aged over 60 years made 29 per cent, while the share 1 person 25% of men of the same age was 19 per cent. 2 persons 35% During the interviews, the respondents were asked about the composition of their household. The iden- 3 persons 22% tified average household size was 2.43 persons, which is slightly smaller than among the total population of 4 persons and more 18% 10 Ukraine (2.58 persons) according to the 2020 data . Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) A quarter of the respondents (25%) lived in single-

Figure 1.1. Sex and age distributions of IDP household members

58% 42%

0–4 years 5% 0–4 years 5%

5–17 years 17% 5–17 years 24%

18–34 years 19% 18–34 years 18%

35–59 years 36% 35–59 years 37%

60+ years 23% 60+ years 16%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

8 Distribution of the permanent population of Ukraine by gender and age as of 1 January 2019. June 2020. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020. 9 Distribution of the permanent population of Ukraine by gender and age as of 1 January 2019. June 2020. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020. 10 Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households of 11 Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households of Ukraine. Statistical Bulletin. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical Bulletin. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020. Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020.

June 2020 9 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

Households with children made up 40 per cent of all Fourteen (14%) per cent of IDP households reported the surveyed IDP households, which is slightly more having a family member with a disability (Figure 1.4)13 . than an average Ukrainian household (38%)12 (Fig- ure 1.3). IDP households with one child accounted for 62 per cent of the total number of households Figure 1.4. Share of IDP households with people with children. The share of large families with three with disabilities (disability groups I–III, children or more children made 9 per cent of IDP households with disabilities) with children, while the share of single-parent house- holds was 35 per cent of IDP households with children. Among all households with children, 29 per cent were female-headed households with children. 14%

Figure 1.3. Share of households with children

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

40%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

13 In Ukraine, disability status is assigned by the Medical and Social Expert Commission (MSEC). Depending on the severity of the disability and the individual’s ability to work and care for oneself, persons with disabilities are categorized into three groups (I, II, III). Rasell, M., & 12 Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households of Iarskaia-Smirnova, E. (Eds.). (2013). Disability in Eastern Ukraine. Statistical Bulletin. The State Statistics Service of Europe and the former Soviet Union: History, policy and Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020. everyday life. Routledge.

10 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

2. LABOUR MARKET SITUATION

Employment rates to the first quarter of 2020. Fifty-five per cent (55%) of the surveyed IDPs were employed in the first As of June 2020, the share of employed IDPs was quarter of 2020. 46 per cent among all the interviewed respondents, which is almost the same compared to the previous Figure 2.2. Employment of IDPs and general round (Figure 2.1). Among these 46 per cent of em- population of Ukraine aged 20–64 ployed IDPs, 2 per cent were self-employed. The lev- el of employment was considerably higher among General population the total population of Ukraine compared to IDP IDPs of Ukraine population. The share of employed persons among the population of Ukraine aged 15–70 was 58 per cent in January–March 202014 according to the data pro- vided by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. 56% 67% In April–June 2020, the share of employed IDPs aged 20–6415 was 56 per cent whereas among the general Source: Telephone interviews Source: The State Statistics population the share of the employed in the same (territorial units sample) Service of Ukraine, 2020 age group was 67 per cent16 (Figure 2.2). The employ- ment rate in the mentioned age groups among IDPs was almost the same in April–June 2020 compared

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

Before displacement After displacement 63% 58% 59% 59% 57% 57% 44% 48% 46% 47% 46% 46%

Round 12 Round 13 Round 14 Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (December 2018) (March 2019) (June 2019) (September 2019) (March 2020) (June 2020)

Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

14 Employment rates by gender, type, location, and age. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2020. http:// www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2020/rp/eans/ znsmv2020_u.xls. 15 Ibid. The age range is defined according to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine standards for calculating employment rates. 16 Ibid.

June 2020 11 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

The share of employed male respondents aged 20–64 was 72 per cent while the share of employed female Figure 2.4. Employment of IDPs after 18 respondents in the same age group was 50 per cent. displacement, by geographic zones , At the same time, the shares of employed men and among IDPs aged 20–64 women presenting the general population of Ukraine of the mentioned age group were 73 per cent and 17 62 per cent respectively (Figure 2.3). 74%

Figure 2.3. Employment of IDPs aged 20–64, by sex 54% 54% 59% Men 45% 51%

72%

Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

Women – Zone 5 – Zone 4 (without Kyiv) – Kyiv 50% – Zone 3 – Zone 2 – Zone 1

Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample) Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample) Unemployment rates Key informant (male, 35): “The problem of IDP employment is more com- Among the surveyed IDPs, the share of the economi- plex: most of them worked at enterprises that cally active population was 54 per cent in Round 17, are not present at the displacement points. including employed respondents (46%) or those who There are still a few industrial enterprises in were actively looking for employment and ready to Kharkiv, while small towns have almost none. start working within a two-week period (8%) (Fig- People have to change their profession, occu- ure 2.5). The economically inactive population was pation. Some IDPs cannot find a job at all.” 46 per cent among the surveyed IDPs in Round 17 (Figure 2.5). The largest share was retired persons Source: FGD with KIs or pensioners (24%); 14 per cent were persons who were doing housework, looking after children or The employment rates among IDPs aged 20–64 de- other persons in the household, 4 per cent were creased in geographical zones 4 and 5 compared to persons with disabilities, 2 per cent were students, the previous NMS round by 8 per cent and 6 per cent and 2 per cent were unemployed but not seeking respectively. In other geographical zones, the shares employment. The situation remained unchanged of employed IDPs were almost the same as in compared to the previous two rounds. the previous survey round. The city of Kyiv remained the place with the highest employment rate (74%) (Figure 2.4). 18 The grouping of oblasts into zones is based on the 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, 17 Employment by gender, type, location and age groups Vinnytsia, Odesa oblasts; zone 5 – Volyn, Zakarpattia, in 2020: http://ukrstat.gov.ua/…/operativ2020/rp/eans/ Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and znsmv2020_u.xls Chernivtsi oblasts.

12 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Twenty-four (24%) per cent of the employed respond- In case of job loss, more than half of employed IDPs ents confirmed being placed on unpaid or partially paid (56%) believed that it would be difficult to find an- leave during the quarantine. The results of the analy- other job. Almost a third of IDPs (32%) who were in sis demonstrated a significant difference in shares of paid work could cover their expenses using savings men and women placed on unpaid or partially paid for no more than a month in case of job loss, while leave (20 per cent and 26 per cent respectively). 28 per cent had no savings at all. In Round 17, among those 8 per cent of IDPs who Key informant (female, 57): were actively seeking employment, 34 per cent had “Our IDPs are mainly engaged in the service sec- been unemployed for up to three months, 13 per cent tor. Therefore, if the quarantine is prolonged, had been unemployed for a period from four months wage cuts can be predicted. For IDPs, this will to one year, 14 per cent had been unemployed for be a disaster, especially because almost each of a period of one to four years, while 34 per cent them has an additional burden, which is rent.” had been unemployed for more than four years. Two (2%) per cent had never worked before. Three Source: FGD with KIs (3%) per cent did not answer the question.

Figure 2.5. Current employment status of IDPs, by rounds20

Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (September 2019) (March 2020) (June 2020)

In paid work 47% 46% 46%

Unemployed (actively looking for a job) 7% 8% 8%

Retired 25% 25% 24%

Doing housework 13% 12% 14%

People with disabilities 4% 5% 4%

Students 3% 2% 2%

Unemployed (not looking for a job) 1% 2% 2%

Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

19 The scale is aimed at measuring the economic position of a person. ”Economic position seeks to distinguish between people who are in the labour force (economically active) and those who are not (economically inactive). A further aim is then to assign people/respondents to various subgroups among the two broad categories (economically active and economically inactive.)”. Erikson, R. and Jonsson, J.O. (2001). European Social Survey Core Questionnaire Development – Chapter 2: How to ascertain the socio-structural position of the individual in society. London: European Social Survey, City University London.

June 2020 13 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

Ninety-five (95%) per cent of IDPs who were active- ly seeking employment reported facing difficulties. Figure 2.7. Type of preferred support, of IDPs who The share of those who reported job search difficul- are actively looking for employment ties was almost the same compared to the previous NMS survey. The most frequently mentioned issues Consultation in employment centre 37% were lack of vacancies in general (70%) and low pay Retraining 23% for proposed vacancies (62%) (Figure 2.6). Other frequently mentioned issues were lack of vacancies Start-up of own business 17% which correspond to a person’s qualifications (38%), Education 8% long time to get to work (16%), and vacancies with unsuitable work schedules (15%). Other 4% Consultation in an employment centre (37%), retrain- Note: Respondents could choose more than one option ing (23%) and assistance in the start-up of one’s own Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample) business (17%) were recognized as the most preferred means of support among unemployed IDPs. Key informant (female, 30): IDPs continue to strongly rely on informal support networks in finding employment. Among IDPs who “I think small business support [is most impor- were looking for a job, 63 per cent did so through tant]. During the quarantine, small businesses friends and relatives. More than half of unemployed collapsed. A lot of them shut down and are IDPs (54%) confirmed searching for a job via the In- unlikely to reopen without support. I think it ternet, and 39 per cent through state employment could be some programmes, like before. They centres (Figure 2.7). used to give grants to small businesses creat- ing jobs for IDPs.”

Source: FGD with KIs

Figure 2.6. Difficulties that IDPs face when looking for a job, IDPs who are actively seeking employment (five most mentioned)

Lack of job opportunities 70%

Low pay for proposed vacancies 62%

Lack of vacancies corresponding to qualification 38%

It takes a long time to get to work 16%

Unsuitable work schedule 15%

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

14 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Fourteen (14%) per cent of IDPs find Internet the most effective source of information about Labour rights violation job opportunities, state employment centres are During the interviews, respondents were asked mentioned by 9 per cent and personal contacts by whether they encountered situations involving de- 8 per cent. ceit on the part of the employer or forced labour since the beginning of the conflict. Five (5%) per cent of IDPs reported encountering at least one such situ- Figure 2.8. Channel of job search, IDPs actively looking for employment ation since the beginning of the conflict, according to the combined data collected through telephone Friends or relatives 63% interviews in the GCA. “Worked with no expected pay” was reported by 3 per cent of the surveyed Internet 54% IDPs, while the same share of IDPs “worked in condi- State Employment Centre 39% tions that were significantly worse than promised”. IDPs aged 35–59 years reported labour rights viola- Newspapers 16% tions more frequently (7%) compared to 18–34-year- Note: Respondents could choose more than one option olds (4%) and IDPs aged 60 and over (1%). Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

June 2020 15 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

3. FINANCIAL SITUATION AND BASIC NEEDS

Livelihood opportunities minor (2%). The share of those who indicated sal- ary as the main income source for their house- Sixty-one (61%) per cent of the surveyed IDPs indi- holds slightly increased, by 3 per cent, compared to cated salary as their main source of income, which the previous NMS survey. was in line with the age distribution of the IDPs household members and IDPs’ labour market situa- IDP (female, 47) from Donetsk Oblast: tion (Figure 3.1). Government support to IDPs was “We rely on social benefits, sometimes my hus- the second most frequently mentioned source of band earns money in construction, but that is income (51%). The share of respondents receiving rare. I can’t work because I have a disability. I support from the government was still large, which also have two children who are students, five demonstrates that IDPs continue to rely strongly on schoolchildren, and two kids with disabilities.” government assistance. Other frequently mentioned sources of income were retirement or long-service Source: FGD with IDPs pension (38%) and social assistance (18%). The share of IDPs who reported humanitarian assistance was

Figure 3.1. Sources of income of surveyed IDP households in the past 12 months

Salary 61%

Government IDP support 51%

Retirement or long-service pension 38%

Social assistance 18%

Irregular earnings 7%

Financial support from relatives residing in Ukraine 6%

Disability pension 6%

Social pension 2%

Humanitarian assistance 2%

Other 2%

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

16 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

The data gathered in the second quarter of 2020 IDP (female, 50) from Luhansk Oblast: demonstrated the return of the household’s finan- “I live with my mother and children. We rely on cial situation self-assessment reported by IDP house- our pensions. That’s our only source of income. holds with people with disabilities or households Before the quarantine, I used to have odd jobs.” consisting of only people aged 60 and over to the lev- el of September 2019. The share of households con- Source: FGD with IDPs sisting of only persons aged 60 and over who had to “limit even food expenses” was 14 per cent, while In Round 17, almost half of IDPs (45%) assessed 46 per cent had “enough money only for food”. their financial situation as “enough money only for Among the households with people with disabili- food” or “have to limit even food expenses” once ties, the share of those who reported they had to other essential costs such as rent and medicine are “limit even food expenses” was 17 per cent, while covered, which is almost the same as in the previ- 43 per cent had “enough money only for food”. As ous round (47%) (Figure 3.2). IDPs who had to limit for the female-headed households with children, even their food expenses and respondents who had these categories accounted for 21 and 49 per cent “enough money only for food” admitted that one respectively. of the COVID-19 outbreak effects for their house- hold was reducing food expenses (29 per cent and 19 per cent correspondingly).

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

Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (September 2019) (March 2020) (June 2020)

Limit expenses even for food 11% 14% 10%

Enough funds only for food 30% 33% 35%

Enough funds for food & basic needs 46% 43% 41%

Enough funds for basic & have some savings 11% 7% 10%

No answer 2% 3% 4%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2020 17 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

In April–June 2020, the average monthly income The data for Round 17 showed that the monthly in- per IDP household member slightly increased, by come of 32 per cent of IDP households did not exceed 2 per cent, compared to the previous round and to- UAH 5,000 which is close to the value of the minimum talled UAH 3,350 (Figure 3.3). Furthermore, the av- wage per person in 2020. The share of those who re- erage monthly income of IDPs was still lower com- ported having their households’ monthly income not pared to the actual subsistence level calculated and exceeding UAH 5,000 decreased by one per cent com- published by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, pared to the previous round (Figure 3.4). which was UAH 3,97420 in June 2020.

Figure 3.4. Distribution of IDP households by Key informant (male, 35): monthly income, by rounds, IDPs who responded “Situations differ from family to family. Ifwe to the question talk about retired people, they receive pensions and social benefits. And if we talk about work- ing-age people, they get social assistance in the amount of UAH 442. The amount is scarce. Therefore, working-age people rely only on

wages, and, during the quarantine, working- 12 Round (December 2018) 13 Round 2019) (March 14 Round (June 2019) 15 Round 2019) (September 16 Round 2020) (March 17 Round (June 2020) age people who lost their job were more vulner- Up to UAH 1,500 4% 4% 2% 1% 2% 1% able. Besides, people who lost their job say that UAH 1,500–3,000 21% 16% 13% 11% 12% 11% they had been on unpaid leave for two months and it is very difficult for them. Tangible sup- UAH 3,001–5,000 24% 23% 20% 18% 19% 20% port for children. This is UAH 1,000 per child, UAH 5,001–7,000 21% 23% 19% 18% 20% 22% and this is essential.” UAH 7,001–11,000 18% 20% 20% 25% 23% 24% Over UAH 11,000 12% 14% 26% 27% 24% 22% Source: FGD with KIs Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

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

3,631

3,289 3,350 3,039

2,667

2,429

Round 12 Round 13 Round 14 Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (December 2018) (March 2019) (June 2019) (September 2019) (March 2020) (June 2020)

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

20 The actual subsistence minimum in June 2020. The Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine: https://www.msp. gov.ua/news/18878.html

18 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

To deepen the understanding of how IDPs adapt to The data reflected the general economic insecurity of displacement and longer-term coping capacities of IDP households, as 55 per cent reported using at least their households, IDPs were asked whether anyone one coping strategy in April–June 2020. The share of in their household was engaged in any coping strate- those who reported using at least one coping strat- gies due to lack of food or lack of money to buy food. egy was 7 percentage points higher compared to Coping strategies differed in their severity, from stress the results of the survey carried out in the third quar- strategies, such as borrowing money, to emergency ter of 2019. The most frequently mentioned coping strategies, such as selling one’s land or house21 . strategies were “spending savings” (40%), “reducing essential health expenditures” (23%), and “borrowing • Stress strategies, such as borrowing money money” (20%) (Figure 3.5). or spending savings, are those which indicate The coping strategies were more frequently ap- a reduced ability to deal with future shocks, plied by IDP households with people with dis- due to a current reduction in resources or in- abilities, households consisting of only the elderly crease in debts. and female-headed households with children. • Crisis strategies, such as selling productive Among the households consisting of people aged assets, directly reduce future productivity, 60 and over, 45 per cent had to spend their sav- including human capital formation. ings, 15 per cent borrowed money, and 36 per cent cut medical expenses. Forty-six per cent (46%) of • Emergency strategies, such as selling one’s households with people with disabilities spent their land or house, affect future productivity, but savings, 25 per cent of them confirmed borrowing are more difficult to reverse or more drama­ money, and 35 per cent said they reduced health tic in nature. expenditures. Forty-eight (48%) per cent of female- headed households with children spent their sav- The following are the results of analysis of coping ings, 33 per cent confirmed borrowing money, and strategies presenting both the shares of IDPs who 25 per cent said they reduced health expenditures. performed certain actions and the shares of those who performed at least one or more actions under the particular coping strategy. The actions might have been applied by the respondent in the past 30 days or by the respondent’s household members in the past 12 months.

21 Food Security & Socioeconomic 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

June 2020 19 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

Figure 3.5. Shares of those who applied specific actions under different coping strategies, by rounds

Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (September 2019) (March 2020) (June 2020)

Spent savings 29% 39% 40%

Borrowed money 18% 22% 20% Stress Stress strategies Sold household goods 4% 5% 5%

Reduced health expenditures 26% 32% 23%

Sold productive assets 3% 5% 4% Crisis strategies Sold means of transport 2% 2% 2%

Took high level risk job 3% 3% 3%

Sold house or land 1% 1% 1% strategies Emergency Emergency Begging 1% 1% 0%

Migrated in search of a job 2% 2% 1% Neutral Neutral strategy

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

At least one stress coping strategy was used by 48 per cent of IDPs together with at least one cri- Figure 3.6. Coping strategies, by rounds sis coping strategy (25%) (Figure 3.6). Emergency Stress coping strategies strategies were used by 4 per cent of IDPs during Crisis coping strategies the past 12 months. Since March 2020, there is a decrease in the share of those who applied crisis Emergency coping strategies coping strategies. 47% 48% 37% 33% 28% 25%

4% 5% 4%

Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (September 2019) (March 2020) (June 2020)

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

20 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

In Round 17, lack of own housing remained the big- Housing gest issue identified by IDPs. Moreover, the financial IDPs continued to live in rented housing: 45 per cent situation of IDPs is significantly burdened by the need lived in rented apartments, 10 per cent in rented to cover housing rent. Thirty-six (36%) per cent of houses and 5 per cent in rented rooms (Figure 3.7). IDPs reported having changed their accommoda- Fifty-four per cent (54%) confirmed renting hous- tion at least once within the current settlement. ing informally, without any contract or other docu- The high cost of accommodation was the main rea- ments. The share of IDPs residing with relatives or son for moving to another dwelling, as reported by host families was 17 per cent and remained almost 48 per cent of IDPs who moved within their current the same as in the previous eight rounds. Eleven settlement. Other frequently mentioned reasons (11%) per cent of IDPs lived in their own housing. were eviction initiated by the owner of the housing Five (5%) per cent of IDPs continued to reside in dor- (32%) and poor living conditions (28%) (respondents mitories and 2 per cent in collective centres for IDPs. could choose more than one option). Twenty-seven (27%) per cent of the respondents living in rented housing confirmed facing the risk of being evicted Figure 3.7. IDP accommodation types from their current dwelling due to their inability to pay the rent. Rented apartment 45% IDP (female, 50) from Luhansk Oblast: Host family/relatives 17% “Earnings do not match the costs, most of the money earned is spent on rent. Due to Own housing 11% the quarantine, there were cases when IDPs could not pay the rent and had to return to Rented house 10% NGCA.”

Source: FGD with IDPs Rented room in an apartment 5%

Dormitory 5% IDP (female, 47) from Donetsk Oblast:

Collective centres for IDPs 2% “When we lived in Ochakiv district, our mother, who was very ill, lived in Donbas (NGCA). We had to borrow money to buy her a small house Other 5% here. But we immediately lost the social ben- efits and we were in a terrible debt. Then we Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) had to sell this house, pay the debts and take the mother to our home.”

Source: FGD with IDPs

June 2020 21 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

Forty (40%) per cent of IDPs were interested in par- Housing programmes ticipating in housing programmes. Among these Forty-two (42%) per cent of IDPs heard about hous- IDPs, 76 per cent expressed their interest (“very ing programmes which are aimed at providing interested” or “interested”) in obtaining housing housing on favourable terms (Figure 3.8). The data partly reimbursed by the state. The same share of showed a link between IDPs’ age and their aware- the respondents would like to get a rent-to-own ness of housing programmes: 42 per cent of the re- home in the secondary market in urban areas, spondents aged 18–34, 49 per cent of IDPs aged whereas only 38 per cent of IDPs were interested in 35–59 and only 32 per cent of the surveyed aged such a deal in rural areas. Thirty-six per cent (36%) 60 and over confirmed they heard about housing were interested in housing construction through programmes. participation in a housing cooperative. Finally, 35 per cent would like to get a loan for housing con- struction for up to 20 years, and 31 per cent for up Figure 3.8. Share of IDPs aware of housing to 30 years (Figure 3.9). programmes (obtaining housing on favourable terms) If participating in a housing programme involved making monthly payments (excluding utility bills), almost half of IDPs (45%) who were interested in housing programmes could afford no more than UAH 5,000 per month. Sixteen (16%) per cent 42% could pay up to UAH 1,500, the same share (16%) UAH 1,500 to 3,000, 13 per cent UAH 3,001 to 5,000. Only 7 per cent were able to pay over UAH 5,000 per month, 1 per cent could not pay at all, and Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) 47 per cent did not respond.

Figure 3.9. Shares of those who were very interested or interested in participating in housing programmes under certain conditions

Housing partially reimbursed by the state 76%

Rent-to-own in the secondary market (urban areas) 76%

Rent-to-own in the secondary market (rural areas) 38%

Housing construction via housing cooperative 36%

20-year loan for housing construction 35%

30-year loan for housing construction 31%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

22 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

The most convenient sources of information for IDPs when searching for housing are friends, relatives or Figure 3.11. The major issues for IDP households acquaintances (28%) and online advertising plat- forms (27%) (Figure 3.10). Lack of own housing 38%

Figure 3.10. Most convenient source of Limited opportunity to return home 16% information for IDPs when searching for housing Unemployment 5% Friends, relatives or acquaintances 28% Utility payments 4% Online advertising platforms 27% Living conditions 4%

Real estate agencies 9% Rent payments 3%

Internet/social networks 6% Access to medicines 1%

Newspapers 3% Access to health care 1%

Other 1% Delayed salaries 1%

No answer 26% Other 14%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) None of the above 11%

Major issues No answer 2%

The biggest issue identified by IDPs was lack of Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) own housing, reported by 38 per cent in Round 17 (Figure 3.11). It was more frequently reported by IDPs aged 18–59 and those who reside in cit- ies. Lack of opportunity to return to the place of permanent residence and unemployment were the second and the third most frequently men- tioned major issues, reported by 16 per cent and 5 per cent of IDPs respectively.

June 2020 23 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

During the survey, the respondents were asked if they would like to report their problems and needs Key informant (male, 35): using a special Internet portal if they had such a “The Catholic Church is still helping IDPs with possibility. If IDPs had a possibility to report their food kits. In Kharkiv, it happens regularly, and problems and needs to the government using a many families apply. The flow of IDPs receiving specialized Internet portal, they would primarily food kits was consistently high before the quar- report about housing-related issues (33%). The sec- antine. During the quarantine, kits are continu- ond and the third most frequently mentioned needs ing to be distributed. Today, the main appeal of were the need for monetary assistance (26%) and citizens for help is a request to help with food. the need for humanitarian assistance which in- Families with children are especially interested. creased by 5 per cent since February–March 2020. The more children in the family, the more dif- Seven (7%) per cent of the respondents mentioned ficult the situation is.” that they would use an online information portal to inform the government on the needs related to Source: FGD with KIs job search; ten (10%) per cent would inform on the needs for medical care and medications.

Figure 3.12. The major issues and needs of IDPs that they would report to the government via an Internet portal

Housing needs, rent, and housing-related questions 33%

Need for monetary assistance 26%

Humanitarian assistance (clothing, hygiene kits) 12%

Need for medical care and medications 10%

Need for a job search 7%

Refused benefits and services for IDPs 2%

Issues with obtaining documents in state institutions 2%

Need for legal assistance 2%

Need for psychosocial care 1%

Other 6%

Would not use such a portal 15%

No answer 23%

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

24 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

The respondents presenting the female-headed households with children more frequently than Access to social payments other surveyed IDPs mentioned that they would One (1%) per cent of IDP households reported facing like to inform the GoU about their housing-related suspension of pensions and/or social payments dur- issues (44% and 32%), needs for cash assistance ing the quarantine. The most frequently suspended (40% and 24%) and needs for humanitarian assis- type of payments was monthly housing assistance to tance (25% and 11%). The interviewed IDPs from IDPs (78%). the households consisting of people aged 60 and over more often than the others answered that Thirty-five (35%) per cent of IDPs reported having they would like to report needs and problems re- problems with receiving social payments during lated to medical care and medicines (18% and 8%). the quarantine. The most common restriction was The households with people with disabilities more the fear to leave home because of the risk of being frequently stated that they would like to inform infected (28%). The fear to leave home was more the GoU on their needs for cash assistance (32% frequently reported by IDPs aged 60 and over than and 25%), humanitarian aid (20% and 11%), medi- by younger IDPs (33 per cent and 25 per cent respec- cal care and medicines (28% and 7%). tively). The limitations in using public transport to access a post office or a bank (14%) was the second most frequently mentioned problem (Figure 3.13).

Figure 3.13. Restrictions for receiving social payments during quarantine, IDPs receiving social payments

Fear to leave home due to the risk of being infected 28%

Public transport is limited to get to a post office/bank 14%

My local bank / post office has reduced working hours 6%

Delivery service bringing my payment is no longer available 3%

Other 1%

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

June 2020 25 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

which is almost the same as in the previous round Safety of the environment (Figure 3.14). The feeling of safety in terms of and infrastructure criminal activities was reported by 77 per cent of IDPs which is higher compared to the previous The vast majority of IDPs (88%) felt safe in their round (Figure 3.15). current settlement in terms of military actions,

Figure 3.14. IDPs' safety assessment of the situation on military actions, by rounds

Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (September 2019) (March 2020) (June 2019)

I feel safe 87% 86% 88%

Neither yes nor no 9% 12% 9%

I feel unsafe 2% 2% 2%

No response/Do not know 2% 0% 1%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Figure 3.15. IDPs' safety assessment of the situation on crime activities, by rounds

Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (September 2019) (March 2020) (June 2019)

I feel safe 76% 71% 77%

Neither yes nor no 19% 22% 18%

I feel unsafe 3% 5% 3%

No response/Do not know 2% 2% 2%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

26 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

4. ACCESS TO SERVICES

Medical services Over a third (36%) of IDPs who had a need to contact health-care facilities during the quarantine reported The respondents were asked whether the settle- that public or other transportation means were una- ments where they resided had any health-care fa- vailable for them (Figure 4.2). Sixteen (16%) per cent cilities. Eighty-seven (87%) per cent of IDPs reported of the respondents answered that the transport access to raion clinics (primary care clinics), 82 per was available, while 41 per cent had no need to use cent confirmed having medical emergency points transport to get to medical facilities. and 80 per cent stated having ambulatories in their settlements. Ninety-four (94%) per cent confirmed Figure 4.2. Availability of transportation to medical having medical emergency points and pharmacies in facilities during quarantine their settlements. 2% 5% Figure 4.1. Shares of those who confirmed 16% Yes, it was available the presence of a certain type of health-care No, it was not available facilities in their settlement There was no need to use 41% transport 36% Other 94% 87% 82% 80% No response

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Fifty-two (52%) per cent of the surveyed living in vil- lages reported that the public or other transportation Pharmacy Medical Primary Ambulatory means were unavailable to them when they needed emergency care clinic point to go the health-care facilities. The proportion of those who informed the inaccessibility of the public Note: Respondents could choose more than one option Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) or other transportation means in cities and towns was 36 per cent and 32 per cent respectively. The data demonstrated a high level of accessibility of health-care facilities in cities and towns, while in IDP (female, 47) from Donetsk Oblast: rural areas, various health-care facilities were signifi- “A significant disadvantage of living in a village cantly less accessible. Only half of the respondents is lack of medical facilities. Our family has three confirmed having pharmacies in their settlements persons with disabilities and we regularly visit (50 per cent). hospitals. My child needs rehabilitation, so we carry her to a rehabilitation centre in Mykolaiv, and it is very expensive.”

Source: FGD with IDPs

June 2020 27 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

5. AWARENESS OF CORONAVIRUS PREVENTION MEASURES

During the interviews, the respondents were Sixteen (16%) per cent of the respondents named asked to name the COVID-19 preventive measures. from one to two COVID-19 preventive measures. The best-known coronavirus prevention measures Forty (40%) per cent of the IDPs mentioned from among IDPs were using a medical mask (94%) and three to four and 44 per cent of surveyed named thorough and frequent hand washing with soap from five to six COVID-19 preventive measures. One (80%). Other frequently mentioned measures were (1%) per cent of the surveyed did not name any of hand treatment with antiseptic (69%), using gloves the COVID-19 preventive measures. (67%), keeping distance from other people (66%) and observing cough hygiene (40%) (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Awareness of coronavirus prevention measures

Using a medical mask 94%

Thorough and frequent hand washing with soap 80%

Hand treatment with antiseptic 69%

Using gloves 67%

Distance from other people 66%

Cough hygiene 40%

Other 1%

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option. Answer options were not read out. Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

28 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

6. IDP MOBILITY

Displacement Intentions to return

The share of IDPs who reported that they had been The share of IDPs who reported their intention to staying in their current settlement for over three return to their place of residence after the end years was 82 per cent in Round 17 (Figure 6.1). of the conflict was 19 per cent, which is almost the same as in the previous round (Figure 6.2). On the other hand, 39 per cent of IDPs expressed an in- tention not to return even after the end of the con- flict. The share of IDPs who chose the option “hard to answer” was 25 per cent, which is higher than in the previous round (20%) (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.1. Length of time spent in the current settlement, by rounds

Round 12 Round 13 Round 14 Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (December (March (June (September (March (June 2018) 2019) 2019) 2019) 2020) 2020) Up to 6 months 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 7–12 months 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 1% 13–18 months 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 19–24 months 7% 5% 4% 3% 3% 1% 25–30 months 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 31–36 months 8% 9% 7% 6% 4% 2% More than 36 months 69% 73% 79% 80% 86% 82% No response 7% 5% 5% 5% 1% 11%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

Figure 6.2. General IDPs’ intentions to return to and stay at their place of residence before displacement, by rounds

Round 12 Round 13 Round 14 Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (December (March (June (September (March (June 2018) 2019) 2019) 2019) 2020) 2020) Yes, in the near future 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Yes, after the end of the conflict 28% 23% 22% 21% 20% 19% Yes, maybe in future 15% 18% 21% 14% 16% 15% No 34% 34% 36% 36% 42% 39% Hard to answer 20% 23% 19% 27% 20% 25% No response 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

June 2020 29 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

The intention not to return was higher among IDPs currently residing in NGCA. IDPs who had close fam- who resided further away from NGCA (Figure 6.3). ily residing in NGCA more frequently expressed their These results remained consistent across all NMS intention to return (38%) than those IDPs who had rounds. In addition, data showed that over half no close family there (32%). (52%) of IDPs had close family members who were

Figure 6.3. IDPs’ intentions to move, by geographic zones22

Yes, in the near future 0% Yes, in the near future 1% Yes, after the end of the conflict 9% Yes, after the end of the conflict 10% Yes, maybe in future 12% Yes, maybe in future 15% No 57% No 53% Difficult to answer 22% Difficult to answer 21%

Yes, in the near future 1% Yes, after the end of the conflict 26% Yes, maybe in future 16% No 28% Difficult to answer 29%

Yes, in the near future 1% Yes, in the near future 1% Yes, after the end of the conflict 7% Yes, after the end of the conflict 12% Yes, maybe in future 7% Yes, maybe in future 18% No 65% No 41% Difficult to answer 20% Difficult to answer 28%

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

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)

22 The grouping of oblasts into zones is based on the 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, Odesa oblasts; zone 5 – Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts.

30 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Three (3%) per cent of the interviewed IDPs re- ported traveling to NGCA or return from there af- Figure 6.4. Problems while entering or leaving ter the quarantine introduction. The reasons for NGCA after the introduction of the quarantine, the trips to NGCA were the need to maintain housing respondents who entered or left NGCA during that period (55%), visiting relatives or friends (38%), special oc- casions such as weddings or funerals (3%) and other Yes, there were problems when entering NGCA reasons (16%). Yes, there were problems when leaving NGCA Among IDPs who visited NGCA after the introduction No, they were no problems of the quarantine, one third (33%) had no problems when entering or leaving these territories, while 59% almost two thirds (67%) reported facing problems. Fifty-nine (59%) per cent faced difficulties when en- tering NGCA (Figure 6.4). Closed checkpoints were 33% 25% reported by 51 per cent, long queues by 8 per cent, other problems by 1 per cent, while 40 per cent did not explain the nature of the problems they encoun- tered. A quarter (25%) had difficulties when - leav Note: Respondents could choose more than one option ing NGCA. Closed checkpoints were an obstacle for Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data) 79 per cent, long queues for 19 per cent, other prob- lems were faced by 3 per cent. Forty (40%) per cent reported not visiting NGCA since their displacement. The reasons for not visiting NGCA were “no need or no desire for visiting” (44%) while 36 per cent of IDPs perceived visiting as “life- threatening” (Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.5. Reasons for IDPs NOT to visit NGCA after displacement, respondents who did not visit NGCA

No need/no desire 44%

Because it was perceived as "life-threatening" 36%

Because of political reasons 23%

Because of the lack financial possibilities 17%

No property remains and/or no relatives or friends remain 13%

Because of health reasons 10%

Other 2%

No response 5%

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

June 2020 31 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

7. INTEGRATION INTO LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Integration rates Figure 7.1. IDPs’ self-assessment of their In Round 17, the share of IDPs who reported that integration in the local community they had integrated into their local community was 4% 50 per cent, while 39 per cent of the surveyed IDPs 7% stated that they had partly integrated (Figure 7.1). Yes Generally, the total share (89%) of IDPs who reported Partly 50% some level of integration remained about the same 39% No as in the previous round. At the same time, the share No response of IDPs who reported that they had not integrated was 7 per cent in Round 16. Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

Figure 7.2. IDPs’ self-assessment of their integration in the local community, by geographic zones23

Yes 65% Yes 77% 12% Partly 27% Partly 11% No 8% No No response 0% No response 0% Yes 66% 77% Partly 27% No 6% No response 1% 65% 66% 46% 69% Yes 46% 35% Partly 43% No 5% No response 6%

Yes 69% Yes 35% Partly 25% Partly 53% No 6% No 11% No response 0% No response 1%

– Zone 5 – Zone 4 (without Kyiv) – Kyiv – Zone 3 – Zone 2 – Zone 1 Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

23 The grouping of oblasts into zones is based on the 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, Odesa oblasts; zone 5 – Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts.

32 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

The results of the analysis showed significant chang- The data indicated that the sense of trust was rather es in the respondents’ self-assessment of their in- strong among IDPs and the host community. Sev- tegration depending on the geographical zones enty-six (76%) per cent of IDPs said they “trusted where they resided. The share of the respondents fully” or “trusted a lot” the locals at their current interviewed in zone 2 who confirmed their integra- settlement (values 5 and 4 on a five-point scale) tion reduced by 18 per cent (from 53 per cent to (Figure 7.4). This indicator increased since Round 16 35 per cent). At the same time, among IDPs resid- (69%). The share of IDPs reporting trust towards ing in zone 3, the number of those who self-assessed the local population was slightly higher among IDPs themselves as integrated increased by 11 per cent residing in cities (78%) and villages (78%), compared (from 55 per cent to 66 per cent) (Figure 7.2). to IDPs residing in towns (74%). The main conditions for successful integration indi- cated by IDPs were housing (89%), regular income Figure 7.4. The IDPs’ level of trust towards (80%) and employment (48%), which have remained the local population at their current settlement consistent in Rounds 15,16 and 17 (Figure 7.3). Other frequently mentioned conditions were family and friends in the same place (48%), access to public Trust fully 22% services (45%), support of local community (30%), easy access to documentation (26%) and possibility Trust a lot 54% to vote in local elections (19%) (Figure 7.3). Trust moderately 21% IDP (female, 20) from Horlivka, Donetsk Oblast: Trust a little 1% “If there were no social benefits for IDPs, I and many of my acquaintances would not even re- Cannot trust at all 0% member that we are IDPs.” Don’t know/No answer 2% Source: FGD with IDPs

Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

Figure 7.3. IDPs’ conditions for integration in the local community, by rounds

89% 87% 89% Round 15 (September 2019) 78% 80% 72% Round 16 (March 2020) Round 17 (June 2020) 51% 51% 48% 46% 48% 45% 42% 43% 45% 29% 32% 30% 23% 26% 19% 18% 19% 13%

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: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

June 2020 33 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

Discrimination Figure 7.6. Areas of discrimination, by rounds, IDPs who experienced perceived discrimination The share of IDPs who reported perceived dis- crimination or the feeling of being treated unfairly because of their IDP status was four per cent in Round 17 which is lower than in the previous rounds (Figure 7.5). 15 Round 2019) (September 16 Round 2020) (March 17 Round (June 2020)

Figure 7.5. Distribution of IDPs by perceived Employment 36% 30% 51% discrimination based on their IDP registration, by rounds Housing 33% 28% 30% Obtaining administrative services 23% 32% 26% Interactions with local population 23% 29% 24% Health care 28% 19% 17% Banking services – 6% – Education 4% 6% –

15 Round 2019) (September 16 Round 2020) (March 17 Round (June 2020) Other 3% 6% – Yes 8% 7% 4% No answer 0% 0% 0% No 91% 92% 95% Note: Respondents could choose more than one option No answer 1% 1% 1% Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

Source: Telephone interviews (territorial sample) According to IDPs, the most effective channels Perceptions of discrimination or unfair treatment for sharing the existing issues faced by IDPs with noted by IDPs mainly concerned employment (51%), the public were informing the media (32%), com- housing (30%), obtaining administrative services munication with international organizations and in- (26%), interactions with local population (24%), and ternational non-governmental organizations (28%), health care (17%) (Figure 7.6). with local authorities (28%), with the central govern- ment (27%), and with non-governmental organiza- tions (26%) (Figure 7.7).

Figure 7.7. Most effective methods of communicating issues as identified by the IDP population

32% 28% 28% 27% 26%

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

Note: Respondents could choose more than one option Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)

34 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

8. RETURNEES TO THE NON- GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED AREAS

In the NMS telephone survey in April–June 2020, in the framework of Round 17, 3,708 interviews were Figure 8.2. Distribution of returnee households conducted with IDPs now residing in all oblasts of by number of members Ukraine, 20% of which were identified as IDPs who returned to and are currently residing in NGCA. 1 person 47% The share of identified returnees remained almost 2 persons 42% unchanged since Round 12 (Figure 8.1). During the interviews, the respondents were asked 3 persons 5% about the composition of their household. The aver- 4 persons and more 6% age size of the surveyed returnee households was 1.6 persons, which was smaller than the average size Source: Telephone interviews with NGCA returnees of IDP households (2.43 persons) in Round 17 and among the total population of Ukraine (2.58 persons) according to 2019 data24. The share of single-per- son households of returnees was 47% (Figure 8.2). Among single-person households, 57% were return- ees over 60 years of age.

Figure 8.1. Respondents identified as returnees in the telephone survey, by rounds

21% 20% 20% 19% 18% 19%

Round 12 Round 13 Round 14 Round 15 Round 16 Round 17 (December (March (June (September (March (June 2018) 2019) 2019) 2019) 2020) 2020)

Source: Telephone interviews

24 Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households of Ukraine. Statistical Bulletin. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020.

June 2020 35 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

Women represented 59 per cent of the surveyed re- turnee household members, which was the same as Figure 8.4. Age distribution of returnees aged the share of women among IDP households (58%), 18–64 and 65 and over according to combined data (Figure 8.3). Households with children made up 8% of all returnee house- holds, which is lower than among IDP households 65 years + (40%), according to combined data. Eight per cent 36% 64% of returnee households reported having a family 20–64 years member with a disability. The data from all the NMS rounds shows the presence of a large portion of people aged 60 and over in returnee households. In Round 17, this pattern remained the same: the share Source: Telephone interviews with NGCA returnees of returnee household members aged 60 years and The majority (51%) of returnees surveyed in over was 65 per cent. It is more than twice higher Round 17 have stayed outside their homes for up to compared to the share of the mentioned age group three months before their return to NGCA. The pos- among IDPs (20%). sibility to live in their own housing and not to pay the rent (91%), as well as family reasons (31%) were Figure 8.3. Sex and age distributions of returnee the main triggers for returning to NGCA. The men- household members tioned reasons for return have been consistent in all the NMS rounds. 60+ years 64% 65% The results of the analysis demonstrated the dif- 35–59 years 25% 23% ferences between reasons for returning named by the returnees aged 18–64 and returnees aged 18–34 years 6% 7% 65 years and over. Private property possession was named as the reason for returning by 86 per cent of working-age returnees and by 94 per cent of elderly 5–17 years 5% 5% ones. Family reasons were mentioned more fre- quently by the respondents aged 18–64 (38%) com- 0–4 years 1% 1% pared to the elderly returnees (26%). Generally, pos- session of private property within NGCA as the main Male (45%) Female (55%) reason for return is associated with the biggest issue Source: Telephone interviews with NGCA returnees reported by IDPs, i.e. lack of own housing. Almost all (96%) returnees resided in their own housing after In Round 17, the share of returnees aged 65 years return, while among IDPs only 10% resided in their and over was 64 per cent, while working-age retur­ own housing, according to combined data. nees made up 36 per cent. The share of elderly re- turnees was almost three times higher compared to The employment status of all the surveyed returnees the same age group among IDPs (18%), according to corresponds to their age characteristics. In Round 17, combined data. the share of the economically active population was 23% among returnees.

36 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Figure 8.5. Current employment status of the surveyed NGCA returnees

In paid work 21%

Unemployed and actively looking for a job 2%

Retired, pensioners 73%

Doing housework 1%

People with disabilities 1%

Unemployed, not actively looking for a job 1%

Student 0%

No answer 1%

Source: Telephone interviews with NGCA returnees

Figure 8.6. Distribution of returnee households To analyse the employment situation of returnees by monthly income aged 20–64, data sets gathered in the NMS Rounds 16 and 17 were merged. The share of employed 28% returnees aged 20–64 was 51 per cent which is 23% lower compared to IDP population of the same age 19% 16% group and all Ukrainian population (56% and 67% 14% respectively)25 . Monthly income of one in five (19%) returnee house- holds was lower than UAH 3,000 (Figure 8.6). Up to UAH 3,001– UAH 5,001– UAH 7,001– Over UAH 3,000 5,000 7,000 11,000 UAH 11,000

Source: Telephone interviews with NGCA returnees

25 Employment by gender, type, location and age groups in 2020: http://ukrstat.gov.ua/…/operativ2020/rp/eans/ znsmv2020_u.xls

June 2020 37 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

9. ANNEXES

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

38 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

ANNEX 1. General methodology

The survey methodology, developed within the frame- Figure 2). The sampling of territorial units was de- work of the project, enabled data collection in 24 vised for all oblasts of Ukraine and distributed in oblasts of Ukraine and the city of Kyiv, as well as data proportion to the number of registered IDPs in each processing and analysis in terms of IDP location, their oblast. Eight IDP households were included in each movements or intentions to move, intentions to re- territorial unit selected for monitoring. It should be turn, major social and economic issues, IDPs’ integra- noted that about 43% of this round’s IDP sample tion into the local communities, among other socio- were surveyed in the previous round. The purpose economic characteristics of IDPs in Ukraine. of preservation of IDP households in the sample was to ensure a more accurate assessment of changes in The NMS combines data obtained from multiple the indicators between consecutive rounds. sources, namely: The sampling for the telephone survey carried out • Data from sample surveys of IDP households by IOM was derived from the Unified Information via telephone interviews. Database of Internally Displaced Persons maintained • Data from focus group discussions with key by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine. Between informants (representatives of the local April and June 2020, 3,708 IDP households were in- community, IDPs, local authorities, as well terviewed using this method in 24 oblasts of Ukraine. as NGOs responding to the issues faced by Out of these, 745 interviews were conducted with IDPs), IDPs and NGCA returnees. returnees to the non-government-controlled ar- • Administrative data. eas. The distribution of the number of interviewed Due to the introduction of the COVID-19 quarantine households by oblasts is presented in Figure 3. measures in Ukraine, it was impossible to carry out During the survey period, five focus groups were face-to-face interviews. held with representatives from the IDP population The sample size of IDP households in 300 randomly using online means of communication (two FGDs in selected territorial units selected for telephone in- Mykolaiv Oblast and Sloviansk), key informants (two terviews totalled 2,401 IDP households (sample FGDs in Kharkiv Oblast and Zaporizhia Oblast), and distribution by oblast is provided in Figure 1 and NGCA returnees.

June 2020 39 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

Figure 1. Distribution of the sample by territorial Figure 2. Distribution of IDP households units within oblasts of Ukraine by telephone interviews based on the sampling of territorial units within oblasts Number of territorial Oblast units selected Oblast Number Total 300 Total 2,401 Vinnytsia 6 Vinnytsia 48 Volyn 6 Volyn 47 Dnipropetrovsk 18 Dnipropetrovsk 148 Donetsk 70 Donetsk 564 Zhytomyr 6 Zhytomyr 47 Zakarpattia 6 Zakarpattia 36 Zaporizhia 18 Zaporizhia 146 Ivano-Frankivsk 6 Ivano-Frankivsk 48 Kyiv Oblast Kyiv Oblast 10 80 (excluding the city of Kyiv) (excluding the city of Kyiv) Kirovohrad 6 Kirovohrad 48 Luhansk 36 Luhansk 323 Lviv 6 Lviv 48 Mykolaiv 6 Mykolaiv 48 Odesa 8 Odesa 63 Poltava 6 Poltava 48 Rivne 6 Rivne 47 Sumy 6 Sumy 48 Ternopil 6 Ternopil 36 Kharkiv 18 Kharkiv 138 Kherson 6 Kherson 47 Khmelnytskyi 6 Khmelnytskyi 49 Cherkasy 6 Cherkasy 49 Chernivtsi 6 Chernivtsi 40 Chernihiv 6 Chernihiv 48 The city of Kyiv 20 The city of Kyiv 157

40 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Figure 3. Distribution of IDP households by telephone interviews within oblasts

Oblast Number Total 3,708 Vinnytsia 74 Volyn 68 Dnipropetrovsk 233 Donetsk GCA 353 Zhytomyr 80 Zakarpattia 64 Zaporizhia 229 Ivano-Frankivsk 78 Kyiv Oblast 129 (excluding the city of Kyiv) Kirovohrad 78 Luhansk GCA 132 Lviv 81 Mykolaiv 80 Odesa 102 Poltava 78 Rivne 78 Sumy 77 Ternopil 76 Kharkiv 220 Kherson 79 Khmelnytskyi 79 Cherkasy 75 Chernivtsi 69 Chernihiv 79 The city of Kyiv 272 Donetsk NGCA 454 Luhansk NGCA 291

June 2020 41 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, U.S. Department and Migration, and implemented by the of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration

ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into geographic zones by distance from 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 The city of Kyiv Odesa Oblast Chernihiv Oblast Volyn Oblast Zakarpattia Oblast Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast Lviv Oblast 5 Rivne Oblast Ternopil Oblast Khmelnytskyi Oblast Chernivtsi Oblast

42 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the U.S. Department of State Bureau International Organization for Migration (IOM) of Population, Refugees, and Migration

ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls in the telephone survey

Summary of calls No connection Total 16,561 Total 3,698 Completed interviews (GCA) 2,963 18% Vodafone 3,005 81% Completed interviews (NGCA) 745 4% Kyivstar 390 11% No answer/nobody picked up the phone Lifecell 293 8% 2,648 16% (after three attempts) Other 10 0% No connection 3,698 22% Out of service 4,146 25% Not IDP 701 4% Out of service Refusal to take part in the survey 1,660 11% Total 4,146 Vodafone 2,738 66% Kyivstar 734 18% Lifecell 647 16% Other 27 0%

June 2020 43 The project is funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM)

U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

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]