IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators

Results of the Consultation Meetings with IDPs, their Host Vulnerable Communities, and Key Stakeholders in Ukraine

2021

IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators

Results of the Consultation Meetings with IDPs, their Host Vulnerable Communities, and Key Stakeholders in Ukraine IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators. Results of the Consultation Meetings with IDPs, their Vulnerable Host Communities, and Key Stakeholders in Ukraine – Kyiv, Ukraine; Danish Refugee Council Ukraine, 2021. – 48 p.

This report is produced for the project 'IDPs Integration Support Initiative in Ukraine' thanks to the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) within USAID Democratic Governance East Activity.

The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Danish Refugee Council (DRC) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Photo Credits:

Pages 9, 11, 13, 15, 27, 33 – © DRC, Oleksandr Ratushniak Page 35 – © Afina Haya

For more information, please, contact Danish Refugee Council:

47 Volodymyrska Street, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01001

E-mail: [email protected] Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 7

Acknowledgments...... 9

Introduction ...... 11

Executive Summary...... 13

Methodology...... 15

Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors ...... 17

Common definition of ‘integration’. Perceptions and expectations for integration initiatives...... 17

‘Unpacking criteria’: operationalisation of the MRTOT’s criteria...... 18

Stakeholders’ needs in IDP-related data...... 24

Attitude to possible methodological approaches to data collection ...... 25

Findings from Focus Group Discussions with IDPs and Their Vulnerable Host Communities in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts...... 27

Definition of IDPs Integration...... 27

Problems and barriers of IDPs by criteria...... 28 Main discussion points on possible methodological approach to data collection for measurement of IDPs integration...... 31

Conclusions ...... 33

Recommendations on the Draft ‘Criteria for Assessment of the Integration of IDPs into the Host Territorial Communities’...... 35

Appendix 1: IDPs in Ukraine: Situation Overview...... 41

Appendix 2: List of Key Informant Interviews ...... 43

Appendix 3: List of Focus Group Discussions...... 45

7

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CATI computer-assisted telephone interviews CSO civil society organisation DG East Democratic Governance East Activity DRC Danish Refugee Council ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations FGD focus group discussion GCA Government controlled areas IDP internally displaced person IOM International Organization for Migration KI key informant KII key informant interview MoSP Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine MRTOT Ministry for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine NGCA non-Government controlled areas NRC Norwegian Refugee Council OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights UAH Ukrainian Hryvnia UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development

9

Acknowledgments

Danish Refugee Council would like to express its special appreciation and gratitude to all the representatives of the state national, regional and local authorities, as well as oth- er organisations, including UN agencies, international organisations and national civil society organisations focused on IDPs issues, for their valuable contribution provided for this report during the consultation meetings.

Special thanks are due to internally displaced persons and representatives of host communities from Volnovakha, Sloviansk, Sievierodonetsk and Starobilsk, who took part in focus group discussions and have being involved in testing the criteria and indicators.

Finally, the development of this report was not be possible without the thorough consultations and guidance provided by Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS).

11

Introduction

In 2017, the Government of Ukraine declared its in- drafted the ‘Criteria for assessment of IDPs integra- tention to monitor the situation with internally dis- tion into the host territorial communities’. The doc- placed persons (IDPs) on a regular basis. The IDPs ument outlined ten criteria for assessing IDPs inte- Integration Strategy 2017–20201 and the Action Plan gration into the host territorial communities and 2018–20202 had the strategic objective to implement defined approaches to collecting, processing and the annual monitoring of IDPs integration into host analysing the data. Despite the overall clarity of the territorial communities and their needs (IDPs Inte- document, many questions and ambiguous points gration Monitoring). However, the intentions to im- remain to be clarified regarding the measurability plement the monitoring system have not been ma- of the defined criteria, specific indicators and data terialised through the implementation of the IDPs sources that would inform criteria, as well as the Integration Strategy 2020. The plans to launch the materialisation of the monitoring itself. Moreover, IDPs Integration Monitoring have been reiterated in considering that the document was developed solely the draft of the IDPs Integration Strategy 20233. by the MRTOT, the criteria and indicators ought to have been consulted with all stakeholders, includ- So far, IDPs’ needs and their integration into host ing state and non-state institutions, as well as IDPs communities have been monitored by the interna- themselves and the representatives of their vulner- tional organisations: the National Monitoring Sys- able host communities. tem of the Situation with IDPs4 implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), The objective of this study was to capture and con- and the Multi-Sector Needs Assessment5 imple- textualise the common definition of IDPs integra- mented by REACH Initiative. However, the state au- tion and identify perceptions and expectations of thorities do not collect any information about IDPs’ key stakeholders and ultimate beneficiaries for the needs or integration on a regular basis. integration initiatives. The draft ‘Criteria for assess- ment of IDPs integration into the host territorial In 2020, following the responsibilities defined in the communities’ was used as a basis for the consulta- Action Plan 2018–2020, the Ministry for Reintegra- tion meetings. In particular, the study helped op- tion of Temporarily Occupied Territories (MRTOT) erationalize the criteria, define specific indicators

1 Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 909-р-2017 ‘National Strategy of Integration of Internally Displaced Persons and Implementation of Durable Solutions to Internal Displacement until 2020’ – URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/909- 2017-%D1%80#Text (in Ukrainian) 2 Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine №944-р-2018 ‘Action Plan for Implementation of the Strategy of Integration of Internally Displaced Persons and Implementation of Durable Solutions to Internal Displacement until 2020’ – URL: https:// zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/944-2018-%D1%80#Text (in Ukrainian) 3 The draft of the National IDPs Integration Strategy 2021–2023 as of the end of October 2020 – URL: https://mtot.gov.ua/30102020- minreintegraciii-povidomljae-pro-provedennja-elektronnih-konsultaci (in Ukrainian) 4 The National Monitoring System Reports on the Situation of IDPs in Ukraine: Round 1 – 17 / IOM (2016–2020) – URL: https://www. iom.org.ua/en/periodicals (in English and Ukrainian) 5 REACH Resource Centre, Ukraine – URL: https://www.reachresourcecentre.info/country/ukraine/theme/multi-sector- assessments/

1 2 3 4 5 12 Introduction

and discuss challenges and alternative approaches focused on IDPs issues, and twelve FGDs with IDPs to data collection. Based on the result of the study, and representatives of their vulnerable host com- recommendations were put forward in compliance munities in four locations of Donetsk (Sloviansk with the IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for and Volnovakha) and Luhansk (Sievierodonetsk and IDPs and other respective international documents6. Starobilsk) oblasts, were conducted in the period from December 2020 through January 2021. This report is a background paper outlining the key findings from the thematic consultation meetings The report includes an executive summary, meth- with the key stakeholders and the ultimate benefi- odology description, outline of the findings from ciaries on IDPs integration criteria and indicators. the KIIs and FGDs, conclusions and recommenda- Along with the desk research results on the best in- tions. Furthermore, the report provides recommen- ternational practices of measuring IDPs integration7, dations on the methodological approach to data the objective of this report is to inform the Concept collection and validation to assess the level of IDPs Paper on IDPs integration criteria and indicators integration, including proposed indicators. which will be produced to guide the implementation of the state monitoring of IDPs integration into the The study was commissioned by Info Sapiens LLC host territorial communities in Ukraine. for the project ʻIDPs Integration Support Initiative in Ukraineʼ implemented by Danish Refugee The consultation meetings were conducted in the Council (DRC) thanks to the generous support of format of key informant interviews (KIIs) and fo- the American people through the United cus group discussions (FGDs). Overall, thirty KIIs States Agency for International Development with state and local authorities, United Nations (USAID) within USAID Democratic (UN) Agencies and international organisations, as Governance East Activity. The contents of this well as Ukrainian civil society organisations (CSOs) report are the sole responsibility of DRC and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

6 IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons – URL: https://www.unhcr.org/50f94cd49.pdf 7 Desk Research “Best International Practices on IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators” – Kyiv, Ukraine; Danish Refugee Council – Danish Demining Group Ukraine, 2020. – 40 p.

6 13

Executive Summary

Access to housing remains one of the key prob- tion. It is noteworthy that IDPs were quite reluctant lems for IDPs in Ukraine and, at the same time, to disclose information on their income during the one of the most challenging criteria for opera- pilot of the questionnaire due to the sensitivity and tionalisation. Consultation meetings with state and complexity of the questions on income. Therefore, non-state stakeholders, IDPs and representatives only a subjective indicator, such as ‘the share of of their host communities have confirmed that the IDPs’ households which lack money for food or have current national, regional or local housing pro- money available for food only’, is suggested. grammes cannot provide long-term housing for all IDPs who lost it due to displacement. Furthermore, Among possible recommendations for data collec- consultations with IDPs and host communities indi- tion, the key informants suggested introducing the cated that IDPs’ needs in housing are subjective and IDP module to the Household Living Conditions depend on many factors. These needs correspond to Survey of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. It age, socio-economic conditions, and housing situa- would enable the monitoring system to collect in- tion before and after the displacement of IDP house- formation based on more than fifty questions on hold. Two main indicators (objective and subjective) IDPs’ income and expenditures and, subsequently, were proposed to measure the access to housing compare the IDPs’ situation with that of the general based on the consultation meetings. The objective population. If this recommendation lends itself to indicator aims to assess the share of IDP households implementation, the above-mentioned subjective by housing tenure types. The subjective indicator indicator has to be replaced by the objective ones seeks to define the share of IDP households that do for income and expenditures measurement. not perceive their situation with housing as secure for the next twelve months. Unemployment is a less crucial problem for IDPs than low salaries. However, IDPs still possess less Access to regular income is linked to the housing social capital than the local population, a prereq- situation, as the rent is a significant part of the un- uisite to find a job with a decent wage or find any expected expenditure that IDPs incur due to the job at all. The education and work experience of loss of private housing. The MRTOT suggested the IDPs do not always respond to market needs. The criterion ‘Existence of a regular income of a work- key informants confirmed that employment and ing-age person8. However, it is recommended that unemployment rates should be the main indicators this criterion should be reformulated into ‘Existence of employment that need to be compared with the of a regular income of household members which same indicators for the general population. Net covers basic needs of household members’. Most salary is suggested as an additional indicator. How- IDP households consist of more than one member; ever, the key informants and FGDs’ participants therefore, there is a need to collect information on confirmed that it could be challenging to get hon- the income of all household members. It is essential est responses on the informal wages (paid in cash). for understanding the household’s financial situa- Therefore, the reliability of this indicator is uncer-

8 According to the Law of Ukraine ‘On Employment’, the working age persons are those who have reached the age of 16 who live on the territory of Ukraine and are able to work actively due to their state of health. 14 Executive Summary

tain. Furthermore, the key informants mentioned that the local population can take a worse attitude that it would be helpful to reflect whether a person towards IDPs. Thus, the share of the IDP population pursues their occupation or not. At the same time, facing negative attitudes because of their IDP status the relevant data for the general population is not is suggested as the second major indicator. available. Consequently, it is recommended mark- ing this indicator as an additional one. The barriers to reunification with family members in the non-Government controlled areas (NGCA) Barriers to accessing education, medical care and and the need to support them can create addition- administrative services are not crucial for most al barriers for IDPs integration when they have IDPs but are still relevant for some of them. The to spend much time in NGCA or layout financial key informants highlighted that some barriers arise resources to help family members in NGCA. The due to displacement or registration as IDP, but not MRTOT suggested the criterion ‘Reunification of due to other reasons common for the general pop- family members at a new place of residence’. Still, it ulation. However, distinguishing between barriers is recommended that it should be revised into ‘Bar- related to the IDP status and those, which are not, riers to reunification with relatives in the NGCA could be challenging. Therefore, it is recommended and the needs for their support’. The key inform- to ask open-ended questions about the existing bar- ants highlighted that availability of tools and legal riers and then classify them in each case, whether mechanisms for reunification with family mem- they are related to the problems that anyone might bers in NGCA is vital for IDPs integration. Thus, it face or constitute solely an IDP status-induced prob- is suggested to measure the share of IDP households lem. Separate indicators for all levels of education which indicated the objective barriers to the desired and healthcare were elaborated. family reunification in the Government controlled area (GCA). Furthermore, it is recommended meas- Barriers to receiving pensions and social secu- uring the necessity to support family members with rity payments are also not crucial for most IDPs, the second key indicator: ‘Share of IDP households but in certain circumstances, IDPs cannot collect in need of supporting family members in NGCA fi- necessary documents due to displacement. The nancially and/or travelling to NGCA to support fam- key informants advised distinguishing between the ily members’. IDPs will be able to specify the barri- barriers that appear at the stage of pension or social ers to reunification and support in the open-ended payments assignment and regular provision of pen- questions. sions (timely delivery via the bank branch or else). Similarly to previous indicators, it is recommended As for the survey implementation, the key inform- to ask open-ended questions about the existing barri- ants and IDPs had several concerns regarding the ers and then classify them in each case, whether they data collection via the Unified Information Da- are related to the problems that anyone might face or tabase on IDPs during the registration of IDPs or constitute solely an IDP status-induced problem. while having this information updated by the So- cial Protection Departments at the local level. It Belonging to permanent social groups of a host could pose a challenge in view of the IDPs’ distrust of territorial community is a subjective feeling that state authorities, lack of experience in surveys’ im- depends on the IDP integration level. The key in- plementation among the staff of the Social Protection formants confirmed that the only possible bench- Departments at the local level, and lack of financial mark for this feeling is a sense of belonging to the and institutional resources for the respective survey. territorial community before displacement. There- There are two recommended options for the survey fore, an indicator based on the comparison between implementation: 1) to contract an independent re- the subjective senses of belonging to the host and search agency; 2) to add an IDP module to the House- previous communities was suggested as the major hold Living Conditions Survey of the State Statistics one. Moreover, the key informants advised collect- Service of Ukraine. Most IDPs and key informants ing information about the reasons behind the dis- support both options. The detailed recommenda- tant feeling through additional open-ended ques- tions for data collection were prepared and outlined tions. One of the possible reasons lies in the fact in a separate section detailed below. 15

Methodology

First, the ‘Criteria for assessment of IDPs integra- In total, thirty KIIs were conducted between De- tion into host territorial communities’ drafted by cember 2020 and January 2021: the MRTOT in 2020 were reviewed to develop the methodology and tools of this study. The criteria ▶ state national authorities (9 KIs); were then operationalised into the draft list of indi- ▶ local authorities, including representatives cators for each criterion which had been discussed of Social Protection Departments at the local and tested during the consultation meetings with level, employment centres, local councils the KIs and FGD’s participants. The recommen- (4 KIs); dations on the ‘Criteria for assessment of IDPs in- ▶ UN Agencies and International Organisa- tegration into host territorial communities’ were tions (10 KIs); produced based on the findings of the consultation ▶ Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs (7 KIs). meetings. The list of participant institutions in KIIs is provid- Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) ed in Appendix 2. The KIIs were conducted online or via the telephone. The representatives of national, regional and local state institutions, UN Agencies, as well as interna- Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) tional and national CSOs were consulted to: Twelve FGDs with IDPs and representatives of their ▶ discuss and revise the definition of ‘local vulnerable host communities in Donetsk and Lu- integration of IDPs’ and criteria listed in hansk oblasts took place to: ‘Criteria for assessment of IDPs integration into host territorial communities’ drafted by ▶ probe the definition of IDPs integration; the MRTOT; ▶ identify problems and barriers which IDPs ▶ identify challenges of IDPs and solutions to might encounter in different areas of their local integration; life due to their displacement; ▶ unpack criteria drafted by the MRTOT (to ▶ identify IDPs’ attitude and expectations for inform the operationalisation of Criteria); government/local authorities’ initiatives in ▶ identify stakeholders’ needs in IDP-related support of IDPs; data (to inform which data would be most ▶ collect opinions on possible approaches to essential for stakeholders); data collection for measurement of IDPs ▶ collect expert opinions on the approach to integration and test the questionnaire for data collection and analysis (to inform which IDP survey. approach could be used and what challenges could be anticipated). The FGDs took place from 11 through 20 December 2020 in four vulnerable host communities in Donetsk All KIs received the draft list of the indicators be- (Volnovakha and Sloviansk) and Luhansk (Sieviero- fore the interview, which laid the groundwork for donetsk and Starobilsk) oblasts, which were selected discussion during the KII. from 15 communities where DG East operated. The 16 Methodology

selection of the vulnerable communities was based The main challenge while recruiting KIs was relat- on the highest concentration of IDPs to contrast ed to the timing of the study implementation. De- big and small size communities in each of the two cember is the busiest period of the year for most or- oblasts. The higher concentration of IDPs leads to an ganisations, with some key informants refusing to increased load on the infrastructure (housing, jobs, participate in the survey or rescheduling interviews educational institutions, transport, service institu- for January because of business issues. tions), which causes more problems within the inte- gration process – for example, it may create more dif- The recruitment of FGD participants among IDPs ficulties in finding affordable housing, a decent job or, was challenging in various ways. Specifically, IDPs lead to a worse attitude on the part of the locals, etc. were concerned about disclosing their identity (due to the video-based interviewing during the FGD). The composition of eight FGDs with IDPs was as fol- They also harboured doubts as to whether the study lows: would be useful and bring practical results. Spe- cific difficulties arose with the search for self-em- ▶ four FGDs in Donetsk oblast (Volnovakha ployed IDPs who then refused to participate in the and Sloviansk); study due to the lack of time. Also, there were issues ▶ four FGDs in Luhansk oblast (Sieviero- searching for male IDPs aged over 40. donetsk and Starobilsk). The technical challenges were related to the Inter- Each FGD included IDPs of both genders in various net access necessary for the entire duration of the areas and statuses of employment. Four FGDs were FGDs and poor coverage of the mobile Internet in conducted with IDPs aged between 20–40 and four small settlements (Volnovakha and Starobilsk). In FGDs with IDPs aged over 40. addition, the participants were in need of smart- phone/tablet/laptop to be able to use Zoom platform In addition, Info Sapiens conducted four FGDs with (and some older participants required their younger the representatives of the selected vulnerable host relatives’ assistance with Zoom platform). communities, who were connected with IDPs (e.g., friends or relatives of IDPs, employers or colleagues Recruitment of FGD participants ran smoother of IDPs, teachers of children of IDPs, activists or vol- in bigger cities (Sloviansk, Sievierodonetsk) than unteers who work with IDPs, etc.). in smaller settlements. The highest number of refusals during recruitment was observed in Vol- The FGDs lasted approximately 90–120 minutes novakha, where many potential participants ex- and were attended by five to seven participants. All plained unwillingness to participate in FGD due to FGDs were conducted online due to the COVID-19 observed nepotism in the town and, subsequently, related restrictions and quarantine measures. poor prospects of the improvement of the situa- tion of IDPs. In addition, this town is located close The list of FGDs is provided in Appendix 3. to the line of contact, and many potential partic- ipants were afraid of disclosing personal data. Data Collection Challenges and Study Moreover, they assumed that their participation Limitations in the study could potentially generate tensions with the local authorities (as was also the case Several challenges were encountered throughout with both IDPs and the representatives of the host the data collection process. communities). 17

Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors

Common definition of ‘integration’. Perceptions and expectations for integration initiatives

The discussion with key informants began with has no stigma related issues. Moreover, there is consideration of the main challenges faced by IDPs. another prominent issue connected to the general It was necessary to acquire a deeper understanding inclusion of IDPs into the host communities – the of the problems faced by Ukrainian IDPs on their access to policy tools on the local level (including way to integration, as well as discuss the conceptu- political participation), the inclusion of IDPs into alisation of the integration process, which made it the registers of territorial communities, and their possible to shed light on perceptions and expecta- involvement in the public and cultural life of host- tions for integration initiatives. ing communities.

Most key informants agree with the proposed defi- In any case, housing and employment are still nition of integration: ‘IDPs can be considered in- considered as the main problematic areas by tegrated as soon as they no longer have any spe- the absolute majority of the KIs. As of now, there cific assistance or protection needs related to the are no effective and sustainable solutions to the displacement in their hosting communities’. How- above-mentioned issues. There are no clear strate- ever, some perceive the definition as incomplete, gies in place, and consequently, funds are distrib- stating that it omits the comparison with the local uted and spent inefficiently. However, some of the population. It is important to consider IDPs as ‘in- KIs mention steps having been taken by the gov- tegrated’ not only if they do not need specific as- ernment towards better integration of IDPs in var- sistance but also if the difference between them ious areas. For example, a simplified system of uni- and the local population in terms of possibilities of versity admission in terms of education and some involvement in the community life and basic civil housing solutions were mentioned and perceived as rights is absent and their rights, which had been quite successful. violated before the displacement, were restored. Some of the informants consider that an integrat- However, most of the existing integration initiatives ed IDP is provided with housing, employment, and are perceived as unstable and insufficient. Some regular income. Apart from that, the important as- positive initiatives do not receive sufficient financ- pect of successful IDP integration is that the IDP ing and, as a result, become unsustainable. One of 18 Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors

the examples is a state program ‘Affordable Hous- ducing the approved budget allocations. As a result, ing’9 launched in 2017, which has nevertheless not the lending program did not receive any funding for received funding for 2021: 2020.

‘For example, the first provision of housing under ‘In the first year [note – 2019], 200 million were the programme ‘Affordable Housing’ took place in received from the state budget. In the current year, 2017, when 65 families received housing… In 2018, no funding has been allocated from the general fund 171 families [received housing]. There was quite a of the state budget. We operate only with special significant growth, which showed the strengthen- funds. And that is, those IDPs who are in a queue, ing of the state policy in this matter in 2019 when even within the first hundred, they are not sure, 655 families were provided with housing. In 2020, cannot be sure that in the near future their housing no family was provided [with housing under this issue will be resolved.’ (State national authorities’ programme], and in 2021 the funding has not been representative) provided at all10.‘ (UN Agencies and International Organisations representative) Overall, the KIs agree that the state should make more efforts towards solving the problems of IDPs. Another example is the program ‘Lending program Undoubtedly, the main problem for IDPs remains for IDPs and participants of ATO/JFO’11 launched in housing and employment – it is expected that most 2019 with 200 million Ukrainian Hryvnia (UAH) of of the integration initiatives will be implemented financing from the state budget. As stated by one to this end. However, some barriers still exist in of the state authorities’ representatives, funding of other areas. It is therefore worth monitoring all of these programs is not covered by protected budget the proposed criteria and searching for appropriate expenditures and, accordingly, the amount of ex- and effective decisions based on the information penditure on these programs may vary when re- obtained through such monitoring.

‘Unpacking criteria’: operationalisation of the MRTOT’s criteria

The next stage of the discussion within KIIs was ded- Majority of the KIs agreed to the list of the crite- icated to unpacking criteria. The draft table with cri- ria developed by the MRTOT. Most of the KIs’ con- teria operationalisation was presented to the KIs who cerns and comments referred to indicators. As for were then asked to share their expert opinion on the the data disaggregation, the KIs stated that adding criteria themselves and the proposed indicators. This different categories for the analysis would be very helped to revise the criteria and indicators which are helpful – especially in terms of smaller administra- presented more specifically in this chapter. tive units (amalgamated territorial communities).

9 ‘Affordable Housing’ is a programme that is implemented by the State Fund for Youth Housing. The program was renewed in 2017 and under the updated conditions, IDPs were entitled to state support, which included the state covering 50% of the cost (purchase of affordable housing and / or preferential mortgage for citizens covered by the Law of Ukraine ‘On ensuring the rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons’). 10 Based on the statistics of Indicators of implementation of the State socio-economic programme ‘Affordable Housing’ (State Fund for Youth Housing) the amount of housing provided is somewhat different from that mentioned by the KI, but the general trend is correct: 2017 – 111 apartments were provided, 2018 – 263 apartments, 2019 – 974 apartments, 2020 – 95 apartments. URL: https://www.molod-kredit.gov.ua/zhytlovi-prohramy/dostupne-zhytlo/statystyka (in Ukrainian) 11 ‘Provision of preferential long-term state credit to internally displaced persons, participants in the anti-terrorist operation and / or participants in the Joint Forces operation to purchase housing’ is a program which is being implemented by ‘State Fund for Youth Housing’. The loan under this program is provided for up to 20 years, and the interest rate is 3% per annum. The amount of funding for the program in 2019 was UAH 200 million. URL: https://mva.gov.ua/ua/news/uryad-zatverdiv-poryadok- nadannya-derzhavnogo-pilgovogo-kreditu-na-pridbannya-zhitla-vpo-ta-uchasnikami-atooos (in Ukrainian)

10 11 IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 19

In addition, several key informants stated that spe- However, as one of the key informants noted, the is- cial attention should be paid to people with disabili- sue of legal protection is not specific solely to IDPs. ties – this category is vulnerable and the integration It applies to the entire population of Ukraine, as the process for them could be more difficult. Another level of formal agreements between tenants and idea regarding disaggregation is about paying atten- landlords is quite low among all categories of the tion to households with elderly people. It should be Ukrainian population12. noted that the possibility to include various catego- ries for analysis largely depends on the survey de- ‘It is worth differentiating (this indicator) – for sign, including sample size, length of the interview example, the share of IDPs who own housing, the and other methodological aspects. share of IDPs who rent housing and the share of IDPs who have some documents confirming prop- The detailed summary, comments on the criteria erty rights or rights to use real estate. And this themselves and proposed indicators are detailed will give a real picture of whether their situation below. is stable or not.’ (UN Agencies and International Organisations representative) 1. Existence of permanent or temporary housing ‘Security issue is not just specific for IDPs, it is actu- The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at ally general for Ukraine, as the level of conclusion of the interviews included the following indicators on formal agreements between tenants and landlords the access to housing: in Ukraine is quite low.’ (UN Agencies and Interna- tional Organisations) 1.1. Secure perception of household situation for next 3 (6 or 12) months. The indicator of permanent housing considers the 1.2. Availability of basic living conditions right to property of the respondent or their family (heating, sewerage, bath or shower, water members, whereas other types of housing are con- supply). sidered to be temporary. At the same time, it is not 1.3. Living square per household member. recommended that the indicator for ‘contract of rent’ should be included, since it is a sensitive ques- Most of the KIs agreed to the indicators ‘(1.2) Avail- tion. However, it is recommended adding the indi- ability of basic living conditions’ and ‘(1.3) Living cator ‘Share of IDP households which pay rent, and square per household member’. However, ‘(1.1) Se- the average size of the rent’. cure perception of household situation for next 3 (6 or 12) months’ is more problematic, as for several There is a consensus among the KIs that the min- KIs, this indicator is too subjective as it is based on imum term which denotes a secure situation for a the personal perception of the individual, which household starts from at least 6 months, albeit a may differ from one person to another. Based on more reliable indicator is 12 months. It is better to the KIs’ opinion, it is especially important to oper- have this indicator linked to the frequency of the ationalise this indicator in a more concrete way, so survey, which makes it easier to monitor the dy- there will be specific indicators by which it will be namics. However, there is still a risk that it would be possible to state whether the situation with housing difficult for some respondents to assess a 12-month in this household is secure. Thus, experts advised time horizon, as not all people are able to make any to ask IDPs about type of accommodation they live predictions over such a lengthy period. in (own housing, rent with formal agreement, rent without formal agreement, housing provided by the Moreover, some of the KIs advised extending this government, etc.) and request them to assess the criterion with several other indicators. One of the risks of being evicted from their current housing at ideas was to add the share of those who participated some point in the future. in the state program ‘Affordable Housing’. In addi- tion, it was recommended measuring the proportion According to some KIs, legal aspects of permanent of those who would participate in this program in or temporary housing are particularly important. the future. These questions were not added because

12 Government portal (Урядовий портал). Hennadiy Zubko: We are drafting a bill that will set the rules in the field of rental housing. URL: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/gennadij-zubko-gotuyemo-zakon-yakij-viznachit-pravila-u-sferi-orendnogo- zhitla. (in Ukrainian)

12 20 Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors

the housing within ‘Affordable Housing’ program re- advised to monitor household expenditures and in- mains temporary for IDPs unless they pay the mort- comes, determine what their incomes consist of, and gage and become owners. All IDPs with the mortgage only then assess the average. The latter should be would estimate whether they perceive the situation compared with the average of the local population in with housing as secure for the next 12 months. this region. Apart from that, it would be beneficial to monitor the poverty rate among IDPs and compare it 2. Existence of a regular income of a working age with that of the local population as well. person The questions about sources of income were tested The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at during the FGDs, and it turned out that IDPs were the interviews included the following indicators on quite reluctant to answer the numerous questions IDPs income: about income (which were taken from Household Living Conditions Survey of the State Statistics Ser- 2.1. Average household income per household vice in order to compare IDP income and expendi- member (with the exclusion of the amount tures with those of the general population). of rent). 2.2. Expected household income per household Therefore, it is still recommended that a subjective member (with the exclusion of the amount evaluation of the financial situation of the house- of rent) in the next month. hold should be asked for (see Table 1 in the Recom- 2.3. IDP population who cannot predict any mendations chapter). income in the next month. However, it is assumed that if the IDP module is in- Most of the KIs perceive this criterion and indica- cluded in the Household Living Conditions Survey tors as important, but it is considered that it would of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, it would be difficult to verify the data regarding incomes and enable to list more than 50 questions regarding expenditures. It is expected that many people will household income and expenditures. not be ready to answer the questions related to fi- nancial matters openly. Despite this fact, most of 3. Employment of a working age person on a the KIs declare the necessity to measure this crite- permanent basis rion in any case, stating that it should be analysed precisely with the indicators of the third criterion The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at (3. Employment of a working-age person on a per- the interviews included the following indicators on manent basis). Income assessment conducted sep- IDPs employment: arately makes sense for comparison and identifica- tion of IDPs with high/low level of income. Besides, 3.1. Employment rate. it is important to define sources of incomes, which 3.2. Unemployment rate. would help to develop appropriate local programs. 3.3. Unemployed IDP population by duration of For instance, if a certain administrative unit has job search. a high percentage of IDPs who rely exclusively on 3.4. Salary and expected salary in the next pensions and social payments, then it would be ob- month. vious that less emphasis should be laid on the pro- motion of employment programs among IDPs in Key informants mostly positively evaluate the first this location. Thus, key informants supported the two indicators (‘3.1. Employment rate’ and ‘3.2. Un- suggestion to expand the criterion for the general employment rate’) of this criterion, at the same time population (see Recommendation chapter). questioning the following two indicators (‘3.3. Un- employed IDP population by duration of job search’ Furthermore, some informants expressed their opin- and ‘3.4. Salary and expected salary in the next ion that it would not be necessary to measure any ad- month’). In terms of salary, it is difficult to obtain ditional indicators. However, they consider it useful honest responses regarding informal salary (paid in to integrate this criterion into the existing method- cash), thus, the reliability of the indicator remains ology of the Household Living Conditions Survey of uncertain (the same remark goes for the indicators the State Statistics Service. In that case, it would be from the previous criterion). simpler to compare IDPs with the general population not only in terms of regular income but also in oth- In addition, the KIs mentioned that it would be help- er aspects. More specifically, several key informants ful to reflect whether a person pursues their profes- IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 21

sion. This may be explained by the fact that some As a result, it is recommended to ask an open ques- professions, which are in demand on the territories tion about barriers as this would give an opportu- of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, are less in demand nity to analyse the link between the barrier and in other Ukrainian regions. This means that the the IDP status in each specific case. Moreover, the inclusion of such question can help to determine open-ended question can be coded afterwards, the relevance of retraining programs among IDPs. which would enable to split the nature of barriers There is no official data for a benchmark indicator into categories. Besides, the indicators are divided of the share of the population which pursue their by level of education as different barriers can be en- profession. Therefore, it is suggested that a corre- countered depending on whether the IDP is receiv- spondent indicator should not be added. Instead, ing preschool, school, vocational or higher educa- an open question on the reasons for unemployment tion (see Table 1 in Recommendations chapter). is to be included. (The lack of vacancies for certain professions would be among the possible reasons). 5. No barriers to accessing administrative services

Based on the KIs’ opinion, it is suggested that ‘3.1. The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at Employment rate’ and ‘3.2. Unemployment rate’ the interviews included the following indicator on should be kept as the main indicators and that other IDPs barriers to administrative services: indicators should be considered as additional ones. 5.1. Share of the IDPs who faced barriers due to 4. No barriers to accessing education their IDP status among those who require administrative services. The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at the interviews included the following indicator on Like the previous indicator, it is important to under- IDPs barriers to education: stand that the reason for certain barriers lies in the IDP status, and not in anything else. It was advised 4.1. Share of the IDPs who faced barriers due to to conduct the analysis based on the types of admin- their IDP status among those who require istrative services and ensure that IDPs are asked educational services (by educational stages). whether they had had any experience accessing these services. List of administrative services could The KIs mentioned that in terms of this indicator be elaborated in advance based on the preliminary (and some of the following) it is crucially important analysis of areas where barriers may arise and be to understand that certain barriers arise precisely related specifically to the IDP status. because of the IDP status and not in view of any oth- er reasons. Many of the KIs expressed the opinion Besides, it was advised by one of the key inform- that IDPs are not currently experiencing any prob- ants to add yet another indicator – the share of IDPs lems with access to education (nor are there any who cannot receive administrative services due to major problems with the access to administrative the inability to pay for this service. This indicator and health services). Hence, to put it more precise- could be compared with those based on the surveys ly, several KIs advised splitting the barriers into of non-IDPs (all-Ukrainian population). groups as this would help to understand the nature of the barrier (e.g., regulatory restrictions or barri- ‘There are administrative barriers, namely a person ers created by the hosting community) and define cannot get a document or something due to their IDP whether this particular barrier is connected to the status. And there is another thing, when a person IDP status. seems to be able to obtain everything they need, but in fact they cannot pay the court fee, because it con- ‘Well, I would try to divide the lack of barriers to ed- stitutes half of their monthly income.’ (UN Agencies ucation into two factors: the first factor implies that and International Organisations representative) such barriers are illegal requirements, e.g. demands of documents, IDP certificates, and it is needed to Therefore, it is proposed to use a similar approach count the number of people who have encountered as with the previous indicator. Open questions them. And the second point will be the increase in about barriers will be asked and each case will be the number of people who enrol [at the education- coded (see Table 1 in Recommendations chapter). It al facility] every year, which shows the absence of is recommended not adding an indicator ‘share of barriers.’ (UN Agencies and International Organi- IDPs who cannot receive administrative services sations representative) due to the inability to pay for this service’ as it could 22 Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors

not be clearly interpreted as being related to the IDP pension provision was stable (not only available), status. For example, other population groups also which means that there are barriers neither at the lack money for administrative services. In any case, stage of pension registration nor during further the financial status of IDPs will be compared with provision by the state. In terms of these indicators, the financial status of the population in general and it is important to understand whether the pension is the existence of such a barrier will be possible to fix paid in full and whether all the debts are repaid by in the answers to an open question. the state (if any). Like the previous indicators, it is important to determine whether problems are relat- 6. No barriers to accessing medical care ed to the IDP status.

The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at Subsequently, it is recommended to use an open-end- the interviews included the following indicator on ed question to obtain the necessary data for this cri- IDPs barriers to accessing medical care: terion. Based on the answers of one of the KIs, corre- spondent indicators were worked out, which allows 6.1. Share of the IDPs who faced barriers due to differentiating barriers that are faced during the their IDP status among those who require process of drawing up documents for a pension from healthcare services. those that arise during the process of receiving one (see Table 1 in the Recommendations chapter). Feedback from the KIs on this criterion was simi- lar to that obtained from the previous two criteria. 8. Availability of social protection for a person at The key informants stated that there was a need to the new place of residence (stay) understand what are the reasons for barriers in ac- cessing medical care. The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at the interviews included the following indicator of Several KIs expressly mentioned programmes of so- the social protection availability: cial and psychological adaptation in regards to this criterion. They stated the need to assess whether 8.1. IDP population which faced barriers due to IDPs have access to them, as this can influence their their IDPs status to receiving social security integration. However, there is no official data on the benefits among those who have applied. share of population who need or have access to the programmes of social and psychological adaptation As mentioned by the KIs it is important to provide for the benchmark indicator, which is why such in- respondents with a clear understanding of what is dicator was not added. Besides, in terms of analy- meant by ‘social security benefits’. There is a pos- sis, the KIs advised checking whether the IDP has sibility that most respondents would focus on ad- signed declaration with a family doctor. ministrative social payments and not on social ser- vices. There were no other significant comments Respectively, like the previous indicator, an open regarding this criterion, except for ensuring that question about barriers would be asked, and each the barriers relate to the IDP status. Thus, it is sug- case would be interpreted as to whether such a bar- gested that a unified approach should be used, and rier was faced with because of the IDP status (see an open-ended question should be asked regarding Table 1 in the Recommendations chapter). the barriers to accessing social security.

7. Availability of pension provision for the person 9. Belonging to permanent social groups of the at the new place of residence (stay) host territorial community (including reli- gious, national minorities) The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at the interviews included the following indicator on The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at the pension provision availability: the interviews included the following indicators of the sense of belonging to permanent social groups 7.1. IDP population which faced barriers to re- of the host territorial community: ceiving pension due to their IDP status among those who have reached retirement age. 9.1. IDP population feeling distant from the community. One of the informants advised making the indica- 9.2. IDP population feeling a bad attitude in view tor more detailed and operationalising whether the of their IDP status. IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 23

There is no one-way agreement on the indicators of The KIs mentioned another need for disaggregation. the above-mentioned criterion among the KIs; how- It would be beneficial to check whether the feeling ever, most of the KIs consider it important to mon- of belonging differs across various national and re- itor the feeling of being distant from the host com- ligious minorities. For instance, some IDPs belong munity and ask the IDP to compare this feeling with to certain religious or ethnic groups (e.g., a signif- the situation before the displacement. Apart from icant share of Crimean IDPs are Crimean Tatars), this, in several cases, informants advised measur- which is not represented in the hosting community. ing subjective integration (positive connotation) In this case, their belonging to a certain group may and not the feeling of being distant. However, the be an additional factor that determines the success proposed scale measures both the feelings of being of the integration process. As a result, the indica- close and distant, with indicators mainly reflecting tor was reformulated into ‘Share of IDP population the share of IDPs experiencing certain problems. feeling more distant from the present community Therefore, it is recommended to analyse the feeling compared to the previous one’ according to the key of being distant within this criterion. informants’ recommendations.

Regarding this criterion, it was advised by one of the 10. Reunification of family members at a new place informants that the information about the reasons of residence (stay) causing the feeling of being distant should be gath- ered. This would provide an opportunity to check The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at whether this negative feeling is directly connected the interviews included the following indicator on with the IDP status. the reunification of family members at a new place of residence: ‘I would propose a share of IDPs who feel they are distantt from the community. And if the person 10.1. IDP population which indicated barriers to answers ‘yes’, then the reason should be stated. Be- desired family reunion in GCA. cause it may not be necessarily a hostile treatment. Maybe, it is just the feeling of being distant for some According to the KIIs, the evaluation of the avail- other reasons. And the reasons for this may be not ability of tools and legal opportunities for reinte- only because they are IDPs. The reasons may be dif- gration and mutual support (including financial) is ferent, for example, they are not keen on contacting crucially important in terms of monitoring and of other people. And this is not connected to the IDP this particular criterion. It was proposed by one of status’ (State national authorities’ representative) the KIs that the possible indicator should reflect the share of IDPs who indicated that they have the op- In addition, it was advised to measure the level of portunity for safe and systematic communication involvement in the social/ cultural/political life of with and support (including financial as mentioned the hosting communities, as this could be a possi- above) from or for their family members who live ble indicator of integration. However, as stated by in NGCA. one of the KIs, despite the adoption of the Elector- al Code13 (that provided IDPs with a mechanism to ‘In my opinion, reunification is not always possible, vote in local elections), only a small percentage of or the family may not intend to reunite, but it is internally displaced people had exercised this right. important to have the tools and legal mechanisms This situation demonstrates that, for some reason, for contact and mutual support.’ (UN Agencies and IDPs do not take part in the political life of the so- International Organisations representative) ciety to which they now belong. Another is to what extent internally displaced persons are involved in Based on the obtained information from the KIs, it public life and whether they have access to mecha- is suggested that the criterion should be modified nisms for influencing the decision-making process. and reworded as follows: ‘Barriers to reunification This could mean, for example, attending local coun- with relatives in NGCA and their needs for support’. cil meetings, gaining access to signing petitions, to Indicator 10.1 was left unchanged, but it is also rec- advisory bodies, as well as using other mechanisms ommended to measure the necessity to support for participation in public life. family members with the indicator ‘Share of IDP

13 Electoral Code of Ukraine – URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/396-20#Text

13 24 Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors

households which indicated they need to support from this, IDPs will be able to specify the barriers to family members in NGCA financially and/or have to reunification and support in the open-ended ques- travel to NGCA to support family members’. Apart tion (see Table 1 in the Recommendations chapter).

Stakeholders’ needs in IDP-related data

The majority of stakeholders confirmed their need Representatives of national/local authorities ad- for more IDP-related data. However, some key in- ditionally requested information regarding IDPs formants mentioned that there was sufficient data, incomes, an accurate number of IDP students, and though it is problematic to obtain the access (e.g., the number of IDPs who received housing for tem- there is no effective inter-agency collaboration, no porary use or ownership. Overall, good quality data mechanism to transfer data between different reg- helps to develop programmes and policies for the isters, data is available only on request, etc.). More- relevant categories of citizens both on the national over, the KIs mentioned the need to gather all avail- and local levels. Moreover, by obtaining the neces- able data on IDPs in one repository. In this case, it sary information and possessing evidence, it would would be much easier to find information that was be easier to communicate policies to different stake- included in different previous surveys. holders, manage funds more efficiently and direct assistance to those IDPs who require it most. The The national, regional, and local authorities, rep- availability of such information would also facil- resentatives of UN Agencies, international organi- itate the budgeting process for each specific pro- sations and Ukrainian NGOs mentioned that there gramme. was a crucial need to get reliable and accurate in- formation regarding the real number of IDPs living Representatives of UN Agencies, international or- in GCA. It is particularly important having this data ganisations and Ukrainian NGOs report that there disaggregated to check the real number by smaller is not sufficient information about the ‘portrait of administrative units (oblasts, territorial communi- an IDP’ – who are these people, what is age/gen- ties) and analyse it by sex, age groups, type of set- der composition of this group, what is their level tlement and other characteristics. In addition to of education and what are their needs? Several KIs statistical information, it is necessary to collect data from UN Agencies mentioned that they need more regarding IDPs needs and their subjective percep- reliable quantitative data on the number of IDPs tion of integration. There is a necessity for informa- with disabilities and those who have suffered from tion to be more public and of better quality to un- violations of their rights to housing, land, and derstand which policies were implemented in which property. In addition, they referred to the national region and how they affected the integration of IDPs. monitoring system of the situation with IDPs con- ducted by the International Organization for Mi- ‘There is no full assessment of the housing, land gration14, which they perceive as a reliable source and property needs of IDPs. There are some individ- for making decisions regarding IDPs. However, ual components that were included in one survey or this source is not sufficient, and there are requests another, but there is no up to date full picture of the for data that reflect the needs of IDPs better and situation.’ (UN Agencies and International Organi- can help to develop new programmes on various sations representative) levels.

14 The National Monitoring System Reports on the Situation of IDPs in Ukraine: Round 1 – 17 / IOM (2016–2020) – URL: https://www. iom.org.ua/en/periodicals

14 IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 25

Attitude to possible methodological approaches to data collection

Most KIs state that the Government of Ukraine ed, processed, analysed and who would be involved. should collect more data on IDPs integration and The KIs disagree with the idea of the Social Pro- the idea of monitoring is perceived positively. The tection Departments conducting surveys. In their best approach is to use a combined method of using opinion, IDPs would be afraid to disclose full in- data from registers, conducting new surveys, and formation (for example, about living conditions or using data from previous studies. However, accord- financial situation) in order not to lose social pay- ing to a different point of view, the collection of IDP ments and other benefits from the state. Besides, the data should be integrated as fully as possible into procedure for conducting monitoring by the Social the existing state statistical collection approaches, Protection Department is not clear – it remains to and there is no need to create separate monitoring. be seen whether there would be sufficient resources (both human and financial) for this, and what level As for the new monitoring, the KIs advise using both of professionalism it would be possible to provide. data from new surveys and that available in regis- As stated by the representative of one of the inter- ters. Both methods could be beneficial for different national organisations, in the case of monitoring by purposes. For example, several KIs mentioned a the Social Protection Departments, it is necessary need for individualised data which will help to pro- to involve experts who specialise in conducting re- vide targeted assistance to vulnerable IDPs. Howev- search and who could provide their expertise. er, most of the KIs were focused on the generalized data as it would enable better planning of policies ‘First, people still feel dependent on the authorities. and more efficient budget allocation. Consequently, They may also think that the level of support they it is advised deploying these two methods in paral- receive will depend on their answers or relations to lel – linking the survey results with personal data of these authorities. Second, we do not know if there IDPs in the Unified Information Database to avoid will be enough resources for conducting high-qual- the risk of misusing this data. ity survey. However, I am inclined to believe that it should be an independent institution, not directly It should be mentioned that there are certain chal- connected with the state authorities.’ (UN Agencies lenges connected to using data from registers, as and International Organisations representative) well as to using survey data. Data from registers can be distorted in favour of those IDPs who do not The alternative suggestion is to have the survey have prejudices about the official registration and conducted by an independent third party. However, obtaining a certificate of IDPs. Moreover, in some in that case, the legal solution of data on personal cases, data from registers could be outdated or not contacts from the Unified Information Database on of high quality, as it is usually collected as a formal IDPs transferring is required. The possible solution procedure. Apart from this, the United Informa- to this problem lies in regulation on the state level tional Database on IDPs contains data on many peo- so that the legal document specifies the procedure ple who were registered as IDPs to receive pensions of access to IDP contact data for some organisations and social benefits while residing in NGCA. There on specified terms and conditions. Another way to is no mechanism to define the de-facto IDPs among handle this issue is to have the survey conducted them to measure their integration. by a third party. This would imply the method of telephone interviewing from the social protection On the other hand, the survey method poses several centres. In this case, the personal data would not challenges as well. They are connected to the will- be transferred to other organisations. However, the ingness of IDPs to take part in the survey and their possibility of conducting the monitoring in this way desire to answer in honest way. should be also checked in legal terms.

Either way, conducting new surveys requires a de- Most experts agree that the monitoring should be tailed survey design and methodology, as well as a conducted once a year. The reasoning behind this clear understanding of how data would be collect- periodicity is that the criteria studied in this moni- 26 Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors

toring are pretty extensive and their dynamics are also from the local one, and from international better tracked on an annual basis. This would fa- organisations, or rather, donor funds, grants, and cilitate constant access to up-to-date information so on, from everything that is not prohibited by law. about the integration process of IDPs. In several All this [note – costs] can be calculated taking into cases, it was argued that such monitoring should account needs during the budgeting process.’ (State be linked to budget legislation so that the most re- national and regional authorities’ representative) cent data on IDPs process of integration would be available both at the beginning of budget planning Overall, key stakeholders have a positive attitude to and during the discussion of amendments to the the introduction of monitoring and bear the opinion budget. This means that the results of annual mon- out that more data on IDPs should be collected. This itoring should be available in the second quarter of data should focus not only on the integration pro- each year. cess, but also on IDPs’ main needs and problems. This would not only help to make timely and effec- ‘I would link this to the budget legislation because tive decisions by government officialsbut would also everything related to the IDPs problems solving have a positive impact on the work of international needs funding. Not only from the state budget, but organisations and NGOs that operate in this area. 27

Findings from Focus Group Discussions with IDPs and Their Vulnerable Host Communities in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts

Definition of IDPs Integration

Most FGDs participants defined integration as a feeling ▶ Marrying locals and starting own/new of ‘becoming native to the community’ («стати своїм»), families in the host community (i.e., applies a feeling of comfort and overall satisfaction with the to those who moved at a younger age from living conditions and social life in the community. NGCA). ▶ Giving birth to children and arranging chil- Several features accompany this feeling, as men- dren’s life in the host community (as noted, tioned by participants based on their own experience children forget their home community and and their observations and expectations, namely: adapt to the host community faster than the adults). ▶ Having a respectable job (not inferior to one ▶ Establishing a broad network of reciprocal of the locals) or re-establishing own business social contacts (including locals, not only in a new place with similar popularity and other IDPs). amount of clients as before the displacement. ▶ Lack of desire for further resettlement ▶ Owning a flat or house (own accommoda- (moving to the other locations or returning tion, not rented one) or a realistic chance to to home community). buy one in the foreseeable future. ▶ Receiving social services without discrimi- Overall, IDPs’ higher level of integration is ob- nation or prejudice from public servants, no served more often in bigger cities (Sloviansk, Siev- or lower need of the benefits or help as IDPs. ierodonetsk) than in smaller settlements (Volno- ▶ Having the right to stand up for their own vakha, Starobilsk). Bigger settlements offer more needs and communicate these needs to the opportunities for integration, starting from ac- local authorities who listen and take their commodation and down on to education, health- needs into account when formulating city de- care and cultural life in the settlement. It was velopment policies (including voting at local also mentioned by the FGD participants that the elections and other forms of interaction with home city matters: IDPs from a big city (Donetsk, local authorities). Luhansk) are less willing to integrate into a small ▶ Having the opportunity to influence city de- town (i.e., Volnovakha), whereas IDPs from small velopment together with locals (i.e., collec- settlements feel more comfortable and are more tive efforts). inclined to integrate. Findings from Focus Group Discussions With IDPs and Their Vulnerable Host Communities in Donetsk 28 and Luhansk Oblasts

Problems and barriers of IDPs by criteria

Existence of permanent or temporary our final destination point simply does not leave me housing ... If there is no normal work, we will have to leave somewhere to a larger city. Mariupol is nearby. It’s Most of the IDPs who participated in FGDs reside in just that there are more opportunities there than in rented accommodation. The main problem being Volnovakha.’ (FGD #1, Volnovakha) few opportunities to improve living conditions (re- pair, renovate etc.) either because of lack of mon- Overall, IDPs feel unsafe in rented accommodation ey or because the property owners do not permit and while residing with relatives, as such housing is any changes. Rented accommodation is afforda- temporary and can be lost at any moment. Another ble when it is old. However, in this case, it either major problem is issues related to buying property. requires renovation or is in deplorable condition, Banks do not want to offer loans for property in the which is especially true of private houses. Living territories between the two sides of the ‘line of con- conditions are better in more expensive accommo- tact’ (in the so-called ‘grey zone’), with IDPs having dation. Thus, IDPs have to choose between cheaper not enough money for such purchase without tak- rent with poor living conditions and more comfort- ing loans. They, in turn, cannot afford loans with able housing at a higher rent. high-interest rates. They cannot sell their flats or houses in NGCA to raise money to buy a new apart- IDPs, especially those with children, emphasize the ment in a host community. Participants in smaller importance of basic facilities in accommodation, settlements (Volnovakha, Starobilsk) noted that such as water, toilet, heating, electricity, or gas for IDPs are less interested in buying local property cooking, indicating that the cheapest housing they and would prefer alternatives elsewhere (in Kyiv or can afford usually does not have those facilities. bigger oblast centres). In contrast, in bigger cities That especially applies to separate houses requir- (Sievierodonetsk), IDPs are more likely to consider ing substantial renovation and investment to make the purchase of permanent accommodation. them more comfortable. These houses are usually either summer houses owned by locals or old build- Participants listed several suggestions regarding the ings which became available for rent to IDPs after authorities’ initiatives to support IDPs in purchas- the owners (often older people) moved to live with ing accommodation – for example, co-financing children or died. (50/50 or another proportion) of housing purchase, municipal housing for long-term and cheap rent, The fact that a house is rented prevents IDPs from partial or full compensation of their apartment cost investing in its repair – they prefer to save money or rent. IDPs in bigger settlements (Sloviansk, Siev- for other purposes or simply have no spare cash. ierodonetsk) are somewhat better informed about Hence, these savings are not sufficient for buying a existing support programs of co-financing the pur- new flat or house. For most IDPs buying permanent chase of accommodation. accommodation means that they stay in the settle- ment and can be considered integrated. IDPs living IDPs in smaller settlements perceive the purchase of in smaller towns (i.e., Volnovakha) are not satisfied accommodation by themselves, without any help from with their current temporary accommodation. Nev- the state of local authorities, as unrealistic. Therefore, ertheless, they are not willing to purchase a perma- they largely rely on external assistance; without it, as nent one, which would mean that they remain in the they noted, they would need to move further away – to smaller settlement for a longer period than initial- a bigger settlement that provides more opportunities ly planned. Therefore, they remain less integrated for its residents in search of a better job and living con- into the host community as their housing situation ditions. Some IDPs consider moving from Donetsk/ remains unstable, continuing to pay their rent in- Luhansk oblasts to another oblast in Ukraine. stead of purchasing permanent housing. ‘ If [loans] to such families were provided for at least ‘We do not plan to buy, because we do not have the 15–10 years, even with a small interest rate, a lot of resources to do it ... it is up in the air now. We live IDPs would settle somewhere down, without roam- in a rented apartment. The thought that this is not ing across Ukraine ‘ (FGD #2, Volnovakha) IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 29

Furthermore, a few participants noted that it is want this territory to be developed so that pathways, unfair to be deprived of the IDP status after buy- parks were being made ... then I felt my integration ing accommodation. It takes about one year after already ... I invest some amount of money here the purchase to move in (property in apartment every month, which means that I have the right to buildings in Ukraine is often purchased as a shell – demand something, that is, [I have] both rights and without renovation). According to the current leg- obligations’ (FGD #5, Sievierodonetsk) islation, the IDP status remains active even after the purchase of accommodation, but the targeted Problems with benefits and social payments oc- assistance for housing expenditures remuneration curred during the first years of displacement. After is not paid in such case. Another suggestion is that everything was more or less settled, only a few an- the Government of Ukraine should compensate for swers referred to problematic situations (i.e., can- the accommodation that was abandoned in NGCA. cellation of social payment without notification).

Existence of a regular income and Another major problem lies in the fact that the con- employment of a working age person on a firmed employment status enables IDPs to receive permanent basis IDP payments (‘targeted assistance’). However, a number of external factors can cause the lack Most of the IDPs reported deterioration of their fi- of employment for six or more months. Being de- nancial situation after the displacement due to a prived of the IDP payments due to unemployment lower salary at the new place and lack of jobs with for 6+ months is a big loss for the IDP family budget. sufficient wage in the host community. IDPs also hope that the government will reconsider the norm of IDP payment cancellation in case of un- ‘I worked as a real estate agent in Donetsk. Here employment for 6+ months. everything goes wrong with the job. I even was registered at the employment centre. And so ... The The most common IDPs’ expectation for their finan- work is either very hard, or poorly paid. Now I cial situation lies in the job market, in the hope of trade on OLX [note – OLX is an online marketplace finding opportunities of higher-paid jobs, establish- for buying and selling services and goods such as ing their own small business (i.e., reduced taxation electronics, fashion items, furniture, household in the first 1–2 years of business operations), pass- goods, mainly to and from individuals)’ (FGD #4, ing courses on re-qualification and finding a job in Sloviansk) a new field.

The necessity to pay rent for accommodation and No barriers to accessing education communal services and buy various items for living (additional expenditures that would not be neces- IDPs mentioned that there are almost no barriers or sary for the home community) reduce the overall problems regarding education that would be specif- income of IDPs. ic solely to them and not to the host communities. A few problems listed by the participants were com- Finding a respectable job was a challenge for most mon both for IDPs and local residents. IDPs, especially in smaller settlements (Volno- vakha, Starobilsk), where the job market highly de- Specifically, IDPs in smaller settlements (Volno- pends on personal connections. Some IDPs noted vakha, Starobilsk) mentioned the low quality of that they must do several jobs (and some had to take education in local schools. The informants noted seasonal work abroad) to ensure sufficient money that they had to pay for individual tuition for sever- for monthly payments and decent living standards al subjects to ensure that their children could pass for their families. national tests with high scores and enrol at univer- sities in bigger cities. Paying taxes in the host community for employed (or self-employed) IDPs was named among the inte- ‘We had to hire tutors. First, education here was gration factors in the local community. conducted in Russian, and we come from a Ukrain- ian-language school, and second, my child studied ‘I felt like a full-fledged resident of the community at a school with advanced study of physics and when I started paying taxes ... it constantly flashed mathematics in our city, and when we came here, in my head that I was contributing to the commu- there was not even a division of subjects into algebra nity, I was paying some money from my salary, so I and geometry, there was one named “mathematics” Findings from Focus Group Discussions With IDPs and Their Vulnerable Host Communities in Donetsk 30 and Luhansk Oblasts

in high school, so we had to hire tutors. The quality that provides social payments to IDPs) – long queues of education is not at all what we expected, because of IDPs are often the case because bank staff treat the child wanted to enrol [at the institution of high- IDPs differently from local residents. Specifically, er education] not in Starobilsk’ (FGD #8, Starobilsk) there are prejudices that IDPs are forced to wait longer than necessary. In Starobilsk, the partici- Participants also noted several positive points for pants also mentioned that bank staff force IDPs to IDPs in education: free meals at schools, no need to buy ‘insurance’ for a few hundred UAH without ex- pool money to the ‘class fund’, and scholarships in plaining whether it is mandatory or optional (it is the universities. optional).

No barriers to accessing medical care Availability of social security and administrative services for a person at the The overall attitude towards the healthcare system new place of residence is positive, without any considerable problems that are faced solely by IDPs and not by local residents. The majority of FGD participants mentioned that Therefore, the only suggestion is to ensure that IDPs various procedures were simplified compared to are better informed about their rights to healthcare the situation several years ago (e.g., the procedure services. of IDP status verification). The biggest challenge was to pass the procedure of primary verification There were certain challenges while accessing for re-issue of the national passport – IDP’s identity healthcare services before the healthcare reform had to be verified in-person by five people), and that was launched in 2017 when the place of registration became a driver for bribes. Similar challenges were had played a major role. In addition, the medical observed with obtaining a passport for travelling specialists whose consultation was needed could abroad (IDPs had to submit dozens of documents also be linked to the specific district from where to confirm their identity). Moreover, when a large IDP came. packet of documents is submitted, public servants might lose one of them, which increases the possi- ‘When I moved here, I was pregnant. To consult the bility of delay in approval. In addition, when IDPs gynaecologist, I went through five out of six rooms, began addressing service providers after displace- stopped by, asked around. As a result, I was directed ment, the total number of requests increased, mak- to the one who saw patients exactly from the area ing it difficult to manage long queues. Several years where I came from.’ (FGD #1, Volnovakha) passed after the displacement and the launch of e-services in some departments before this proce- In smaller settlements, IDPs noted that it was hard dure became easier. In general, some participants to choose between family doctors or get consulta- stated that the extra paperwork and gathering of tion from some specialists because of nepotism too many documents in one pack is experienced not among patients and doctors. IDPs had insufficient only by IDPs, but also by locals. connections to gain access to good doctors and had to pay bribes instead. The main expectation is a further simplification of the IDP status verification and adoption of legisla- In some cases, it was noted that reduced official tion that would reduce the number of requirements fees for healthcare services meant for IDPs were ne- needed for submission of multiple documents to glected by the hospital. re-issue passport or pass any other procedure re- lated to the IDP status without delay. It was sug- Availability of pension provision for the gested to use simplified registers for registration. It person at the new place of residence (stay) was also recommended that residence registration (linked to the address) should not be required for As for social payments, the suggestion is not to link minors to receive IDP payments. E-services, strict the pension to a particular address. Some partici- control of public servants work and documents pro- pants in Starobilsk mentioned difficulties in ob- cessing (i.e., setting deadlines for faster document taining pension or other payments in their local processing) were suggested as possible solutions to Oschadbank branch (Oschadbank is the only bank these challenges. IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 31

Belonging to permanent social groups tivation was generated by the desire to shape local of the host territorial community and political landscape and get more control over local discrimination experience authorities’ actions and local budget spending. How- ever, many of the FGDs participants who are IDPs did Feeling of belonging emotionally and psychologi- not vote; some were not aware of the e-registration15 cally to the host community is stronger among IDPs and were not thinking of voting. They explained that in larger settlements (Sloviansk, Sievierodonetsk) they had more vital daily issues and had neither time and much weaker among those residing in smaller nor desire to read candidates’ programs. As for dis- settlements (Volnovakha, Starobilsk). Some of the crimination, the vast majority noted that there was IDPs reported high activity in political positions discrimination and prejudices towards them as IDPs and participation in the life of host community, during the first 2–3 years after the displacement, while the others distanced themselves. The latter which is rarely the case at present. becomes slightly more visible among women, while men report more activity in politics and voting. As for the feeling of belonging, the participants believe that it can strengthen over time, as social contacts for ‘Today I am pretty active in the city. I attend IDPs become more extended in the host communi- sessions of the City Council and cooperate with ty. Another matter that could help is a reunion with various political forces ... In general, I am going to families (parents, spouses, or children) still residing be integrated completely. I already consider myself a in NGCAs as well as the resettlement in the same host resident of Sloviansk.’ (FGD #4, Sloviansk) community. However, those who mentioned this issue remained somewhat sceptical because their relatives Some IDPs used the opportunity to register electron- would not resettle until adequate living conditions ically and vote at local elections recently. Their mo- were provided in the host community.

Main discussion points on possible methodological approach to data collection for measurement of IDPs integration

Most participants of FGDs have a positive attitude vide humanitarian aid such as food, clothes, one-off towards the survey and data collection for measure- financial support, etc., they are not perceived by ment of IDPs integration. They perceive such survey some IDPs as the agents for ensuring durable solu- as an opportunity to report needs and problems to tions, i.e., housing or job, or the network of social local or national authorities or other stakeholders. contacts. Therefore, there is little confidence that Consequently, the participants perceive state agen- international organisations could bring about any cies, charity and international organisations as the changes to the IDPs situation after the survey is most trustworthy stakeholders who can improve conducted without collaborating with the national the lives of IDPs, based on the collected data. Some government. concerns were voiced regarding the involvement of international organisations in the survey. More The Social Protection Departments at the local lev- specifically, as the international organisations pro- el do not get much support as pollsters. Many of

15 The e-registration for the change of the electoral district for those who reside or are temporarily located in the place which is not their registered place of residence indicated in the State Register of Voters of Ukraine has become available in 2020. The wide campaign for IDPs regarding the availability of such changes in the State Register of Voters was held in early 2019 before the presedential elections (for example, the web-page of Central Election Commission published the link to YouTube video with IDPs on March 11, 2019: https://youtu.be/p_r0P_QciH0 calling to submit the applications regarding the change of voting place in the host community)

15 Findings from Focus Group Discussions With IDPs and Their Vulnerable Host Communities in Donetsk 32 and Luhansk Oblasts

the participants raised their doubts as to whether Online and phone survey methods are perceived they would implement a survey without any hidden positively, with online questionnaires being sent motives and at a high professional level. Moreover, via email or published on official web sites of state FGDs’ participants would visit the Social Protection authorities. Some participants noted that online Departments at the local level for some other pur- questionnaires would not suit elderly IDPs, mean- pose and thus would not be willing to stay there for ing that it should be a combination of remote meth- 20–30 minutes longer in order to participate in the ods (during quarantine). Face-to-face interviews are face-to-face survey. That was explicitly emphasised also acceptable after the situation with the pandem- by IDPs with children who take them to the Social ic improves. Many of the participants emphasised Protection Departments at the local level. that interviewers should demonstrate that they can be trusted and that they represent a reliable organi- Independent survey companies were mentioned as sation, i.e. not a phoney or dishonest one. Financial trustworthy due to their necessary capacities and incentives for passing the survey are welcomed, but experience of conducting surveys, and not being most of the IDP participants are ready to pass the engaged or biased against the IDPs situation (in survey, taking them up to 30 min without any incen- contrast with authorities and other policy makers). tive. 33

Conclusions

The study revealed several findings important for recommended to measure this criterion rather than designing and planning the monitoring of IDPs in- a solely objective evaluation of individual income of tegration. First, the consultation meetings provided working age persons. opportunities to discuss, revise and operationalise the criteria of IDPs integration. Second, several is- The key informants and IDPs have several concerns sues on the survey implementation were discussed about the survey implementation and the data col- and tested that laid the foundations for the respec- lection during the registration of IDPs as well as tive recommendations. updating this information by the Social Protection Departments at the local level. Overall, the key stakeholders, IDPs and their vul- nerable host communities positively assessed the IDPs express concerns about disclosing full infor- criteria developed by the MRTOT. The findings of mation (for example, about living conditions or fi- the consultation meetings suggest modification of nancial situation) to prevent themselves from be- only two criteria: ‘Existence of a regular income of ing deprived of social payments and other benefits a working age person’ and ‘Reunification of family from the state. Some IDPs are quite sceptical as they members at a new place of residence (stay)’. faced discrimination and negative attitude from the Social Protection Departments at the local level. The main reason for modification of the criterion ‘Existence of a regular income of a working-age Furthermore, the consultations with stakeholders person’ lies in the indicator currently covering only confirmed that the procedure for conducting mon- working-age persons. At the same time, most IDPs itoring of IDPs integration by the Social Protection live in households with several members, and the Departments is not clear and straightforward. The incomes and expenditures of all household mem- informants raised questions about the availability of bers should be measured to understand the finan- resources (both human and financial) and the level of cial situation of the household. professionalism for enumerators. Multiple training is required for building a representative sample (if all As for the ‘Reunification of family members at a new IDPs are not surveyed) to learn about survey proce- place of residence (stay)’ criterion, the key informants dures, including quality control and data protection. mentioned that evaluation of the availability of tools and legal opportunities for reintegration and mutual Most of the IDPs are supportive and ready to par- support (including financial) is crucially important to ticipate in the survey on the condition that it is con- monitor the IDPs integration. Therefore, the inform- ducted by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine or ants recommended the evaluation of the barriers to an independent organisation (private or non-gov- reunification and assessment of the financial and time ernment). The survey modalities (online, phone, or resources invested in support of the relatives in NGCA. face-to-face) are negotiable. IDPs support any mo- dality, but face-to-face interviews were suggested to IDPs are relatively open in sharing and declaring be conducted after the situation with the pandemic information within all criteria, except for income. improves. Online surveys should be complemented The IDPs may be less receptive to discussing this with other methods as not all IDPs have access to topic than average citizens in view of the social pay- the Internet. ments they receive as IDPs. There is a perception that they would lose these payments should they de- The recommendations on conducting the state clare additional income. Therefore, subjective eval- monitoring of IDPs integration are outlined in the uation of the financial situation of the household is following section of this report.

35

Recommendations on the Draft ‘Criteria for Assessment of the Integration of IDPs into the Host Territorial Communities’

Recommendations on criteria for Recommendations on approaches to data assessment of IDPs integration collection, processing and analysis based on the listed criteria ▶ To reformulate the criteria ‘Existence of regular income of an working age person’ According to the draft ‘Criteria for assessment of into ‘Existence of regular income of house- IDPs integration into the host territorial communi- hold members which covers basic needs of ties’, the MRTOT envisions data collection through household members’. Pensioners should not the implementation of the survey with the help of be excluded from income measurement, as the Social Protection Departments at the local lev- they are one of the most vulnerable groups el. The informants do not recommend such an ap- of IDPs. All household members should be proach for several reasons: possible distrust from considered while measuring IDPs’ incomes the side of IDPs, lack of competencies and experi- and expenditures. Furthermore, if an IDP and ence among the staff of the Social Protection De- non-IDP has the same level of income, but un- partments at the local level and lack of resources for like a non-IDP, an IDP has to pay for the rent, conducting such survey. Moreover, the key inform- it should be considered in data analysis. ants do not recommend linking the survey results with the personal data of IDPs in the Unified Infor- ▶ To reformulate the criteria ‘Reunification of mation Database on IDPs maintained by the MoSP family members at a new place of residence’ so as to avoid the risk of misusing this data. into ‘Barriers to reunification with relatives in NGCA and their needs for support’. If ▶ There are two recommended options for the there are objective or subjective barriers to implementation of the survey: 1) contract family reunification, it is important to know an independent research agency; 2) add an whether IDPs invest financial resources IDP module to the Household Living Condi- and time to support relatives in NGCA and tions Survey of the State Statistics Service of what the major barriers to this are. Key Ukraine. The first option is to survey IDPs informants assume that more resources are via face-to-face interviews or computer-as- required to support relatives in NGCA than sisted telephone interviews (CATI)16. The relatives in GCA, and there are more barriers second option implies conducting face-to- to providing such support. face interviews, as this method is used for

16 CATI provides a higher level of anonymity and comfort, not all respondents are eager to let the interviewer in their home (it can be perceived as inspection and may cause anger among IDPs). Face-to-face interviews take more time and are significantly expensive. Recommendations on the Draft ‘Criteria for Assessment of the Integration of IDPs into the Host Territorial 36 Communities’

data collection by the State Statistics Service. level). If oblast disaggregation is not needed, The data protection mechanism should be the minimum recommended sample size is provided when operating with personal data 2,000 respondents (this size implies a theo- by survey’s implementers. retical margin of sampling error of 1.9% on the country level and the possibilities of dis- ▶ Testing of the questionnaire showed that aggregation by the type of settlement, gen- IDPs are very reluctant to answer numerous der, and age groups which are recommended questions about income and expenditures as basic disaggregation for analysis. This (which were taken from the Household size also provides the minimum necessary Living Conditions Survey of the State Sta- number of users of administrative services, tistics Service of Ukraine to compare IDPs’ healthcare, education, pensions and social income and expenditures with the income benefits). and expenditures of the general population). Therefore, it is recommended asking about ▶ There are two possible sources of bench- the subjective evaluation of the household fi- mark indicators: 1) data of the surveys nancial situation if an independent research conducted by the State Statistics Service of agency conducts the stand-alone survey. If Ukraine, and 2) other population surveys. the IDP module is included in the Household In regards to the sampling framework, two Living Conditions Survey of the State Statis- possible approaches can be used for com- tics Service of Ukraine, it will allow to ask parative analysis of IDPs and general popu- more than 50 questions about household in- lation: 1) design sampling framework for the come and expenditures, as well as compare general population that corresponds to char- the situation of IDPs with that of the general acteristics of IDPs stock (sex, age and geo- population. graphical distribution); 2) design sampling framework that would be representative for ▶ Sample of IDPs should represent IDP popu- the Ukrainian population aged over 15. The lation by the oblast, settlement size, sex and methodology for the data collection on IDPs age. Considering the lack of accurate official should correspond to that of the State Statis- data on the demographic structure of IDPs, tics Service’s surveys and other population the sample design has to be based on the surveys in terms of data collection methods, official statistics on IDPs with correction in season and time of data collection, question- the distribution of IDPs by age. The cor- naire, and sample design. rection of the distribution by age should be made considering NGCA residents who were ▶ The analysis should be conducted via 1) time registered as IDPs to receive a pension with- tracking of indicators for each criterion 2) out being displaced. The preferable sample comparison of IDPs’ indicators with bench- size for data disaggregation on the oblast mark indicators for the general population. level is 10,000 respondents (this size implies a theoretical margin of sampling error of 1% The table of proposed indicators is provided below on the country level and 4.9% on the oblast (see Table 1). IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 37

Table 1. Proposed operationalization of the IDPs integration criteria developed by the MRTOT

Criteria of IDPs Sources of integration devel- Suggested Proposed indicators for each benchmark oped by the MRTOT changes criteria indicators

1. Existence of perma- Main indicator Household Living Con- nent or temporary ▶ Share of IDPs who have permanent ditions Survey of the housing housing (private property of family – State Statistics Service 17 other types of housing are considered as of Ukraine temporary)

Main indicator ▶ Share of IDPs who do not perceive their situation with housing as secure for the next 12 months

Additional indicator Household Living Con- ▶ Availability of basic living conditions at ditions Survey of the IDP HH housing (heating, sewerage, bath State Statistics Service or shower, water supply) of Ukraine

Additional indicator According to Housing ▶ Living square per IDP HH’s member Code of Ukraine the liv- ing square should be not less than 13.65 m2 per household member18

2. Existence of a regular Existence of a regular ▶ Share of IDP HHs that lack means for food National monitoring income of a working income of household or have money for food only19 survey conducted by the age person members which covers Institute of Sociology basic needs of house- NAS of Ukraine20 hold members

3. Employment of a Main indicators Labour force survey working age person Share of employed IDPs among IDP popu- of the State Statistics ▶ 21 on a permanent basis lation aged 15–70 Service of Ukraine ▶ Share of unemployed IDPs among IDP population aged 15–70 IDPs will specify the barriers to employment in open questions

17 Household Living Conditions Survey / State Statistics Survey, URL: (in Ukrainian) 18 Housing Code of Ukraine, URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/5464-10#Text (in Ukrainian) 19 As a result of the survey, it is recommended considering the possibility to add IDP module to Household Living Conditions Survey of State Statistics Service of Ukraine. If this recommendation is adopted, average monthly incomes and expenditures can be used as indicators 20 Results of National Monitoring Surveys of 1994–2018 / Institute of Sociology of National Academy of Science Of Ukraine, - p. 489. URL: https://i-soc.com.ua/assets/files/monitoring/dodatki2018.pdf (in Ukrainian) 21 Labour Force Survey / State Statistics Service, URL: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/metaopus/2019/1_02_01_01_2019.htm (in Ukrainian)

18 20 21 Recommendations on the Draft ‘Criteria for Assessment of the Integration of IDPs into the Host Territorial 38 Communities’

Criteria of IDPs Sources of integration devel- Suggested Proposed indicators for each benchmark oped by the MRTOT changes criteria indicators

Additional indicator Labour force survey ▶ Average duration of job search among of the State Statistics unemployed IDP population aged 15–70 Service of Ukraine

Additional indicator Administrative data of ▶ Share of unemployed IDP population the State Employment registered in Employment Centres among Centre population aged 15–60

Additional indicators Household Living Con- ▶ Average monthly salary of employed IDP ditions Survey of the for the last three months State Statistics Service of Ukraine ▶ Share of IDPs who may lose their salary next month or cannot predict it

4. No barriers to access- Main indicators ing education ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers due to the IDP status among those who were in need of preschool education in public institutions in the last 12 months ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers due to the IDP status among those who were in need of school education in public institutions in the last 12 months ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers due to the IDP status among those who were in need of vocational education in public institutions in the last 12 months ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers due to the IDP status among those who were in need of higher education services in public institutions in the last 12 months IDPs will specify the barriers in open ques- tions

5. No barriers to access- Main indicator ing administrative ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers due services to the IDP status among those which ad- dressed administrative service providers in the last 12 months. IDPs will specify the barriers and the service provider in open questions

6. No barriers to access- Main indicators ing medical care ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers due to the IDP status among those who were in need of primary healthcare services in the last 12 months ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers due to the IDP status among those who were in need of secondary or tertiary health- care services in the last 12 months IDPs will specify the barriers in open ques- tions IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 39

Criteria of IDPs Sources of integration devel- Suggested Proposed indicators for each benchmark oped by the MRTOT changes criteria indicators

Additional indicator National Health Service ▶ Share of IDPs who signed declaration of Ukraine data on the with family doctor share of population that signed declaration with family doctor

7. Availability of pen- Main indicators sion provision for the ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers in person at the new submitting documents for social security place of residence benefits due to the IDP status among (stay) those who applied in the last 12 months ▶ Share of IDP HHs that faced barriers to receiving social security benefits due to the IDP status among eligible ones in the last 12 months. IDPs will specify the barriers in open ques- tions

8. Availability of social Main indicators security for a person ▶ Share of IDP HHs who faced barriers in at the new place of submitting documents for social security residence (stay) benefits due to the IDP status among those who applied in the last 12 months ▶ Share of IDP HHs that faced barriers to receiving social security benefits due to the IDP status among eligible ones in the last 12 months. IDPs will specify the barriers in open ques- tions

9. Belonging to perma- Main indicators nent social groups of ▶ Share of IDP population feeling more the host territorial distant from the present community community (including compared to their community before the religious, national displacement minorities) ▶ Share of IDP population feeling negative attitude because of their belonging to IDPs IDPs will specify the reasons for the feeling of being distant in open questions

10. Reunification of Barriers to reunifica- Main indicators family members at tion with relatives in ▶ Share of IDP HHs that indicated the ob- the new place of NGCA and their needs jective barriers to desired family reunion residence (stay). for support in GCA ▶ Share of IDP HHs that indicated they need to support family members in NGCA financially and/or have to travel to NGCA to support their family members IDPs will specify the barriers to family reun- ion and support in open questions

41

Appendix 1: IDPs in Ukraine: Situation Overview

As of 27 October 2020, 1,458,225 persons were regis- Table 2: IDPs distribution across Ukraine as registered in the tered as internally displaced in Ukraine, according Unified Information Database on IDPs maintained by the MoSP to MoSP. The top number of IDPs was registered in 2016 – about 1 million 650 thousand. The number № Oblast August October of IDPs started to decrease following the changes 2017 2020 to the registration procedure, return to NGCA and procurement of a residential property, etc. 1 City of Kyiv 10,9% 11,1% 2 Cherkasy oblast 0,8% 0,7% The distribution of IDPs by oblasts has remained relatively stable in the last three years, except for 3 Chernihiv oblast 0,6% 0,5% Dnipro and Kharkiv oblasts that have appeared less 4 Chernivtsi oblast 0,2% 0,2% frequently on the list of places of registration of IDPs, with Kyiv city having become the top city by 5 Dnipropetrovsk (Dni- 4,8% 4,9% the number of IDPs (see Table 2). pro) oblast 6 Donetsk oblast 32,5% 35,1% In view of no mechanism in place that would ena- ble NGCA residents to exercise their right to pen- 7 Ivano-Frankivsk oblast 0,3% 0,3% sion and social benefits, they are required to ‘imi- 8 Kharkiv oblast 12,6% 9,3% tate’ internal displacement, cross the contact line to confirm their IDP registration and collect their 9 Kherson oblast 1,1% 1,0% 22 pensions . As a result, the number of IDPs in the 10 Khmelnytskyi oblast 0,4% 0,5% oblasts neighbouring to NGCA is overestimated. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 11 Kyiv oblast 4,0% 4,5% provides an alternative estimation of the number of 12 Kirovohrad (Kro- 0,5% 0,4% IDPs. According to UN OCHA, the estimated num- pyvnytskyi) oblast ber of ‘stable’ registered IDPs constituted about 734,438 people in 202123. 13 Luhansk oblast 18,0% 19,3% 14 Lviv oblast 0,8% 0,8% 15 Mykolayiv oblast 0,5% 0,6% 16 Odesa oblast 2,9% 2,6% 17 Poltava oblast 1,8% 1,6% 18 Rivne oblast 0,2% 0,2% 19 Sumy oblast 0,9% 0,8% 20 Ternopil oblast 0,2% 0,1%

22 Access to Pensions for Conflict Affected Persons and 21 Vinnytsya oblast 1,0% 0,8% IDPs in Ukraine: Facts and Solutions / NRC – URL: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www. 22 Volyn oblast 0,3% 0,2% humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/10_2020_ nrc_advocacy_paper_on_pensions_eng.pdf 23 Zakarpattya oblast 0,2% 0,2% 23 Humanitarian Needs Overview, Ukraine / 24 Zaporizhzhya oblast 3,4% 3,9% Humanitarian Programme Cycle , 2021 – URL: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www. 25 Zhytomyr oblast 0,8% 0,5% humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/ hno_2021-eng_-_2021-02-09.pdf

22 23

43

Appendix 2: List of Key Informant Interviews

Date of Duration of Type of Institution (state / # KII Interview international / civil) Name of Institution

1 19.12.2020 1:07:35 State national and regional au- Ministry for Reintegration of Tem- thorities porarily Occupied Territories

2 15.12.2020 1:48:27 State national and regional au- Ministry of Education and Science thorities

3 22.12.2020 0:52:40 State national and regional au- Ministry of Social Policy thorities

4 22.12.2020 1:01:53 State national and regional au- State Employment Service thorities

5 09.12.2020 33:50 State national and regional au- State Fund for Support of Youth thorities Housing Construction

6 30.12.2020 1:00:32 State national and regional au- Luhansk oblast administration thorities

7 09.12.2020 1:08:00 UN Agencies and International USAID Democratic Governance Organisations East (DG East) Activity

8 30.12.2020 1:16:43 UN Agencies and International IOM in Ukraine (Emergency and Organisations Stabilization Unit)

9 30.12.2020 1:08:33 UN Agencies and International UNICEF Organisations

10 09.12.2020 1:49:37 UN Agencies and International UNHCR Ukraine Organisations

11 18.12.2020 1:02:23 UN Agencies and International NRC Organisations

12 17.12.2020 1:30:27 UN Agencies and International Stabilization Support Services Organisations

13 11.12.2020 1:09:52 UN Agencies and International Protection Cluster (Housing, Land Organisations and Property Working Group)

14 28.12.2020 1:18:53 UN Agencies and International OHCHR Ukraine Organisations

15 15.12.2020 1:01:26 Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs Right to Protection

16 24.12.2020 1:14:54 Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs Crimea SOS 44 Appendix 2: List of Key Informant Interviews

Date of Duration of Type of Institution (state / # KII Interview international / civil) Name of Institution

17 17.12.2020 1:06:27 Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs Donbas SOS

18 18.12.2020 1:57:26 Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs Cedos think tank

19 19.12.2020 0:56:06 State national and regional au- Ministry of Culture and Informa- thorities tion Policy

20 19.12.2020 0:29:57 State national and regional au- State Statistics Service of Ukraine thorities

21 30.12.2020 1:21:41 UN Agencies and International OCHA Ukraine Organisations

22 22.12.2020 1:12:19 UN Agencies and International People in Need Organisations

23 31.12.2020 1:27:03 Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs Poruch

24 28.12.2020 30:44 Local authorities Volnovakha (Donetsk oblast)

25 31.12.2020 1:09:39 Local authorities Sloviansk (Donetsk oblast)

26 28.12.2020 25:29 Local authorities Starobilsk (Luhansk oblast)

27 30.12.2020 1:18:36 Local authorities Sievierodonetsk (Luhansk oblast)

28 12.01.2021 1:27:57 Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs Group of influence

29 06.01.2021 1:09:17 Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs Svoyi

30 16.01.2021 2:46:30 State national and regional au- Donetsk oblast administration thorities 45

Appendix 3: List of Focus Group Discussions

Date of Number and Gender # FGD Oblast Community Target Audience of Participants

1 19.12.2020 Donetsk Volnovakha IDP aged 20–40 6 (3 female, 3 male) oblast

2 19.12.2020 Donetsk Volnovakha IDP aged 41–60 6 (4 female, 2 male) oblast

3 20.12.2020 Donetsk Sloviansk IDP aged 20–40 7 (3 female, 4 male) oblast

4 20.12.2020 Donetsk Sloviansk IDP aged 41–60 5 (2 female, 3 male) oblast

5 12.12.2020 Luhansk Sievierodonetsk IDP aged 20–40 6 (3 female, 3 male) oblast

6 16.12.2020 Luhansk Sievierodonetsk IDP aged 41–60 6 (3 female, 3 male) oblast

7 13.12.2020 Luhansk Starobilsk IDP aged 20–40 6 (3 female, 3 male) oblast

8 13.12.2020 Luhansk Starobilsk IDP aged 41–60 6 (3 female, 3 male) oblast

9 19.12.2020 Donetsk Volnovakha IDPs’ relatives and acquaint- 7 (4 female, 3 male) oblast ances, representatives of local communities

10 20.12.2020 Donetsk Sloviansk IDPs’ relatives and acquaint- 6 (3 female, 3 male) oblast ances, representatives of local communities

11 11.12.2020 Luhansk Sievierodonetsk IDPs’ relatives and acquaint- 6 (3 female, 3 male) oblast ances, representatives of local communities

12 12.12.2020 Luhansk Starobilsk IDPs’ relatives and acquaint- 6 (3 female, 3 male) oblast ances, representatives of local communities