COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ASSESSED HROMADAS IN DONETSK OBLAST UKRAINE, MARCH 2021 MAP 1. Interactive map: Overview of assessed hromadas in Donetsk Oblast (click on hromadas to skip to the TABLE OF CONTENTS hromada profile in this document) Cross-hromada vulnerability comparison ...................................... 3 Bakhmut Bakhmut Bakhmut hromada overview ............................................................ 4 Kurakhove hromada overview ......................................................... 5 Bakhmut Mariinka hromada overview ............................................................. 6 Olhynka hromada overview ............................................................. 7 Bakhmut Siversk hromada overview ............................................................... 8 Soledar hromada overview .............................................................. 9 Staromlynivka hromada overview ................................................... 10 Velyka Novosilka hromada overview .............................................. 11 Volnovakha hromada overview ........................................................ 12 Vuhledar hromada overview ............................................................ 13 Bakhmut Zvanivka hromada overview ............................................................ 14 Overall overview of assessed hromadas ........................................ 16 Bakhmut Bakhmut Methodological annex and disclaimer ............................................ 17 Bakhmut Bakhmut AGORA is a joint initiative of ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives, founded in 2016. AGORA promotes Bakhmut efficient, inclusive and integrated local planning, aid response, and service delivery in contexts of crisis through applying settlement-based processes and tools. AGORA enables more efficient and tailored aid responses to support the recovery and stabilization of crisis-affected communities, contributing to meet Bakhmut their humanitarian needs, whilst promoting the re-establishment of local services and supporting local governance actors. AGORA promotes multisectoral, settlement-based aid planning and implementation, structured around partnerships between local, national and international stakeholders. AGORA’s core activities include community mapping, multisector and area-based assessments, needs prioritisation and planning, as well as support to area-based coordination mechanisms and institutional cooperation. 2 CROSS-HROMADA VULNERABILITY COMPARISON TABLE 1: Composition of categories This cross-hromada comparison chart illustrates Population age the ranking of hromadas along 8 key categories, Displacement built with indicators collected via the household DEMOGRAPHY Disabilities survey as shown in Table 1 and broken down in Table Vulnerabilities* 2 on page 9. The “overall vulnerability index” below Healthcare expenditure shows the average score of each hromada across all Unemployment categories (all weighted equally); and determines the ECONOMIC Indebtedness VULNERABILITY colour of the hromada tile. For instance, Level of income Staromlynivka was found to be the most vulnerable Education hromada across all category while Bakhmut was the Waste management Sewage management least vulnerable. Within each column or category, ENVIRONMENT hromadas are sorted according to their position Environmental concerns within the target category. For instance, Vuhledar Community cleanup ** ranked first in terms of economic vulnerability, Trust in police Civic engagement second in terms of environment, fourth in terms of GOVERNANCE utilities; while it is ranked in last position in terms of Decentralization Trust in local government governance. Economic mobility Overall vulnerability index Frequency of movement MOBILITY Public transportation Access to health facilities Safety to school SAFETY General safety Conflict-related threats Education services Healthcare services SERVICES Administrative services Social services Financial services * % of the population reportedly having at least one of the following Roads vulnerabilities: pensioner, disability (with or without status), chronicall Electricity provision illness UTILITIES ** According to HH satisfaction with the level of cleanup in their Water provision community Heating provision 3 Findings are based on data collected between June and September 2020, via 406 household surveys in the hromada center, 356 in BAKHMUT HROMADA the hromada periphery representing 1,781 household members, 90 interviews with facility key informants (FKIs) and 56 community representative KIs. Household level findings are representative at the hromada level with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of OVERVIEW error, while (F)KI findings are indicative. of households reported being 23 dissatisfied with the public Most commonly reported concerns % transportation in their settlement by households: 18 19 (17% in center, and 28% in 1. Armed conflict 1. Armed conflict Population age periphery) Healthcare expenditure Displacement 2. Employment 2. Housing Chronic illness of households were reportedly Disabilities Ranking of 23 hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas hromadas 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of g ing nking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ra Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Rank Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Rankin Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking 3. Quality of healthcare 3. Access to healthcare hromadas 23 of Ranking 5 % dissatisfied with the provision of Ranking of 23 hromadas 23 of Ranking 47 Frequency of movement healthcare (50% in center, and 45% Most commonly suggested intervention Public transportation Trust in local government 2 19 in periphery) 7 priorities by households: 19 4 12 Education services Mobility Healthcare services 4 6 1. Reduce unemployment 7 Administrative services 1. Reduce unemploy- Civic engagement Demography ment 5 Social services 4 Services 7 Availability of staff 19 ENVIRONMENT 2. Improving all services 2. Improving all services 9 Governance 20 Pressure from NGCA* 3. Streets and roads 3. Streets and roads repairs % of households who don’t have access repairs 4 Internet 4 Waste management 3 to waste management services, (1% in 10 Environment Types of utilities households most Utilities 5 Sewage management center, and 22% in periphery) Financial services 5 10 Environmental concerns commonly reported being dissatisfied with: 3 2 4 Cleanup of community of households reported being dissatisfied 1. Recreational facilities Heating provision % 1. Roads 1 Economic Safety with the level of cleanup in their Water provision 14 13 security 12 community (12% in center and 22% in 2. Water 2. Roads 3 11 Safety level, day Roads 13 4 Safety level, night 3 11 Conflict−related threats periphery) Electricity provision 11 Trust in police Center Periphery Overall EducationIncome PERCEIVED SAFETY ECONOMIC SECURITY Indebtness Pensioners Unemployment of households reported trusting Most commonly reported % % 40 police in their settlement (while 17 of the population* employment sectors in (16+) were unemployed 36% did not, and 24% were Ē which members were indifferent) employed: 43 % Services 43% % of respondents reporting feeling unsafe and + 12 32 of the population* The graph above summarizes selected hromada-level indicators as reported through household most commonly reported reason why: Industry 12% (16+) were employed + 9 and facility surveys and grouped into 8 domains. Indicators are shown as a ranked comparison Construction 9% against the 23 sampled hromadas included in this assessment: the longer the bar, the lower the Day 6% Drunk people % hromada is ranked. A red colour indicates that the hromada is ranked among the 5 lowest-scoring 57 of the working-age population* (16+) had an hromadas on a particular indicator, and a green colour indicates that the hromada is ranked average monthly income of less than 4,000 UAH among the 5 highest-scoring hromadas. Numbers inside the circle display the actual ranking of the Night 45% Drunk people hromada for each indicator. * % of working-age HH members * Non-government controlled areas Findings are based on data collected between September and December 2020, via 399 household surveys in the hromada center, 576 in the KURAKHOVE HROMADA hromada periphery representing 2,022 household members, 53 interviews with facility key informants (FKIs) and 86 community representative KIs. Household level findings are representative at the hromada level with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, while (F)KI findings are indicative. Missing findings originate from the different questionnaires that were administered for round 1 hromadas (see also methodological OVERVIEW annex).