COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ASSESSED HROMADAS IN LUHANSK OBLAST UKRAINE, MARCH 2021 MAP 1. Interactive map: Overview of assessed hromadas in Donetsk Oblast (click on hromadas to skip to TABLE OF CONTENTS the hromada profile in this document) Cross-hromada vulnerability comparison ........................................ 3 Bilovodsk hromada overview ............................................................ 4 Kreminna hromada overview ............................................................. 5 Lysychansk hromada overview ......................................................... 6 Milove hromada overview .................................................................. 7 Novoaidar hromada overview ............................................................ 8 Nyzhnoteple hromada overview ........................................................ 9 Bilovodsk Popasna hromada overview .............................................................. 10 Bilovodsk Rubizhne hromada overview ............................................................. 11 Bilovodsk Shchastia hromada overview ............................................................ 12 Bilovodsk Shyrokiy hromada overview .............................................................. 13 Bilovodsk Bilovodsk Sievierodonetsk hromada overview .................................................. 14 Bilovodsk Stanytsia Luhanska hromada overview ............................................ 15 Bilovodsk Bilovodsk Overall overview of assessed hromadas .......................................... 17 Methodological annex and disclaimer .............................................. 18 Bilovodsk Bilovodsk AGORA is a joint initiative of ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives, founded in 2016. AGORA promotes Bilovodsk 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 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 Population age This cross-hromada comparison chart illustrates Displacement the ranking of hromadas along 8 key categories, DEMOGRAPHY Disabilities built with indicators collected via the household Vulnerabilities* survey as shown in Table 1 and broken down in Table Healthcare expenditure 2 on page 9. The “overall vulnerability index” below Unemployment shows the average score of each hromada across all ECONOMIC Indebtedness categories (all weighted equally); and determines the VULNERABILITY Level of income colour of the hromada tile. For instance, Nyzhnoteple Education was found to be the most vulnerable hromada across Waste management all category while Kreminna was the least vulnerable. Sewage management ENVIRONMENT Within each column or category, hromadas are sorted Environmental concerns according to their position within the target categories. Community cleanup** For instance, Lysychansk is ranked first in terms of Trust in police economic vulnerability, fourth in terms of environment, Civic engagement GOVERNANCE fifth in terms of utilities; while it is ranked in second last Decentralization position in terms of safety, mobility and governance. Trust in local government Overall vulnerability index Economic mobility 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 385 household surveys in the hromada center, 394 in BILOVODSK HROMADA the hromada periphery representing 2,000 household members, 89 interviews with facility key informants (FKIs) and 95 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 20% in 1. Armed conflict 1. Armed conflict Population age periphery) Healthcare expenditure Displacement 2. Employment 2. Employment 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 Ranking of 23 hromadas 23 of Ranking 5 % 3. Affordability of goods 3. Access to healthcare hromadas 23 of Ranking 43 dissatisfied with the provision of Frequency of movement healthcare (43% in center, and 47% Most commonly suggested intervention Public transportation Trust in local government 9 11 in periphery) 4 2 priorities by households: 7 17 Mobility Education services 15 21 Healthcare services 1. Streets and roads 5 Administrative services 1. Reduce unemploy- Civic engagement Demography ment repairs 3 Social services 6 Services 4 Availability of staff 2 ENVIRONMENT 2. Streets and roads 1 2. Reduce unemployment Governance 13 Pressure from NGCA* repairs of households who don’t have access to 3. Improving all services 3. Improving all services 5 % Internet 19 Waste management waste management services, (28% in 11 Environment 75 Types of utilities households most Utilities 18 Sewage management center, and 94% in periphery) Financial services 18 13 Environmental concerns commonly reported being dissatisfied with: 20 1 6 Cleanup of community of households reported being dissatisfied 1. Roads Heating provision 1. Roads 21 Economic Safety % with the level of cleanup in their Water provision 2 security 13 17 2. Gas 2. Heating 2 Safety level, day community (10% in center and 20% in Roads 12 13 Safety level, night 17 5 10 Conflict−related threats periphery) Electricity provision 19 Trust in police Center Periphery Overall EducationIncome PERCEIVED SAFETY ECONOMIC SECURITY Indebtness Pensioners Unemployment of households reported trusting Most commonly reported % % police in their settlement (while 21 of the population* employment sectors in 34 (16+) were unemployed 32% did not, and 34% were Ē which members were indifferent) employed: 35 % Agriculture 35% % of respondents reporting feeling unsafe and + 28 24 of the population* The graph above summarizes selected hromada-level indicators as reported through household most commonly reported reason why: Services 28% (16+) were employed + 9 and facility surveys and grouped into 8 domains. Indicators are shown as a ranked comparison Education 9% against the 23 sampled hromadas included in this assessment: the longer the bar, the lower the Day 2% Drunk people % hromada is ranked. A red colour indicates that the hromada is ranked among the 5 lowest-scoring 73 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 40% Lack of lighting hromada for each indicator. * % of working-age HH members * Non-government controlled areas Findings are based on data collected between June and September 2020, via 392 household surveys in the hromada center, 363 in KREMINNA HROMADA the hromada periphery representing 1,790 household members, 65 interviews with facility key informants (FKIs) and 33 community representative KIs. Household level findings are representative at the hromada level with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin OVERVIEW of error, while