National monitoring system of the situation with internally displaced persons, April 2017

NATIONAL MONITORING
SYSTEM REPORT
ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY
DISPLACED PERSONS
April 2017
Ministry of Social Policy
of Ukraine

Сover page photo:
Internally displaced person at her new home
in Zoriane village, Donetsk region. February, 2017
Internal cover page photo:
Internally displaced family, supported
within IOM’s livelihoods programme for IDPs.
Nikopol, April 2016

3
The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
• Gender and age structure
• IDP household members
• Education
• IDPs with disabilities
2. EMPLOYMENT OF IDPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
• Employment rate and status
• Employment before and after displacement
3. WELL-BEING OF IDPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
• Livelihood opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
• Living conditions and types of accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
• Suspension of social payments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IDP MOBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
• Displacement experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
• Visits to the places of living before displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. INTEGRATION IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. RETURNEES TO THE NON-GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED AREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
ANNEX 1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into zones by distance
from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls from telephone survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
ANNEX 4. Additional results of face-to-face interviews with IDPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
ANNEX 5. Results of interviews with key informants by zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS
The objective of the National Monitoring System
(NMS) in Ukraine, drawing on Displacement Tracking
Matrix (DTM) approaches, is to support the Govern-
ment of Ukraine in collecting and analysing informa-
tion on the socioeconomic characteristics of inter-
nally displaced persons (IDPs) and IDP households,
as well as the challenges that IDPs face.
IOM adapted the DTM, a system designed to regu-
larly capture, process and disseminate information on
displacement situation, to the Ukrainian context. The
NMS provides a better understanding of the evolving
movements and locations, numbers, vulnerabilities
and needs of displaced populations in Ukraine.
The survey collected information on socioeconomic
characteristics of IDPs at individual and households
levels, including, trends and movement intentions,
employment and livelihood opportunities, access to
social services and assistance needs in 24 oblasts of
Ukraine and the city of Kyiv.
Main information sources used for NMS:
• Data of sample surveys of IDPs via face-to-
face interviews;
• Data of sample surveys of IDPs via telephone
interviews;
• Data from key informant interviews;
• Focus group discussions (FGDs);
• Administrative data.
Face-to-face interviews
One thousand and twenty-five (1,025) IDPs were in-
terviewed with this method in cooperation with the
Ukrainian Center of Social Reforms in 205 territorial
units across the country during March 2017. The
sampling of territorial units was devised for all gov-
ernment-controlled oblasts of Ukraine and distrib-
uted in proportion to the number of IDPs registered.
Telephone survey
Three thousand one hundred and thirty-two IDPs
(3,132) were interviewed with this method by IOM
in February-March 2017.
The sampling was derived from the IDP registration
database maintained by the Ministry of Social Policy
of Ukraine.
Data from key informants
Four hundred and ten (410) key informants were
identified in cooperation with the Ukrainian Center
of Social Reforms across the country and were en-
gaged to monitor the developments of the situation
with IDPs in the regions.
Most of the key informants worked in non-govern-
mental organizations (40.0%), and a significant share
of key informants represented local authorities
(17.0%). In addition, nearly sixteen per cent (16.1%)
were employed in institutions of social protection,
7.2% in health care establishments, while, 1.9%
were engaged in educational institutions, and 17.8%
worked in other organizations.
Focus group discussions
Fivefocusgroupswithkeyinformants,IDPsandreturn-
ees to the non-government-controlled area (NGCA),
were conducted in cooperation with the Ukrainian
Center of Social Reforms during March 2017.
Please see Annex 1 for more methodological details.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

5April 2017
Almost all IDPs (96.5%) stated that they registered
within the Ministry of Social Policy registration sys-
tem (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. IDPs Registration within Ministry
of Social Policy system, %
Rounds 1-3
(March-June 2016)
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March 2017)
Yes 92.7 92.1 96.5
No 7.0 7.6 3.5
Do not
know
0.3 0.3 0
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
Respondents of the face-to-face and phone inter-
views were asked about all household members who
lived with them.
The average size of surveyed households was identi-
fied as 2.62 persons, according to interviews. Most
IDP households (61%) were composed of two or
three persons (Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2. Distribution of IDP households
in Ukraine, by number of members, %
1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs
AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS
According to the survey, 52.5% of IDP households
are families with children and most families (66%)
have one child (Figure 1.3).
Figure 1.3. Distribution of households
with or without children, %
Women dominate by number among surveyed IDP
household members, reaching 58%. The prevalence
of women was observed in all age groups older than
18 years old (Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.4. Gender and age distribution
of IDP surveyed household members, %
In comparison to the general population, IDPs had
almost 1.5 times higher proportion of children (less
than 18 years).

1 Grouping of oblasts into zones is by distance from the
NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Please see Annex
2 for more details.
Instead, the proportion of young, middle-aged peo-
ple among IDPs, and the proportion of elderly peo-
ple was significantly lower compared to the general
population.
The data reveal that the share of IDP household
members 18-59 y.o increased the further they
moved from the contact line1
(Figure 1.5).
Figure 1.5. Share of IDP household members
18-59 y.o. by geographical zones, %
61%
51%
51%
50%
40%
Source: Telephone interviews with IDPs
Almost 10% of IDP households stated that persons
with disabilities are household members (Figure 1.6).
The level of education among the surveyed IDPs is
quite high. Sixty per cent (60%) of them have higher
or incomplete higher education, 25% possess voca-
tional education and 11% completed secondary edu-
cation (Figure 1.7).
Figure 1.6. Distribution of IDP households with
persons with disabilities (I-III disability groups,
children with disabilities), %
Figure 1.7. Distribution of IDP household members
by educational attainment, % of household
members older than 18 y.o.

7April 2017
Employment was one of the key issues for IDPs.
Only 41.5% of IDPs, compared to 60.1% before dis-
placement, managed to find a job at their new loca-
tion (Figure 2.1). The trend of lower level of employ-
ment after displacement was around 20% of previ-
ously employed stay unemployed after displace-
ment. At the same time, 27.6% of respondents were
identified as being unemployed and 30.9% of IDPs
stated that they do not need a job, as they receive
disability or retirement pensions or are currently on
maternity leave (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.1. Employment of IDPs before
and after displacement, %
Figure 2.2. Employment of IDPs after
displacement, %
The employment of IDPs at their new place of resi-
dence increased from previous rounds (39.7% in
September 2016 and 35.1% in March-June 2016)
(Figure 2.3). However, it is still quite low comparing
to the level of employment before displacement.
2. EMPLOYMENT OF IDPs
Figure 2.3. Employment of IDPs after displacement
by rounds, %
According to interviews, employment level of both
men and women at the age 18-59 was 74% before
displacement, however after displacement differ-
ence in the share of employed women and men is
significant – 20% (respectively 48% for women and
68% for men respectively).
The employment situation after displacement corre-
lates with the distance from the contact line as em-
ployed IDPs are increasing from 16% in the Eastern to
45% in the Western regions of Ukraine (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4. Employment of IDPs after
displacement, by geographical zones, %
45%
32%
27%
23%
16%

Figure 2.6. Distribution of IDPs by duration
of employment in current job, % of employed
respondents
Figure 2.7. IDPs who need jobs by type
of preferred support and gender, %
The possible solution that unemployed respondents
named was direct employment support (47%). This
type of solution was preferred by 47% of women and
by 46% of men. Retraining and start-up businesses
were more popular among women (Figure 2.7).
According to key informants, IDPs who lived in rural
areas or in small towns viewed employment oppor-
tunities as scarce. In urban areas, the employment
situation resulted to be perceived as more favour-
able. (Source: FGD with Key Informants – Ternopil
and Kirovohrad oblasts).
The sectors of employment before displacement is
similar to those after displacement. Though a signifi-
cant difference was observed in two of them, name-
ly there was a reduction in the share of those em-
ployed in industry and an increase of employment in
the services sector after displacement (Figure 2.5).
Figure 2.5. Changes in sectors of employment by
type of activity before and after displacement, %
Three per cent (3%) of IDPs who managed to find a
job after displacement were employed for less than
a month (versus 5% in September 2016), while about
62% of IDPs worked for more than a year (versus
41% in September 2016) (Figure 2.6).
In most cases (67%), jobs met the qualifications of
IDPs. This indicator increased comparing to the pre-
vious round, which was 59% in September 2016.
According to FGD results, IDPs reported they had
problems with employment due to low salaries and
lackofopportunitiesinthelabormarketinruralareas
and small towns. FGD participants named age and
disability as limits for employment and corruption as
the main constraint. These barriers were named rel-
evant both for local residents and IDPs (Source: FGD
with IDPs – Luhansk and Poltava oblasts).

9April 2017
Livelihood opportunities
The general level of well-being of most IDPs is still
low – 45% of IDPs were able to buy only food with
their incomes (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. IDP self-assessment of the financial
standing of their households, %
Figure 3.2. Level of income per household
(per month), %
Less than 1,500 UAH 4
1,500 – 3,000 UAH 21
3,001 – 5,000 UAH 26
5,001 – 7,000 UAH 21
7,001 – 11,000 UAH 8
11,001 or more UAH 5
Difficult to say / No response 15
However, a positive tendency was observed, such as
the share of most vulnerable households, who had
to limit expenses even for food, decreased from 38%
in March-June 2016 and 29% in September 2016 to
23% in this round.
3. WELL-BEING OF IDPs
According to the FGDs data, the level of well-being
was also low, especially in rural areas. In large cit-
ies, IDPs assessed their wealth a little bit better.
However, participants described their economic
situation as unstable because of the high risk of los-
ing their jobs (Source: FGD with IDPs – Luhansk and
Poltava oblasts).
Average IDP level of income per individual (per
month) was 1,991 UAH. This reveals an increase of
40% during a period of one year, namely the level
of income increased from 1,420 UAH in March-June
2016 to 1,768 UAH in September 2016 and further
to 1,991 UAH in March 2017. However, the monthly
income level is still low if compared with the actual
subsistence levels in Ukraine calculated by the Min-
istry of Social Policy (2,862 UAH as the latest value
for December 2016).
IDPs in the first zone (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts)
and the fourth zone (Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnyt-
sia, Odesa) reported they had higher average income
per individual than IDPs in other zones (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3. Average income per individual
(per month) by geographical zones, UAH
1,416 UAH
2,184 UAH
1,378 UAH
1,610 UAH
2,148 UAH

The most important sources of income are Gov-
ernment IDP support and salary (59% and 56% re-
spectively). A positive trend shows the significant
increase of the share of salary as the main source of
income – 56% in March 2017 and 46% in September
2016. 33% of respondents named social assistance
and retirement pensions as important sources of
subsistence (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4. Main sources of income in IDP surveyed
household in the past 12 months, %
Note: Respondents could choose several relevant options
The share of «irregular earnings» decreased com-
paring to the previous round: from 19% in Septem-
ber 2016 to 15% in March 2017. The share of those
who mentioned financial support from relatives
among the main sources of income also significantly
decreased: from 18% in September 2016 to 5% in
March 2017.
Most of the focus group participants reported lack
of jobs and low salaries in their current place of
living (Source: FGD with IDPs – Luhansk and Pol-
tava oblasts).
The survey revealed the tendency that the share of
IDPs who stated salary as main source of income
increased the further they moved from the contact
line (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5. IDPs who stated salary as main source
of income by geographic zones, %
58%
46%
36%
31%
21%
According to survey respondents, the most problem-
atic issues for IDPs were related to housing (70%),
among them: living conditions (27%), payments for
rent (23%) and payments for utilities (20%). Addi-
tionally, the unemployment situation was also one
of the most problematic issue faced by IDPs (13%)
(Figure 3.6). The same problematic issues was con-
firmed by key informants.
Figure 3.6. Problematic Issue for IDP household, %

11April 2017
According to Key informants, the most needed
types of IDP support were housing (84%), monetary
assistance (63%) and obtaining decent jobs (61%).
Another important type of support was assistance
in obtaining a new profession through additional
training/education (29%) as well as psychological
support (28%) (Source: Face-to-face interviews with
Key informants).
Living conditions and types
of accommodation
Most IDPs pay for their accommodation and 66% live
in rented housing, such as a rented apartment (43%),
rented house (16%), or a rented room in apartment
(7%). A significant share of IDPs (22%) lives with rel-
atives or hosting families. Only 1% of IDPs lived in
their own housing in the GCA (Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.7. IDP accommodation types, %
High fees for housing greatly influenced the overall
level of IDP welfare. Even when employed, renting
was identified as a serious problem for IDP families
and purchasing their own housing viewed as impos-
sible (Source: FGD with Key Informants – Ternopil
and Kirovohrad oblasts).
The majority of IDPs were satisfied with the basic
characteristics of their dwelling, such as the avail-
ability of electricity, safety, water supply, sewerage
etc. (Figure3.8).
Figure 3.8. IDPs satisfaction with living conditions
Living conditions % of satisfied
Electricity 89
Safety 85
Water supply 82
Sewerage 81
Heating 75
Insulation 73
Living space 70
However, details of FGD results showed that IDPs
had some other problems with housing conditions:
lack of home appliances, furniture and tableware.
In addition, FGD participants noted the inability to
rent an apartment officially without all necessary
documents (Source: FGD with IDPs – Luhansk and
Poltava oblasts).
Suspension of social
payments
Fifty nine per cent (59%) of surveyed IDP households
rely on Government IDP support as one of the main
sources of income.
More than twenty per cent of IDP respondents re-
vealed that they had their social payments suspend-
ed (Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9. IDPs who have had social payments
suspended, %

Out of them, 86% specified that they faced suspen-
sion of Government IDP support, 14% suspension of
retirement pension and 7% of allowances for chil-
dren etc. (Figure 3.10). Almost 80% of these suspen-
sions took place in 2016.
Figure 3.10. Distribution of IDPs by type
of suspended social payments, % of respondents
who have had social payments suspended
Out of 23.5% of IDPs who experienced the sus-
pension of social payments, 77% did not receive
any official notification of the suspension nor in-
formation on the procedures to renew the pay-
ments (Figure 3.11). Fifty-eight per cent (58%) of
IDPs were aware of the reasons behind the sus-
pension (Figure 3.12).
According to the results of FGDs, the reasons be-
hind suspensions were the following: false informa-
tion about the place of residence, false information
about the income level and withholding information
about purchasing an apartment or car, all of which
were found during inspections (Source: FGD with
IDPs – Luhansk and Poltava oblasts).
More than half of surveyed IDPs (59%) addressed the
Ministry of Social Policy asking clarifications on the
suspension issue (Figure 3.13). The majority (77%)
were aware of the procedure on how to renew the
payments (Figure 3.14).
Figure 3.11. Distribution of IDPs by receipt
of suspension notification, %
Figure 3.12. Distribution of IDPs aware
of the reasons behind suspension, %
Figure 3.13. Distribution of IDPs addressing the
suspension issue to the Ministry of Social Policy, %
Figure 3.14. Distribution of IDPs by awareness
about the procedure on how to renew the
payments, %
Source (Figures 3.11-3.14): Face-to-face interviews with IDPs

13April 2017
The availability of social services for IDPs was named
as an important factor of IDP integration into the
host community.
IDPs were generally satisfied with social services such
as the possibility to receive pension payments or so-
cial assistance (72%) and access to health care services
(71%). The respondents’ main concern was the lack of
employment opportunities, with only 47% satisfied
(Figure4.1).However,ithastobenotedthatthelevelof
satisfaction with social services slightly increased from
the previous survey conducted in September 2016 re-
garding the health care services (from 65% to 71%) and
employment opportunities (from 40% to 47%).
Figure 4.1. IDPs satisfaction with social services
Social services % of satisfied
Possibility of receiving pension
or social assistance
72
Accessibility of health care services 71
Possibilities to obtain education and
enroll children in schools/kindergartens
64
Accessibility of administrative services 63
Employment opportunities 47
The participants of FGDs shared their concerns re-
garding the quality of services, especially health
services in rural areas (although the majority of re-
spondents indicated that this was a problem for all
residents, not only IDPs) (Source: FGD with IDPs – Lu-
hansk and Poltava oblasts).
The most notable reasons for dissatisfaction with so-
cial services was the lack of funds (36%), followed by
lack of information (35%) (Figure 4.2).
The majority of IDPs living in GCA feel safe in their ev-
erydaylife –78%ofrespondentsconfirmed(Figure4.3).
The share of IDPs feeling safe correlates with the
proximity with from the contact line, being those liv-
ing in western regions those that perceive the high-
est level of safety (Figure 4.4).
4. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES
Figure 4.2. Reasons for IDPs’ dissatisfaction with
social services, % of respondents for whom relevant
Figure 4.3. IDP assessment on the safety of the
environment and infrastructure of the settlement, %
I feel safe 78
I feel unsafe in the evenings
and in remote areas of the settlement
16
I feel unsafe most of the time 6
Other 0
No response 0
Figure 4.4. IDPs, who feel safe by geographic
zones, %
97%
95%
95%
88%
67%

Displacement experience
Over 85% of the interviewed IDPs lived in their cur-
rent place of residence for more than 18 months (in-
cluding 65% for more than 24 months) (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1. How long have you been staying
in the current place of residence?, %
Till 6 months 4
6-12 months 5
12-18 months 6
18-24 months 20
24-30 months 42
30 months or more 23
For the majority of IDPs (84%), their current place
of residence was the first place they moved to
(Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2. Is this your first place of residence
after displacement?, %
Majority of FGD participants also reported that they
did not change their place of residence after the ini-
tial relocation to the first settlement (Source: FGD
with IDPs – Luhansk and Poltava oblasts).
5. IDP MOBILITY
Only 16% of respondents changed their place of resi-
dence (Figure 5.2); more than half (57%) of those who
further moved, changed it only once (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3. How many times have you changed
your place of living since the outbreak of the
conflict?, % of respondens for whom this is not
the first place of residence after displacement
Problems with housing (47%) and high rents for
housing (32%) were named as the main reasons to
move from the previous settlement (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4. What are the reasons you have
changed the previous settlement of residence,
% of those, who changed the settlement
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Problems with housing 46 47
High rents for housing 37 32
Lack of employment opportunities 31 29
Security issues 7 8
The social environment 7 3
The lack of opportunities for
education
3 3
Non-availability of medical facilities 5 3
Other 8 11
Lack of employment opportunities (29%) was also
one of the top three reasons to change the previous
settlement.

15April 2017
According to Key informants, 35% of IDP households
left their settlement during last three months. Key in-
formants reported 36% of these households moved
within the territory of Ukraine, 2% moved abroad
and for the remaining 62% the relocation modality is
unknown. Better job opportunities and family reuni-
fication were reported as the main reasons for the
IDP relocation.
With regards to the general mobility plans of IDPs,
only 1% of them revealed intentions to return to
their place of origin in the near future; majority of
IDPs stated that they plan to return after the end of
the conflict (39%); 17% mentioned that they might
return in the future, 26% of respondents expressed
intention not to return (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5. General plans of IDPs
on return for living to the place
of residence before displacement, %
Yes, in the near future 1
Yes, after the end of conflict 39
Yes, maybe in the future 17
No 26
Difficult to answer 17
When IDPs were asked about their plans for the next
three months, the majority of IDPs (79%) responded
they would stay in their current location (Figure 5.6).
Figure 5.6. Distribution of IDPs by plans
for the next three months, %
The tendency to seek employment abroad is low.
Only 0.5% of IDPs had experience in working abroad
during the last three years. Less than 5% of IDPs’
have relatives who had such experience (Figure 5.7).
Figure 5.7. Distribution of IDPs by experience
of work abroad during the last three years, %
Twenty five per cent (25%) of key informants stat-
ed that, in their settlements, opportunities to go
abroad or to move within the country were offered.
However, the proportion of IDPs who confirmed this
was two times lower (13%).
The most preferable countries for IDPs to look for a
job abroad were Poland and Canada (Figure 5.8).
Figure 5.8. Distribution of IDPs by country they
would prefer to look for a job (top 10 countries), %
Poland 14
Canada 7
USA 5
Czech Republic 5
Belarus 4
Russia 3
Italy 3
Spain 3
Portugal 2
Slovakia 1

According to the survey only 0,4% of IDPs were
offered refugee status abroad and only 1% were
offered a job abroad without official employment
(Figure 5.9 and 5.10).
Figure 5.9. Distribution of IDPs by offers
to obtain refugee status abroad, %
Figure 5.10. Distribution of IDPs by offers
of job abroad without official employment, %
Visits to the places of living
before displacement
The share of IDPs who had trips to their place of
residence increased by 5% from the previous rounds
(Figure 5.11).
Figure 5.11. Distribution of IDPs by the visits
to their places of living before displacement, %
Main reasons to travel to the NGCA were visiting
and/or maintaining housing (68%), transportation of
things (53%) and visiting friends and/or family (35%)
(Figure 5.12).
Figure 5.12. Reasons for IDPs to visit NGCA
after displacement, % of respondents
who are visiting NGCA
Visiting and / or maintaining housing 68
Transportation of things 53
Visiting friends and / or family 35
Special occasions,
such as weddings or funerals
6
Research of return opportunities 6
Operations with property (sale, rent) 4
Other 2
The share of respondents who went to explore re-
turn opportunities decreased to 6% from 11% in
September 2016.

17April 2017
According to the survey, 58% of IDPs mentioned they
did not visit the NGCA after displacement. The main
reason of this was the perception that it was “dan-
gerous for life” (Figure 5.13).
Figure 5.13. Reasons for IDPs not to visit NGCA
after displacement, % of respondents who are not
visiting NGCA
Dangerous for life 45
Because of the lack financial possibilities 16
Because of the health 14
Because of political reasons 13
There does not remain the property
and relatives / friends
10
Other (Please specify) 1
No response 1
The majority of IDPs (92%) said that they faced bar-
riers in visiting the NGCA and only 8% said that they
did not face problems.
The most important barriers encountered were
queues at the check points along the contact line
(68%) and availability of transport (25%) (Figure 5.14).
For 73% of IDPs, the main source of information on
the situation in the NGCA was information from their
relatives or friends who continued to reside or visit
the NGCA (Figure 5.15). TV and Internet were also
among the most important sources of information
(Figure 5.15).
Figure 5.14. Most important barriers
for the visits to NGCA, % of respondents
who visited NGCA after displacement
Figure 5.15. Distribution of IDPs by source
of information on NGCA, %
Relatives or friends residing in the NGCA 57
Relatives or friends visiting the NGCA 16
TV 63
Internet 62
Personal visits 14
Newspapers 6
State authorities 3
NGO 1
Other 1

6. INTEGRATION IN LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
Eighty eight per cent (88%) of IDPs stated that they
were integrated (fully or partially) in the local com-
munity; only 11% of them mentioned that they were
not (Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1. IDP self-assessment of their integration
in the local community, %
According to Key informants, most IDPs successfully
integrated into the host community. More than a
third of experts noted that IDPs residing in the ter-
ritory of their settlement sufficiently integrated into
host communities. Another third noted that most
IDPs partially integrated.
However, during focus group discussions some IDPs
reported that it was difficult for them to integrate
into the local community (Source: FGD with IDPs –
Luhansk and Poltava oblasts).
Housing was named as the most important condition
for integration for IDPs in cities and towns (77% and
65% respectively). In villages, a regular income (62%)
was considered as more important (Figure 6.2).
Key informants mentioned as important factors for
integration the employment and housing opportuni-
ties. Support from the local communities was also
identified as an important factor for IDPs integration.
Figure 6.2. IDP conditions for integration in the
current local community by type of settlement, %
Discrimination based on IDP status was experienced
by 18% of respondents, which correspond to a signifi-
cant increase since September 2016 (9%) (Figure 6.3).
Figure 6.3. Distribution of IDPs by discrimination
experienced directly by respondents or by their
household members, %
Round 4
(September 2016)
Round 5
(March 2017)
Discriminated 9 18
Not discriminated 90 77
No response 1 5

19April 2017
This indicator was also pointed out by key infor-
mants, increasing from 11% in September 2016 to
16% in March 2017.
IDPs who experienced discrimination also reported
in open-ended questions that many cases of dis-
crimination occurred in the real estate and employ-
ment spheres (denial of housing or of employment
due to IDP status); part of the respondents, stated
that communication experience with the local popu-
lation was negative or aggressive. Respondents also
mentioned several cases of discrimination against
children in schools and kindergartens (negative at-
titude of teachers and pupils towards IDP children).
Media was acknowledged as the most effective way
for society to hear about IDPs problems by respon-
dents of the IDP survey (41%) and Key informants
survey (36%).
Communication with local authorities, international
organizations and the central government were also
named as important channels by the respondents
(Figure 6.4).
Figure 6.4. The best way for the voice
of IDPs to be heard to find appropriate
solutions to the existing problems, %
The FGD participants also mentioned the need to
create an IDP community to represent their interests
at local and national levels (Source: FGD with IDPs –
Luhansk and Poltava oblast).
Only 6% of IDPs mentioned that they voted in local
elections in the area of displacement in 2015.
This indicator is significantly higher in the fifth zone
(Western part of Ukraine) (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5. Distribution of IDPs by voting
in the area of displacement
at the local elections in 2015 by zones, %
16%
6%
5%
9%
5%
The main reason why IDPs were unable to vote in
2015 local elections was lack of local registration.
Only 6% of those that did not vote applied to change
their electoral address (Figure 6.6).
Figure 6.6. Appling for change of electoral address,
% of those, who did not vote

Many IDPs stated that they did not know how to
vote in displacement (25%) or said they had no time
(24%) (Figure 6.7).
Figure 6.7. Reasons for not applying for change
of electoral address, % of those, who did not apply
for change of electoral address
I did not know how to vote in displacement 25.3
I had no time 24.3
I have never been interested
in participation in elections
15.9
I wanted but I did not know where to apply
to get the temporary electoral address
15.4
I wanted to vote but did not manage
to get the temporary electoral address
5.3
I do not feel myself a part of the host community
to vote at local elections
3.4
No response 10.4
Results of FGDs with IDPs and key informants re-
vealed that the main reason why IDPs did not vote
in local elections in 2015 was due to a lack of infor-
mation about voting procedures in displacement
(Source: FGD with IDPs; FGD with Key informants).
More than half (58%) of respondents declared that
the right to vote was important (Figure 6.8).
Figure 6.8. Distribution of IDPs by importance
of the right to vote, %
Figure 6.9. Appropriate mechanism to ensure
the implementation of the IDPs right to vote,
% of respondents for whom the right to vote
is important

21April 2017
When conducting the telephone survey, which in-
cluded 3.132 interviews in all regions of Ukraine, 8%
of the respondents were identified as IDPs who re-
turned to the NGCA and lived there.
Women prevailed by number among surveyed re-
turnees to the NGCA household members, reaching
61%. About half of the returnees (49%) were older
than 60 years.
The level of employment of IDPs, returned to the
NGCA, was lower than in the GCA, namely 19% com-
pared to 42% (Figure 7.2).
Average monthly income per individual returnees is
1,711 UAH, which is lower than income of IDPs from
the GCA (1,991 UAH).
The returnees participants of FGD reported that they
were not able to attain the quality of life they had
before the conflict began; money was enough only
for basic needs (Source: FGD with returnees).
Figure 7.1. Gender and age distribution
of household members of surveyed returnees
to the NGCA, %
Source: Telephone interviews with IDPs, returned to NGCA
7. RETURNEES TO THE
NON-GOVERMENT-CONTROLLED AREA
Figure 7.2. Employment of returnees to the NGCA
after displacement, %
Figure 7.3. Level of income per household
of returnees to the NGCA (per month), %
Less than 1,500 UAH 13
1,500-3,000 UAH 35
3,001-5,000 UAH 10
5,001-7,000 UAH 2
7,001-11,000 UAH 1
More than 11,000 UAH 0
No income 5
Difficult to say / No response 34

The most important source of income for nearly half
of IDPs who returned to the NGCA was retirement
pension (51%). Another significant source was sal-
ary (22%) (Figure 7.4). For IDPs in the GCA the most
important sources were Government IDP support
(59%) and salary (56%).
Ninety-four per cent (94%) of the returnees lived in
their own apartments or houses; the remaining 6%
reported they are not leaving in their house as de-
stroyed or damaged.
Safety was named as the major concern for return-
ees households (46%) (Figure 7.5). For IDPs in the
GCA the major concerns were housing issues (70%)
and safety was only 2%.
No returnees felt completely safe. Majority of par-
ticipants of FGD for returnees mentioned that they
were afraid of shelling. People reported to be rather
used to the situation and the feeling of being always
in danger (Source: FGD with returnees).
The returnees satisfaction related to living condi-
tions was high for most of the parameters (availabil-
ity of electricity, living space, water supply etc.) with
the exception of safety (41%) (Figure 7.6). For IDPs in
the GCA satisfaction with living conditions were also
quite high (for all parameters higher than 70%), and
safety 85%.
Figure 7.6. Returnees’ to the NGCA satisfaction
with living conditions
Living conditions % of satisfied
Electricity 99
Living space 97
Water supply 92
Sewerage 91
Insulation 91
Heating 90
Safety 41
The participants of FGDs were very satisfied with the
prices for utilities and respondents mentioned that
the prices were significantly lower than in the GCA
(Source: FGD with returnees).
Figure 7.4. Main sources of income
in households of surveyed returnees
to the NGCA in the past 12 months, %
Figure 7.5. Problematic Issue for households
of returnees to the NGCA, %

23April 2017
IDPs who returned to NGCA were mostly satisfied
with accessibility to health care services (87%)
(Figure 7.7).
Figure 7.7. Returnees’ to the NGCA satisfaction
with social services
Social services % of satisfied
Accessibility of health care services 87
Possibility of receiving pension or social
assistance
67
Employment opportunities 61
Accessibility of administrative services 60
Possibilities to obtain education and enroll
children in schools/ kindergartens
60
However, participants of FGDs mentioned they
had access only to basic medical services and they
could not afford expensive treatment or medicines
(Source: FGD with returnees).
In general, safety is one of the most problematic is-
sue for returnees. The difference in assessment on
safety between IDPs in the GCA and returnees in the
NGCA is 57% (Figure7.8).
Figure 7.8. Assessment on the safety
of the environment and infrastructure
of the settlement, %
GCA NGCA
I feel safe 78 21
I feel unsafe in the evenings
and in remote areas of the settlement
16 31
I feel unsafe most of the time 6 44
Other 0 1
No response 0 3
Source: Telephone interviews with IDPs and Returnees
Roughly, 78% of respondents in the NGCA men-
tioned that the most important reason behind their
return was owning a private property in the NGCA
and no need to pay for rent. The second main push
factor for returning to the NGCA was family reasons
(36%) (Figure 7.9).
Figure 7.9. Reasons for returning and living
in the NGCA, %
There is private property
and we do not have to pay rent
78
Family reasons 36
Lack of employment opportunities 9
Failure to social integrate to local community
at the previous place of residence
9
Limited access to social services –
health care, education etc.
9
Other 11
No response 3
Note: Respondents could choose several options
FGD results confirmed that one of the major prob-
lems in the GCA was the need to pay for housing and
utilities (Source: FGD with returnees).
Nearly half of the returnees (49%) stated their satisfac-
tion with their decision to return. However, a signifi-
cant number (32%) of returnees refused to answer this
question or did not know how to answer (Figure 7.10).
Figure 7.10. Satisfaction with decision of returning
and living in the NGCA, %
Totally satisfied 12
Satisfied 37
Unsatisfied 12
Totally unsatisfied 7
No response / Hard to say 32

The main reason of being satisfied was that respon-
dents returned “home” (psychological factor) and
did not have to pay for housing (economical factor).
Dissatisfaction was mostly related to lack of safety
and financial problems (Source: Telephone inter-
views with IDPs, returned to NGCA – Open-ended
questions).
Sixty three per cent (63%) of the returnees planned
to stay in the NGCA during the next three months
(Figure 7.11).
Figure 7.11. Returnees’ to the NGCA plans for the
next three months, %
Nearly half (48%) of the returnees stated that they
did not visit the areas under government control in
order to to receive government support for IDPs.
Accordingly, those who visited the GCA for support
did not go very often – once a month or more rarely
(Figure 7.12).
Figure 7.12. Returnees’ to the NGCA frequency
of coming to the areas under government control
for support, %
Once a week 1
2-3 times a month 3
Once a month 13
Once in two months 5
Once in three months 5
Less than once in three months 11
I do not come to the areas under government
control
48
No response 14

25April 2017
ANNEX 1. Methodology
The NMS is performed by combining data obtained
from multiple sources, namely:
• Data of sample surveys of IDPs via face-to-
face interviews;
• Data of sample surveys of IDPs via telephone
interviews;
• Data from key informant interviews;
• Focus group discussions;
• Administrative data.
The target of the NMS is the IDP population at their
place of settlement in 24 oblasts of Ukraine and the
city of Kyiv.
The main objective of the NMS is to analyse the
situation and problems related to IDPs’ location,
8. ANNEXES
their movements or intentions to move further,
return intentions, and local communities’ percep-
tion of the IDPs’ situation.
Target groups:
• Key informants – representatives of local
communities, local authorities, IDP com-
munities, non-governmental organiza-
tions (NGOs), educational and healthcare
facilities;
• IDP individuals and households.
The survey collected information on socioeconomic
characteristics of IDPs at individual and households
levels, including, trends and movement intentions,
employment and livelihood opportunities, access to
social services as well as preferred durable solutions
and assistance needs.

Key informants were identified across the country
and were engaged to monitor the developments of
the situation of IDPs in the regions. The information
on distribution of key informants by oblast is found
in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. Distribution of key informants
Oblast
Number of key
informants
Total 410
Vinnytsia 8
Volyn 8
Dnipropetrovsk 28
Donetsk 96
Zhytomyr 8
Zakarpattya 8
Zaporizhia 28
Ivano-Frankivsk 8
Kyiv oblast (without Kyiv city) 12
Kirovohrad 8
Luhansk 48
Lviv 8
Mykolaiv 8
Odesa 10
Poltava 8
Rivne 8
Sumy 8
Ternopil 8
Kharkiv 28
Kherson 8
Khmelnytsky 8
Cherkasy 8
Chernivtsi 8
Chernihiv 8
Kyiv city 24
With the purpose of conducting face-to-face inter-
views with key informants and IDP households, a ter-
ritorial sample comprising of 205 units was devised
(sample distribution by oblasts is provided in Figure
1 below). The general population of IDPs registered
by MoSP was stratified by oblast. The selection of
territorial units was carried out with the probabil-
ity proportional to the number of registered IDPs in
each unit. In each territorial unit, two key informants
and five IDP households were selected.
Figure 1. Distribution of the sample for territorial
units within oblasts of Ukraine
Oblast
Number of territorial
units selected
Total 205
Vinnytsia 4
Volyn 4
Dnipropetrovsk 14
Donetsk 48
Zhytomyr 4
Zakarpattya 4
Zaporizhia 14
Ivano-Frankivsk 4
Kirovohrad 4
Luhansk 24
Lviv 4
Mykolaiv 4
Odesa 5
Poltava 4
Rivne 4
Sumy 4
Ternopil 4
Kharkiv 14
Kherson 4
Khmelnytsky 4
Cherkasy 4
Chernivtsi 4
Chernihiv 4
Kyiv city 12

27April 2017
The sample of IDP households for face-to-face inter-
views envisages the formation of a stratified multi-
stage probability sample of households. The sample
size is 1,025 households interviewed in March 2017.
The distribution of IDP households for face-to-face in-
terviews within the NMS is provided in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3. Distribution of IDP households
for face-to-face interviews
Oblast Number
Total 1,025
Vinnytsia 20
Volyn 20
Dnipropetrovsk 70
Donetsk 240
Zhytomyr 20
Zakarpattya 20
Zaporizhia 70
Ivano-Frankivsk 20
Kirovohrad 20
Luhansk 120
Lviv 20
Mykolaiv 20
Odesa 25
Poltava 20
Rivne 20
Sumy 20
Ternopil 20
Kharkiv 70
Kherson 20
Khmelnytsky 20
Cherkasy 20
Chernivtsi 20
Chernihiv 20
Kyiv city 60
The sample of IDPs for telephone interviews
amounts to 3,132 households selected randomly
from the Ministry of Social Policy database in Febru-
ary-March 2017. The distribution of IDP households
for telephone interviews within the NMS is provided
in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4. Distribution of IDP households
for telephone interviews
Oblast Number
Total 3,132
Vinnytsia 59
Volyn 59
Dnipropetrovsk 203
Donetsk 758
Zhytomyr 59
Zakarpattya 59
Zaporizhia 204
Ivano-Frankivsk 60
Kirovohrad 58
Luhansk 421
Lviv 59
Mykolaiv 59
Odesa 73
Poltava 59
Rivne 59
Sumy 58
Ternopil 59
Kharkiv 203
Kherson 59
Khmelnytsky 59
Cherkasy 60
Chernivtsi 59
Chernihiv 59
Kyiv city 180

ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into zones by distance
from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
Zone Oblast
1
Donetsk Oblast (GCA)
Luhansk Oblast (GCA)
2
Dnipropetrovsk Oblast
Kharkiv Oblast
Zaporizhia Oblast
3
Kirovohrad Oblast
Mykolaiv Oblast
Poltava Oblast
Sumy Oblast
Kherson Oblast
Cherkasy Oblast
4
Vinnitsa Oblast
Zhytomyr Oblast
Kyiv Oblast
Kyiv city
Odesa Oblast
Chernihiv Oblast
5
Volyn Oblast
Zakarpattya Oblast
Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast
Lviv Oblast
Rivne Oblast
Ternopil Oblast
Khmelnytsky Oblast
Chernivtsi Oblast

29April 2017
ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls from telephone survey
Calls
Total 7,742
Complete interviews (GCA) 2,897 37%
Complete interviews (NGCA) 235 3%
No answer / nobody takes the phone 1,424 18%
No connection 1,081 14%
Out of service 534 7%
Not IDPs (the respondents told they
are not IDPs, not often – relatives were
registered as IDPs on this number)
359 5%
Refusal to take part in the survey 1,212 16%
No connection
Total 1,081
Vodafone 585 54%
Kyivstar 374 35%
lifecell 121 11%
Other 1 0%
Out of service
Total 534
Vodafone 352 66%
Kyivstar 113 21%
lifecell 63 12%
Other 6 1%

ANNEX 4. Additional results
of face-to-face interviews with IDPs
Figure 1. Age distribution of IDP household members by zones, % of household members older than 18 y.o.
18-29 y.o.
30-54 y.o.
55+ y.o.
28%
51%
21%
18-29 y.o.
30-54 y.o.
55+ y.o.
20%
53%
27%
18-29 y.o.
30-54 y.o.
55+ y.o.
13%
56%
31%
18-29 y.o.
30-54 y.o.
55+ y.o.
19%
59%
22%
18-29 y.o.
30-54 y.o.
55+ y.o.
14%
51%
35%
Figure 2. Gender distribution of IDP household members by zones, % of household members older than 18 y.o.
46%54%
35%65%
36%64%
40%60%
40%60%

31April 2017
Figure 3.1. Were you or members of your family
forced to work against your will, %
forced to provide sexual services against your will, %
involved in criminal activity against your will, %
Figure 3.4. Were you or members of your
family forced to take part in military conflict
against your will, %

Figure 3. Awareness of key informants on
regional or national programmes to support IDPs,
implemented in their communities, %
Zone Yes No
Total 36.1 63.9
1 32.7 67.3
2 27.1 72.9
3 46.4 53.6
4 56.0 44.0
5 46.3 53.7
Figure 4. Support needed by IDPs, %
Total
Zone
1 2 3 4 5
Monetary
assistance
63.1 68.2 51.3 52.6 64.3 60.0
Housing 84.1 85.4 85.1 74.8 81.1 79.7
Getting a new
profession
28.8 28.6 37.7 22.4 22.0 8.2
Promoting
employment
60.8 63.2 73.6 55.1 40.3 33.1
Help in starting
your own business
19.3 19.2 27.0 0.0 16.5 9.1
Placement
of children
in kindergartens
and schools
13.1 7.3 25.7 6.6 20.0 3.7
Document
restoration
18.2 11.4 42.7 14.7 12.0 5.1
Support in
interaction with
local residents
9.7 5.4 25.3 9.3 5.2 1.2
Psychological
support
28.0 21.2 46.0 27.9 28.5 23.6
Health care 17.8 12.3 21.2 10.0 37.0 2.2
Legal support 21.6 19.3 24.4 13.9 28.2 25.3
Other
(specify please)
2.0 0.8 3.1 3.7 4.2 2.4
Figure 1. The most relevant problems
for residents of the settlements, %
Total
Zone
1 2 3 4 5
Unemployment 64.4 59.0 82.6 65.6 59.5 57.7
Housing 64.0 58.3 70.5 73.4 75.7 43.3
Payment
for utilities
62.8 59.7 66.9 46.0 73.3 66.4
Payment for rent 50.5 50.2 42.5 44.3 65.5 43.5
Suspension of
social payments
28.6 28.2 21.5 34.3 39.3 14.2
Access
to medicines
21.5 23.2 14.5 13.8 29.0 5.7
Access to health
services
14.2 11.2 10.2 26.8 26.5 12.3
Running own
business
9.4 10.9 8.7 10.8 4.7 5.0
Malnutrition 7.7 6.5 7.6 3.7 14.5 0.0
Access
to education
6.6 3.0 16.1 3.7 7.9 6.1
Payment of bank
loans
6.0 5.0 5.6 8.2 8.8 10.5
Delay in payment
of wages
5.1 3.3 11.0 9.7 2.4 0.0
Vacation/relaxation 3.2 1.3 5.0 6.8 6.7 0.0
Security 2.7 2.0 3.8 1.0 4.6 0.0
Figure 2. Do IDPs addressed your organization
with any of the above mentioned issues, %
Zone Yes No
Total 59.5 40.5
1 44.3 55.7
2 65.6 34.4
3 87.9 12.1
4 92.4 7.6
5 93.7 6.3
ANNEX 5. Results of interviews with key informants by zones

33April 2017
Figure 5. Evaluation of IDPs Access to relevant
sector, % of respondents (fully available)
Total
Zone
1 2 3 4 5
Employment 46.3 35.6 54.2 54.1 70.2 58.8
Housing 37.8 39.0 46.9 36.1 21.5 38.3
Health care 67.6 64.9 72.5 75.9 66.3 83.5
Education 76.3 75.0 76.5 94.0 73.1 93.6
Social Protection 69.2 66.0 65.7 80.9 79.0 93.1
Public services 62.9 57.8 59.7 82.3 75.5 92.7
Figure 6. Degree of integration of the majority
of IDPs into local communities, %
Zone
Sufficiently
integrated
Partly
integrated
Poorly
integrated
Not
integrated
Difficult
toanswer
No
response
Total 38.5 36.2 12.3 5.7 6.9 0.4
1 46.9 23.2 11.9 9.5 7.8 0.7
2 17.6 58.2 15.7 1.7 6.9 0.0
3 23.3 50.5 20.2 0.0 6.0 0.0
4 38.1 50.0 7.3 0.0 4.7 0.0
5 65.5 23.4 7.4 0.0 1.9 1.9
Figure 7. Three most important factors that
contribute to the integration of IDPs, %
Total
Zone
1 2 3 4 5
Employment
opportunities
90.2 93.8 91.9 100.0 73.1 80.3
Affordable
housing
83.4 82.7 85.3 88.0 82.9 76.6
Education 6.1 5.3 1.6 3.8 15.3 7.7
Social
environment
12.3 7.3 18.2 14.1 19.5 29.6
Social Protection 45.3 48.0 59.8 23.3 25.6 20.9
Medical and
psychological
assistance
24.3 18.7 21.0 22.4 50.5 14.5
Community
support
23.8 22.9 20.0 18.1 31.7 39.0

Internally displaced family, supported
within IOM’s livelihoods programme
for IDPs. Nikopol, April 2016

The project is funded by
the European Union
For more information please contact
International Organization for Migration (IOM) Mission in Ukraine:
8 Mykhailivska Street, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01001
Tel: (044) 568-50-15 • Fax: (044) 568-50-16
E-mail: nmsukraine@iom.int

National monitoring system of the situation with internally displaced persons, April 2017

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to National monitoring system of the situation with internally displaced persons, April 2017

Similar to National monitoring system of the situation with internally displaced persons, April 2017 (20)

More from DonbassFullAccess

More from DonbassFullAccess (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

National monitoring system of the situation with internally displaced persons, April 2017