NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS June 2017

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

Cover and internal cover page photos:
IDP and local children in Drohobych, Lviv Region,
enjoying the event organized for them
within an IOM project
© Petro Zadorozhnyy/AP Images for ESN

3June 2017
The project is funded
by the European Union
and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)
3
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
OVERALL SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
• Gender and age structure
• IDP household members
• Education
• IDPs with disabilities
2. EMPLOYMENT OF IDPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
• Employment before and after the displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
• Employment rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. WELL-BEING OF IDPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
• Livelihood opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
• Living conditions and types of accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
• Suspension of social payments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
• Loans and debt obligations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. IDP MOBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
• Displacement experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
• Visits to the former places of residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. INTEGRATION IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
• Integration rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
• Discrimination experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
• Electoral rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. RETURNEES TO THE NON-GOVERMENT-CONTROLLED AREAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4 NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS
with IDPs from the government-controlled area
(GCA) and 391 interviews were with returnees to
the non-government controlled area (NGCA). The
sampling was derived from the IDP registration da-
tabase maintained by the Ministry of Social Policy
of Ukraine.
In this round data from telephone interviews was
combined with data from face-to-face interviews.
The combining of these two data sets was pro-
duced with the assistance of a statistical weighting
tool. Both data sets were weighted according to the
regional distribution of registered IDPs. Telephone
data was also weighted according to the socio-
demographical characteristics of IDPs interviewed
face-to-face1
.
Face-to-face interviews with key informants
Four hundred and eleven (411) key informants were
interviewed with this method. They were identified,
in cooperation with the Ukrainian Centre of Social
Reforms, across the country and were engaged to
monitor the developments of the situation with IDPs
in the oblasts. Most of the key informants worked
in non-governmental organizations (40%), and a sig-
nificant share of key informants represented insti-
tutions of social protection (22%). In addition, 16%
were employed as local authorities, 8% in health care
establishments, 2% were engaged in educational in-
stitutions, while 12% worked in other organizations.
Focus group discussions
Two focus group discussions (FGDs) with key in-
formants, two FGDs with IDPs and one FGD with
returnees to the NGCA, were conducted in coop-
eration with the Ukrainian Centre of Social Reforms
during May 2017. The FGD with returnees took
place in Mariupol (Donetsk oblast, government-
controlled area).
Please see Annex 1 for more methodological details.
1 Please see Annex 4 for comparison of face-to-face and
telephone socio-demographical data.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
The objective of the National Monitoring System
(NMS) in Ukraine, drawing from IOM’s Displacement
Tracking Matrix (DTM) approach, is to support the
Government of Ukraine in collecting and analysing
information on the socio-economic characteristics
of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and IDP house-
holds, as well as the challenges they faced. IOM
adapted the DTM, a system designed to regularly
capture, process and disseminate information on dis-
placement situations, 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 socio-economic
characteristics of IDPs at individual and household
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:
i) Data of sample surveys of IDPs via face-to-
face interviews;
ii) Data of sample surveys of IDPs via telephone
interviews;
iii) Data of sample surveys of key informants via
face-to-face interviews;
iv) Focus group discussions (FGDs);
v) Administrative data and relevant data avail-
able from other sources.
Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
One thousand and twenty-five (1,025) IDPs were in-
terviewed with this method in cooperation with the
Ukrainian Centre of Social Reforms in 205 territorial
units across the country during May 2017. The sam-
pling of territorial units was devised for all govern-
ment-controlled oblasts of Ukraine and distributed
in proportion to the number of registered IDPs.
Telephone interviews with IDPs
Three thousand one hundred and nine IDPs (3,109)
were interviewed with this method by IOM in April-
June 2017. Out of the total, 2,718 interviews were

5June 2017
OVERALL SUMMARY
1. Characteristics of IDPs and their households
The average size
of household
Age distribution of household
members
Gender distribution
of household members
Households
with children
Persons with
disabilities
2.73 persons
60 and over – 17%
18-59 years – 56%
Under 18 years – 27%
Female – 57%
Male – 43%
49% of IDP
households
8% of IDP households
2. Employment of IDPs. The proportion of the em-
ployed among all IDPs increased from 35% to 46%:
Employment of IDPs after displacement
by rounds, %
A positive trend in the employment of IDPs was
the increase in the share of long-term employment
(more than a year) from 33% in March-June 2016 to
67% in June 2017.
3. Well-being of IDPs. The average monthly income
per one member of the IDP household steadily
increased:
Average income per person (per month),
by rounds, UAH
The main sources of income for the respondents
were financial support received from the govern-
ment for IDPs (61%) and salary (61%). This demon-
strates that the majority of IDPs still rely heavily on
government support2
. The most problematic issues
2 Respondents could choose more than one option
for IDP households throughout the entire monitor-
ing period have been various aspects of finding and
maintaining housing.
4. Access to social services. IDPs showed a high level
(79% or higher) of satisfaction with the accessibility
of all basic social services. Respondents were least
satisfied with the accessibility of employment op-
portunities (69%).
5. IDP mobility. The vast majority of respondents
did not move recently with 79% reporting that
they have lived in their current place of residence
for more than 18 months. The proportion of those
intending on returning to their place of origin af-
ter the end of conflict grew from 33% (in Septem-
ber 2016) to 44% (in June 2017).
The share of IDPs reporting that they returned to
their place of residence in the conflict zone after the
first displacement has steadily increased, from 32%
in March-June 2016 to 48% in June 2017.
IDPs reporting having visited NGCA, %
Main reasons to travel to the NGCA were maintain-
ing housing (63%), transportation of belongings
(52%) and visiting friends or family (49%)3
.
3 Respondents could choose more than one option

6. Integration in local communities. According to
the survey of IDP households, the proportion of per-
sons who felt totally integrated into the local com-
munity rose to 68%, an increase in 12% from the
previous report. The main conditions for integration
were housing, regular income and employment.
Round 5
(March 2017), %
Round 6
(June 2017), %
Integrated in local
communities
56 68
Discrimination based on IDP status was experienced
by 10% of respondents. The IDPs reported that cases
of discrimination based on their status were experi-
enced in the following: housing (46%), employment
(31%), healthcare (22%), and daily interactions with
the local population (19%).
7. Returnees to the NGCA. About half of the return-
ees (44%) were older than 60 years. The employ-
ment level of IDPs who returned to the NGCA was
24%. The main sources of income for IDPs that re-
turned to the NGCA were retirement pension (41%)
and salary (34%).
Seventy-three (73%) per cent of respondents in the
NGCA reported that their reason to return was be-
cause they owned property in the NGCA and there is
no need to pay rent.
Safety remained the main issue for IDPs that re-
turned to NGCA (33%). Seventy-three percent (73%)
of the returnees plan to stay in the NGCA during the
next three months.

7June 2017
Almost all IDPs (94.4%) stated that they have regis-
tered within the social protection system of the Min-
istry of Social Policy (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. IDP registration within Ministry
of Social Policy system, %
Rounds 1-3
(March-
June 2016)
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Yes 92.7 92.1 96.5 94.4
No 7.0 7.6 3.5 5.4
Do not
know
0.3 0.3 0 0.2
Source: Face-to-face interviews with IDPs
During the focus group discussions, the IDPs and
key informants noted that typically, persons that do
not register are those who are not in need of gov-
ernment support. However, occasionally the lack of
registration is connected to bureaucratic barriers
(Source: Focus groups with IDPs; Focus groups with
key informants).
During the interviews, the respondents were asked
about the composition of their households. The av-
erage size of households was identified as 2.73 per-
sons, which is higher than the average household
size in Ukraine at 2.58, according to 2016 data4
. Most
IDP households (58%) are composed of two or three
persons (Figure 1.2).
4 Socio-demographic characteristics of households in
Ukraine in 2016 (according to a sample survey of living
conditions of households). Statistical Bulletin. State
Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2016.
Figure 1.2. Distribution of IDP households
in Ukraine, by number of members, %
Compared to the total population of Ukraine, the
share of households among IDPs with 3 or more per-
sons is higher, while the share of households with
1-2 persons is lower.
Households with children made up almost half (49%)
of all IDP households (Figure 1.3). At the same time,
households with one child constitute almost two-thirds
of the total number of households with children.
Figure 1.3. Distribution of households
with or without children, %
1. CHARACTERISTICS OF IDPs
AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS

The share of households with children among IDPs is
10.5% higher than the general household composi-
tion in Ukraine. This shows that families with chil-
dren were more likely to move from the non-govern-
ment controlled areas (NGCA).
Women represent 57% of surveyed IDP household
members, which is slightly higher than the pro-
portion of women among the total population of
Ukraine (54% as of 01 January 20165
). The preva-
lence of women among IDPs was observed in all age
groups 18 years and older and matches the findings
from the previous reports (Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.4. Gender and age distribution of IDP
surveyed household members, %
The share of IDPs aged 60 and over are almost
1.3 times lower compared to the general population.
Whereas the share of IDPs aged fewer than 18 is al-
most 1.5 times higher.
Eight (8%) per cent of IDP households reported mem-
bers who are persons with disabilities (Figure 1.5).
5 Distribution of the permanent population of Ukraine by
gender and age as of January 1, 2016. Statistical Bulletin.
State Statistics Service of Ukraine. – K., 2016.
with people with disabilities (I-III disability groups,
children with disabilities), %
The level of education among the IDPs over 18 years
old is high, where 63% have some form of higher
education (Figure 1.6). Highly educated individuals
were more likely to move from the non-government-
controlled areas (NGCA).
Figure 1.6. Distribution of IDP household members
by educational attainment, % of household
members older than 18 y.o.
Among adult women, the proportion of those with
some form of higher education is 64% and among
adult men 61%.

9June 2017
Employment before
and after the displacement
Although employment remained one of the key chal-
lenges identified by the IDPs, compared to the previ-
ous rounds of the survey, there were indications of
a gradual stabilization of the situation in this sphere
by many parameters.
According to the results of the current round, the
share of employed IDPs increased from 41% to 46%,
and the differences between the employment rates
from before and after the respondents’ displace-
ment decreased from 19% to 15% (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1. Employment of IDPs before and after
displacement by rounds, %
Another positive trend was also a steady decline of
currently unemployed IDPs from September 2016
(Figure 2.2). According to the results of Round 6,
there were almost no gender differences in IDP em-
ployment rates. However, the share of women was
two times higher than men in the economically in-
active group (pensioners, persons with disabilities,
women on maternity leave).
Figure 2.2. Employment of IDPs after displacement
by rounds, %
Rounds 1-3
(March –
June 2016)
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Yes 35 40 41 46
No 26 38 28 19
Pensioners,
persons with
disabilities,
maternity
leave
39 22 31 35
The largest proportion of employed IDPs reside in
the fourth geographic zone (Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhyto-
myr, Vinnytsia, Odesa oblasts), and the smallest per-
centage in the third (Sumy, Poltava, Cherkasy, Kiro-
vohrad, Mykolaiv, Kherson oblasts) and fifth (West-
ern part of Ukraine) zones (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3. IDPs employment after displacement,
by geographic zones, %6
36%
60%
37%
49%
41%
– zone 5 – zone 4 – zone 3 – zone 2 – zone 1
6 Grouping of oblasts into zones is by distance from the
NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Please see Annex 2
for more details.
2. EMPLOYMENT OF IDPs

Before displacement, the gender difference of em-
ployed IDPs (aged 18-59 years old) was insignificant,
while after displacement 12% more men than wom-
en are employed (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4. Employment of IDPs,
before and after displacement by gender,
% of IDPs 18-59 years old
Based on the results of Rounds 1-6, the employment
rate among IDPs was lower compared to the recent
national indicators7
and the percentage of the eco-
nomically inactive population (pensioners, persons
with disabilities, maternity leave) was smaller.
The sectors IDPs were employed in before displace-
ment is similar to those after displacement. In com-
parison to the pre-conflict period, the share of those
employed in industry decreased (from 14% to 9%)
and those employed in public administration in-
creased (from 11% to 15%) (Figure 2.5).
7 In Ukraine, the employment rate of the population aged
15-70, on average, in 2016, was 56.3%, the unemployment
rate was 9.3%, and the percentage of the economically
inactive population was 37.8%. Source: Economic activity
of the population in 2016: Statistical Bulletin/State
Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2017. – 23 p.
Figure 2.5. Changes in sectors of employment before
and after displacement, % of IDPs 18-59 years old
Employment rates
Significant gender imbalances were observed in
almost all spheres of current employment of IDPs
aged 18-59 years. In the industry, transportation and
construction sectors, the prevalence is in favour of
men; the trade, education, public administration,
and service sectors favour women (Figure 2.6).
Figure 2.6. Changes in sectors of employment
after displacement by gender, %

11June 2017
A positive trend in IDP employment is the increase
in the share of long-term employment (of more than
one year) in their current job (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7. Distribution of IDPs by duration
of employment in current job by rounds,
% of employed respondents
Rounds 1-3
(March –
June 2016)
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Less than
a month
6 5 3 1
1-6 months 27 23 10 12
7-12 months 33 30 23 19
More than
12 months
33 41 62 67
No response 1 1 2 1
There were settlement type differences in the length
of employment reported by IDPs. Long-term employ-
ment (13 months and more) prevailed in rural areas,
and most IDPs employed between 7-12 months re-
side in cities (Figure 2.8).
Figure 2.8. Distribution of IDPs by duration
of employment in current job by type
of settlement, % of employed respondents
Also, the proportion of IDPs that managed to find
a job after displacement and whose current em-
ployment corresponded to their qualifications was
steadily increasing (Figure 2.9).
Figure 2.9. Correspondence of the IDPs’ current job
with their qualification by rounds, % of employed
respondents
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June 2017)
Corresponds 59 67 74
Does not
correspond
41 33 26
It was more difficult for IDPs to find a new job fitting
their previous qualifications in cities and towns than
in villages (Figure 2.10).
Figure 2.10. Correspondence of IDPs’ current
employment after displacement to previous
qualifications, distributed by settlement type, %
of employed respondents
Key informants agreed that it was difficult for IDPs to
find a job meeting their previous qualifications, but
reported that IDPs were willing to attend re-training
programmes if they were offered a job with a high
salary (Source: Focus groups with key informants).
Among the unemployed IDPs, direct employment
was recognized as the most effective means of sup-
port, with the share of such responses rising steadily
from September 2016 (Figure 2.11).

Figure 2.11. Distribution of unemployed IDPs in
need of a job, by type of preferred support by
rounds, %
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Direct employment 43 46 63
Start-up of own business 10 10 10
Retraining 13 13 8
Consultation
in employment centre
5 4 6
Education 10 2 5
Other 4 3 0
No response 15 22 8
Eighty-two (82%) per cent of men and 58% of
women reported that their preferred support was
direct employment. Retraining, starting-up their
own business and consultation in the employment
centres were shown to be more popular among
women (Figure 2.12).8
8 The shares were statistically weighted by gender
Figure 2.12. IDPs who need jobs by type
of preferred support and gender, %

13June 2017
Livelihood opportunities
The level of well-being of most IDPs remains low,
although according to the respondents’ self-as-
sessment, the share of vulnerable households that
had to limit expenses even for food decreased by
2.5 times throughout the monitoring period (from
38% in Rounds 1-3 to 15% in Round 6). The propor-
tion of IDP households that had enough funds only
for food still remains high at 44% (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. IDPs’ self-assessment of the financial
situation of their households by rounds, %

Rounds 1-3
(March –
June 2016)
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Have to limit
expenses even
for food
38 29 23 15
Enough funds
only for food
40 42 45 44
Enough funds
for food,
necessary
clothing,
footwear,
basic needs
20 28 29 38
Enough funds
for basic and
other needs.
Have savings
1 1 1 2
No response 1 0 2 1
According to the results of Round 6, the largest share
of households that had to limit expenses, even for
food, is 26% in towns (villages – 15%, cities – 10%).
The largest share of households that have enough
funds for food, necessary clothing, footwear and
urgent needs is 49% in cities (in villages – 34%, in
towns – 21%) (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2. IDPs’ self-assessment of the financial
situation of their households by type of locality, %
Compared to the recent general trends in Ukraine9
,
the biggest disparity, according to the IDPs’ self-as-
sessment, was observed primarily among the most
vulnerable households that limited expenses even
for food. Their share (15%) is three times higher
than the average national level (5%). Also, the share
of IDP households that can accrue savings is less (2%
versus 6% for the general population).
The average monthly income per IDP household
member has increased from UAH 1,991 to UAH 2,017
in the current round (Figure 3.3). However, the aver-
age monthly income level of IDPs was still low com-
pared with the actual subsistence level calculated by
the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, which pub-
lished rates in April 2017 at UAH 2,862 (taking into
9 Distribution of households in Ukraine based on the self-
assessment of their income during 2015: did not earn
enough even for food – 5%; constantly spared on the
most necessary items, except for food – 43%; enough
funds, but did not make savings – 46%; enough funds and
made savings – 6%. Source: Self-assessment of households
in Ukraine of their income level (according to a sample
household survey in January 2016): Statistical Bulletin/
State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2016. – 76 p.
3. WELL-BEING OF IDPs

account the amount of personal income tax, the sub-
sistence level is even higher at UAH 3,280)10
.
Figure 3.3. Average income per person
(per month), by rounds, UAH
According to the results of Round 6, by settlement
type, the largest amount of average monthly income
per IDP household member was UAH 2,230 in cities
(towns – UAH 1,501 and rural areas – UAH 2,058).
The IDPs from the fourth (Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr,
Vinnytsia, Odesa oblasts) and the first (Donetsk and
Luhansk oblasts) zones reported having a higher av-
erage income per person than the IDPs from other
geographic zones (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4. Average income per person
(per month), by geographic zones, UAH
1,684
2,748
1,414
1,849
1,975
10 Background information for households in Ukraine in
2015: the average per capita equivalent total income
(per month) was UAH 2,427.51, the average per capita
equivalent monetary income (per month) was UAH
2,216.11. Source: Household expenditures and resources
in Ukraine in 2015 (according to a sample survey of
household living conditions in Ukraine): Statistical Bulletin/
State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2016. – 380 p.
According to the results of the last two rounds of
IDP monitoring, a positive trend was reflected in an
increase in the share of households who indicated
their average monthly income for the past 6 months
ranged between UAH 7,001-11,000 (from 8% to
14%) (Figure 3.5).
by monthly income by rounds, %
Round 5
(March 2017)
Round 6
(June 2017)
Up to UAH 1,500 4 5
UAH 1,500–3,000 21 19
UAH 3,001–5,000 26 23
UAH 5,001–7,000 21 19
UAH 7,001–11,000 8 14
Over UAH 11,000 5 5
Difficult to answer
or no response
15 15
Respondents reported government IDP support
(61%) and salary (61%) as their main sources of in-
come, with the percentage of those reporting salary
as a major source increasing steadily since March-
June 2016 (Figure 3.6). The high levels of respon-
dents who receive support from the Government
shows that the majority of IDPs still rely heavily on
government assistance.
Figure 3.6. Salary as a source of income
in IDP households, by rounds, %
Two more sources of income were consistently im-
portant for the IDPs, retirement/long service pen-
sions (35%) and social assistance (32%). Those who
reported irregular earnings were likely to be sea-
sonal workers (15-19% during the monitoring pe-

15June 2017
riod), and the share of humanitarian assistance as a
source of income for IDPs was gradually decreasing
(from 32% in March-June 2016 to 14% in June 2017)
(Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.7. Main sources of income in households
of surveyed returnees to the NGCA in the past
12 months, %
Rounds 1-3
(March –
June 2016)
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Salary 43 46 56 61
Government
IDP support
50 57 59 61
Retirement or
long service
pension
Х 30 33 35
Social
assistance
44 33 33 32
Irregular
earnings
18 19 15 16
Humanitarian
assistance
32 17 16 14
Financial
support from
relatives
residing
in Ukraine
Х Х 5 8
Disability
pension
Х 8 7 6
Social
pension
Х 3 5 4
Other
incomes
Х 3 2 2
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option
The most problematic issues for IDP households con-
sistently, were various aspects related to housing. In
particular, in June 2017, 22% of respondents identi-
fied the improvement of living conditions as one of
their most acute problems. Twenty-one (21%) per
cent said that paying rent was most problematic and
14% stated paying for utilities. However, the issue of
unemployment is slowly decreasing (Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.8. The most problematic issues
for IDP households by rounds, %

Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Living conditions 22 27 22
Payment for rent 13 23 21
Payment for utilities 19 20 14
Unemployment 18 13 11
Lack of opportunity
to return to the place
of permanent residence
x x 10
Suspension of social
payments
7 2 4
Access to medicines 5 5 4
Other 9 4 3
None of the above 6 4 9
No response 1 2 2
Key informants view IDP problems a bit differently
in terms of severity and consider unemployment
the most problematic issue (33%), followed by living
conditions (17%), payment for rent (10%) and pay-
ment for utilities (10%) (Source: Face-to-face inter-
views with key informants).
According to key informants, the most important
types of IDP support included housing (83%), decent
jobs (72%), and the provision of monetary assistance
from the State (63%). Also mentioned as important
was the provision of psychological support (35%),
monetary assistance from other donors (33%), ob-
taining new qualifications through additional training
(32%) and humanitarian assistance (32%) (Source:
Face-to-face interviews with key informants).

Living conditions and types
of accommodation
Most IDPs had to rent various types of accommo-
dation (houses, apartments or a room in an apart-
ment). Also, a significant proportion of IDPs contin-
ued to reside with relatives or host families. Accord-
ing to the results of the last round only 2% reside in
housing they own (Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9. IDP accommodation types by rounds, %
Rounds 1-3
(March –
June 2016)
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Rented
apartment
43 40 43 42
Host family /
relatives
20 25 22 23
Rented house 16 15 16 16
Rented
room in an
apartment
7 7 7 7
Dormitory 8 6 3 6
Collective
centres
for IDPs
3 2 6 4
Own housing 1 4 1 2
Other 2 1 2 0
The level of IDPs’ satisfaction with the current liv-
ing conditions was constantly increasing in all basic
characteristics of housing amenities and the highest
level of satisfaction in the last three rounds of the
survey was related to the availability of electricity
and feeling safe (Figure 3.10).
Figure 3.10. IDPs’ satisfaction with living
conditions by rounds, % of satisfied

Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March 2017)
Round 6
(June 2017)
Electricity 87 89 95
Safety 82 85 93
Sewerage 76 81 89
Water supply 75 82 88
Heating 70 75 81
Insulation 70 73 80
Living space 69 70 75
The results of focus groups show that IDPs consid-
ered the purchase of their own housing impossible
due to the constant lack of funds for even basic
household needs. It also remained problematic for
the IDPs to officially rent an apartment because they
do not have all the necessary documents (Source:
Focus groups with key informants). In order to limit
expenses, some IDP families jointly rented housing
(Source: Focus groups with IDPs).
According to key informants’ observations, IDPs’
poor living conditions affected their well-being.
High payments for housing (primarily rent) made it
impossible to ensure improvement of living condi-
tions. There were cases when the most vulnerable
categories, single mothers or large families, settled
in remote districts of oblasts and/or in abandoned
houses, and the assistance of the local community
was not sufficient to substantially improve their situ-
ation (Source: Focus groups with key informants).
Some IDPs continued to face a lack of household
appliances, furniture and utensils, among others.
Retired IDPs, who were former city residents, have
found it hard to get used to new living conditions in
the rural areas, mainly due to a lack of water supply
and sewage (Source: Focus groups with IDPs).

17June 2017
Suspension of social payments
During September 2016 – June 2017, more than 20%
of respondents or their families faced suspension of
social payments (Figure 3.11). A positive trend is
noted in respect to the reduction of cases with social
payment suspension during the period from Sep-
tember 2016 – June 2017.
Figure 3.11. IDPs who have had social payments
suspended, %
The largest numbers of cases of suspension of social
assistance were for the monthly housing assistance
for IDPs. As for other types of social assistance, there
was an improvement in the timeliness of receiving
retirement or long service pension and allowances
for families with children (Figure 3.12).
Figure 3.12. Distribution of IDPs by types
of suspended social payments, % of respondents
who have had social payments suspended
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
IDP support (monthly
housing support for IDPs)
82 86 89
Retirement or long service
pension
16 14 9
Allowance for families
with children
11 7 8
Disability pension 5 6 5
Other pension
(in connection with
the loss of breadwinner,
social pension)
3 4 3
Unemployment benefits 1 0 0
Other 4 1 0
The gradual increase among such respondents re-
porting the receipt of suspension notifications was
observed (Figure 3.13).
Figure 3.13. IDPs who received suspension
notification, % of respondents who have had social
payments suspended
Also the number of IDPs who were aware of reasons
behind the suspension of social payments increased
from 58% to 72% (Figure 3.14).
Figure 3.14. IDPs, who were aware of the reasons
behind suspension of social payments, % of
respondents who have had social payments suspended
Among the IDPs that faced suspension of social pay-
ments, the percentage of those familiar with the
procedure to renew the social payments grew con-
siderably since Round 4 (Figure 3.15).
Figure 3.15. IDPs, who were aware about the
procedure on how to renew the social payments,
% of respondents who have had social payments
suspended

Among the respondents of Round 6 who faced the
suspension of social payments, 89% addressed the
Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine on the issue (Fig-
ure 3.16) and payments were renewed for 72% of
those IDPs (Figure 3.17).
Figure 3.16. Distribution of IDPs addressing the
suspension issue to the social protection structural
unit on the renewal of social payments, % of
respondents who have had social payments
suspended
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
Figure 3.17. Distribution of IDPs who have had
social payments renewed, % of respondents who
have had social payments renewed
According to the focus group discussion results, the
suspension of social payments had extremely nega-
tive consequences for the well-being of certain IDPs,
as they lost their main source of income for a period
of two to six months (Source: Focus group discus-
sions with IDPs).
Loans and debt obligations
According to the survey carried out in September
2016, 9% of IDPs had loans or debt obligations. In
June 2017, only 5% of IDPs reported that they or
their household members had loans or debt obliga-
tions, which marks a decrease of 4% (Figure 3.18).
Figure 3.18. IDP households with loans or debts
by rounds, %
Round 4
(September 2016)
Round 6
(June 2017)
Had loans or debts 9 5
Did not had 90 95
No response 1 0
The respondents who reported having loans or debts
indicated that they used various sources. In particu-
lar, 91% of borrowers used bank funds, while 4%
went through specialized credit and financial institu-
tions (credit unions, companies financing instalment
sales), 4% borrowed from employers’ funds and 4%
from an individuals’ funds (friends, acquaintances,
etc.) (Figure 3.19).
Figure 3.19. Loan source, % of IDP households who
had loans or debt obligations
Key informants pointed out that although the IDPs
had the right to obtain loans, in practice the banks
often refused to work with them (Source: Focus
groups with key informants).

19June 2017
The IDPs generally showed a high level of satisfac-
tion with the accessibility of all basic social services,
primarily health care (88%), administrative services
(84%) and education services (84%). Seventy-nine
(79%) per cent of IDPs were satisfied with acces-
sibility of social protections (access to pensions or
social assistance). And employment opportunities
remained the category with the least satisfaction
(69%) (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1. IDP satisfaction with social services,
% of satisfied
According to the focus group discussions with IDPs,
the respondents were dissatisfied with the inacces-
sibility of medical infrastructure in rural areas. In vil-
lages where there are no pharmacies and it is nec-
essary to travel to another locality in order to buy
medicines. There are also issues connected with
emergency calls or ambulance rides such as, the
need to pay for petrol (Source: Focus group discus-
sions with IDPs).
Key informants observed that access to housing and
employment were complicated for IDPs, only 19% of
informants considered housing “fully accessible to
IDPs” and 41% reported employment as accessible.
All other areas – health care services, education,
social protection, social services – were considered
more accessible to IDPs (indicators higher than 70%)
(Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants).
The vast majority of IDPs (90%) feel safe at their cur-
rent place of residence (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2. IDPs assessment on the safety
of the environment and infrastructure
of the settlement, %
I feel safe 90
I feel unsafe in the evenings and in remote areas of
the settlement
8
I feel unsafe most of the time 1
Other 0
No response 1
4. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES

Displacement experience
Seventy-nine (79%) per cent of the interviewed IDPs
lived in their current place of residence for more
than 18 months (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1. How long have you been staying
in the current place of residence?, %
Till 6 months 6
7-12 months 11
13-18 months 4
19-24 months 13
25-30 months 28
More than 30 months 38
For most of the interviewed IDPs (76%), the current
place of residence was also the first location after
displacement (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2. Is this your first place of residence after
displacement?, %
The majority of focus group participants also report-
ed that they did not move to another settlement
after initial displacement. Some participants noted
that they changed their place of residence along
with the changes of the location of the organiza-
tion where they worked. As a criterion for choosing
a new place of residence, the focus groups partici-
pants often stated the presence of relatives in that
settlement (Source: Focus groups with IDPs).
The proportion of persons who changed their place
of residence after initial displacement significantly
increased the further they moved from the NGCA:
from 12% in the oblasts closest to NGCA to 27% in
oblasts farthest from NGCA (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3. Change in place of residence, %
27%
22%
21%
18%
12%
The main reasons for the relocation of IDPs from
their previous place of residence included housing
issues (49%) and high rent (27%), as well as the lack
of employment opportunities (34%) (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4. Reasons given for changing the previous
residence, % of those who changed residence
5. IDP MOBILITY

21June 2017
Key informants often mentioned family reunification
as an important reason IDPs moved (Source: Face-to-
face interviews with key informants).
The majority of respondents expect to return to their
places of residence where they were living prior to
their displacement, but they plan to do it after the
end of the conflict or in the distant future. Within the
last three rounds, the proportion of those planning
to return after the end of conflict grew from 33%
to 44%. The general intention to return (all types of
“yes” answers) was 62% of respondents. However,
a quarter of the respondents firmly expressed their
intention not to return, even after the end of the
conflict (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5. General IDP intentions
on returning to live in the place of residence
before displacement, %
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Yes, in the near future 2 1 0
Yes, after the end
of conflict
33 39 44
Yes, maybe in the future 18 17 18
No 27 26 25
Difficult to answer 16 17 13
No response 4 0 0
The proportion of those who abandoned plans to
return to their places of residence before the con-
flict started was higher among men than among
women. Also, the indicator of no intention to return
increased dramatically the further the IDP was from
the NGCA (Figure 5.6).
Figure 5.6. IDPs, who do not plan to return to live
in place of residence before displacement, %
51%
43%
43%
23%
18%
Over the next three months, most IDPs (77.1%) plan
to stay in their current place of residence. The plans
to move abroad were reported only by 0.4% of the
respondents (Figure 5.7).
Figure 5.7. Distribution of IDPs by plans
for the next three months, %
In general, the trend towards finding a job abroad
was low. Only 0.2% of IDPs have experience working
abroad in the past three years. About five per cent
(4.8%) of IDPs reported that their relatives (spous-
es, children, parents or other relatives) had worked
abroad (Figure 5.8).

Figure 5.8. Distribution of IDPs by experience
of work abroad during the last three years, %
Less than 2% of key informants reported that the IDPs
from their oblast had gone to other countries within
the past three months. At the same time, almost 30%
of key informants indicated that there were adver-
tised opportunities in their settlements to go abroad
(Source: Face-to-face interviews with key informants).
Poland, Canada and the USA were the most desir-
able countries for IDPs in terms of job searches (Fig-
ure 5.9). The attractiveness of the Russian Federation
as a potential country of employment for IDPs was
low, which was consistent with the general trend of
reduced intentions towards seeking employment in
the Russian Federation.
Figure 5.9. Distribution of IDPs by country they
would prefer to look for a job (top 10 countries), %
Poland 32
USA 19
Canada 11
Czech Republic 8
Italy 8
Belarus 3
The Russian Federation 2
Spain 2
Hungary 2
Portugal 1
According to the survey, only 3% of the IDPs were
offered refugee status abroad, and only 1% were
offered jobs abroad without official employment
(Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11).
Figure 5.10. Distribution of IDPs by offers to obtain
refugee status abroad, %
Figure 5.11. Distribution of IDPs by offers of a job
abroad without official employment, %
Visits to the former places
of residence
The proportion of IDPs reporting that they returned
to their place of residence in the conflict zone after
the first displacement was steadily increasing, to
about half (48%) in June 2017; a 6% increase in com-
parison with the previous round (Figure 5.12).
Figure 5.12. IDPs reporting having
visited NGCA, %

23June 2017
The main reasons to travel to the NGCA were visiting
and maintaining housing (63%), transportation of
belongings (52%) and visiting friends or family (49%).
Such reasons, as visiting friends or family, increased
from 35% (Round 5) to 49% (Round 6) (Figure 5.13).
Figure 5.13. Reasons for IDPs to visit NGCA after
displacement, % of respondents who are visiting NGCA
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Visiting and / or maintaining housing 68 63
Transportation of belongings 53 52
Visiting friends and/or family 35 49
Special occasions, such as weddings
or funerals
6 7
Research of return opportunities 6 4
Operations with property (sale, rent) 4 3
Other 2 1
For the IDPs that did not visit the NGCA after dis-
placement, the main reason for this was the percep-
tion that it was ‘life-threatening’ (Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.14. Reasons for IDPs not to visit NGCA
after displacement, % of respondents who are not
visiting NGCA
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Life-threatening 45 52
Because of the lack of financial
possibilities
16 14
Because of health reasons 14 14
Because of political reasons 13 9
No property remains and/or no
relatives or friends remain
10 7
Other 1 2
No response 1 2
The majority of IDPs (87%) said that they faced barri-
ers to visiting the NGCA, while 13% said that they did
not face any problem which is more than 1.5 times
less than in the previous round.
The most important barriers encountered were
queues at the check points along the contact line
(56%), availability of transportation (43%) and fear
for life that increased from 24% in September 2016
to 41% in June 2017 (Figure 5.15). Men reported
‘’fear for life” less frequently than women (33% ver-
sus 43% respectively).
Figure 5.15. Most important barriers to visits to
NGCA, % of respondents who visited NGCA after
displacement
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Queues on the contact line 58 77 56
Availability of
transportation
40 50 43
Fear for life 24 38 41
Health status 14 13 13
Problems with registration
crossing documents
17 8 10
Fear of robbery 4 7 5
Fear of violence 3 5 3
Other 4 2 2
The main sources of information for IDPs on the situa-
tion in the NGCA were television (68%), Internet (53%)
and information from their relatives or friends (47%)
who continued to reside in the NGCA (Figure 5.16).
Figure 5.16. Distribution of IDPs by source
of information on NGCA, %

Integration rates
The proportion of persons who felt integrated into
the local community was 68% (an increase of 12%)
and the proportion of IDPs that did not consider
themselves integrated into the host community de-
creased from 11% to 6% in June 2017 (Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1. IDPs’ self-assessment of their
integration in the local community, %
Round 5
(March 2017)
Round 6
(June 2017)
Yes 56 68
Partly 32 25
No 11 6
No response 1 1
By geography, the IDPs residing in the first geograph-
ic zone (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts – GCA) and the
fifth zone (Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv,
Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi oblasts)
felt the most integrated.
Also IDPs in large cities felt less integrated than in
towns or rural areas (Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.2. IDPs’ self-assessment of their
integration in the local community by type of
settlement, %
According to the survey, the majority of key infor-
mants positively assessed the integration of IDPs
into the life of the local communities: almost 45%
of the key informants noted that the IDPs residing
in their settlements were sufficiently integrated into
the host communities, while another 45% of the key
informants noted that the majority of IDPs were in-
tegrated to some extent. The indication that the IDPs
did not integrate into the community was reported
by only 4% of informants (Source: Face-to-face inter-
views with key informants).
The results of focus groups with key informants
showed that the integration of IDPs significantly de-
pended on the motivation and individual character-
istics of each person. The more active and sociable
persons, in particular children, easily integrated into
a new environment, whereas some IDPs could not
adapt because of their tendency towards introver-
sion (Source: Focus groups with key informants). The
results of focus group discussions with IDPs con-
firmed these findings.
The main conditions for successful integration were
housing, regular income and employment, both for
IDPs living in large cities and for those who live in
small towns and villages (Figure 6.3). Housing re-
mained the most important condition for the in-
tegration of IDPs into the local community at their
current place of residence (79%). The significance of
this factor increased for IDPs living in cities, and even
more so for those in rural areas. In March 2017, this
was an important condition for integration for 57%
of IDPs living in rural areas, whereas in June 2017 it
was important for 82%. Thus, the influence of this
factor on successful integration into the local com-
munity increased.
The FGD results also confirmed the vital importance
of housing availability and employment opportuni-
ties for the integration of IDPs into host communities
(Source: Focus group discussions with IDPs).
6. INTEGRATION IN LOCAL
COMMUNITIES

25June 2017
Figure 6.3. Conditions for IDP integration in the
current local community by type of settlement, %
In addition to the above integration conditions, key
informants considered proper social protections a
crucial factor. Overall, the priority factors contribut-
ing to the integration of IDPs into the host commu-
nities did not significantly change compared to the
previous round of the survey (Source: Face-to-face
interviews with key informants).
Discrimination experience
Discrimination based on IDP status was experienced
by 10% of respondents, which was much less than the
survey results for March 2017 (Figure 6.4). At the same
time, only 7% of the IDPs interviewed face-to-face af-
firmatively answered the question “Did you or your
household members experience any discrimination?”.
Figure 6.4. Distribution of IDPs by discrimination
experienced directly by respondents or by their
household members, by rounds, %
Round 4
(September
2016)
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
Yes 9 18 10
No 90 77 86
No response 1 5 4
The share of IDPs that experienced discrimination
(directly or by their household members) decreased
in this round to the level of September 2016. Thus,
the increase in the proportion of IDPs, which experi-
enced discrimination based on their status in March
2017 may be explained by the suspension of social
payments and, as a consequence, the difficulties
with the satisfaction of their basic needs, in partic-
ular housing. The share of respondents that faced
suspension of social payments, among those who
experienced discrimination in March 2017 is con-
siderably higher than in the totality, 45% compared
to 24%, respectively. Most of them faced payment
suspensions in 2016 (72%) and 2017 (20%) in con-
nection with personal data authentication and the
need to renew documents. The verification of actual
residence of IDPs was carried out not less than once
every six months and the aggravation in regards to
discrimination in March 2017 may be related to the
inspections of the places of residence of IDPs and
the following suspension of social payments11
.
The IDPs noted that cases of discrimination based on
their status mainly concerned housing (46%), em-
ployment (31%), healthcare (22%), and daily inter-
actions with the local population (19%) (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5. Spheres of discrimination, % of IDPs
who experienced discrimination
11 Resolution of the Government of Ukraine #365 of June 8,
2016 ‘Some issues of social payments to IDPs’ http://www.
kmu.gov.ua/control/uk/cardnpd?docid=249110200

The known cases of discrimination based on other
characteristics (not IDP status) in their settlements
were reported by 5% of key informants and most of
them referred to characteristics such as age, sexual
orientation, ethnic origin, as well as disability. The
cases of discrimination based on other characteris-
tics related mainly to social interactions (respect),
social protections, general education, employment
and everyday life (Source: Face-to-face interviews
key informants).
According to FGD results in Round 6, most persons
noted there was no discrimination, but there were
cases where the attitude towards IDPs was biased.
For example, they had limited access to social pro-
tection services compared to the local population
key informants).
Key informants (6%) reported on known cases of
tension between the IDPs and the host community
population and 2% noted tensions between the
IDPs and combatants who returned from the con-
flict zone. Such cases concerned renting housing,
employment and personal communication (Source:
Face-to-face interviews key informants).
The most effective channels for informing the public
about the existing issues facing the IDPs and at the
same time addressing the problems, according to
46% of interviewed IDPs, was communication with
local authorities and informing the media according
to 43% (Figure 6.6).
Figure 6.6. The best way for the voice of IDPs to
be heard to find appropriate solutions to existing
problems, %
However, key informants highlighted the media (38%)
and considered communication with local authorities
as the second most important channel (21%) (Source:
Face-to-face interviews with key informants).
During the FGDs, the IDPs and key informants dis-
cussed the need for more active informing of the
local and central authorities and their direct in-
volvement in addressing the issues faced by IDPs
key informants).
Electoral rights
According to the results of interviews with IDPs, only
4% of the respondents said that they voted at the
place of IDP registration during the local elections in
2015 (Figure 6.7). IDPs and key informants discussed
that the main reason why the IDPs failed to vote dur-
ing the local elections in 2015, was the lack of local
registration (residence registration) (Source: Focus
groups with IDPs and key informants).
Figure 6.7. Distribution of IDPs’ responses to
the question “Did you vote at the place of IDP
registration at the local elections in 2015?”, %
OutoftheIDPswhodidnotvoteduringthelocalelec-
tions in 2015, 98% still have not applied to change
their electoral address (Figure 6.8). Two years later
such a large share of IDPs has not changed their elec-
toral registration and if elections are held, they will
not be able to vote again.

27June 2017
Figure 6.8. Applied for change of electoral address,
% of those who did not vote
Out of those who did not apply for a change of lo-
cal electoral address and therefore did not vote, the
main reasons were lack of time (27%), lack of infor-
mation on how to vote at the place of displacement
(23%), unwillingness to participate in elections (19%)
and lack of information on where to apply for a tem-
porary electoral address (13%) (Figure 6.9).
Figure 6.9. Reasons for not applying for change
of electoral address, % of those who did not apply
for change of electoral address
I had no time 27
I did not know how to vote in displacement 23
I have never been interested in participating in elections 19
I wanted to but I did not know where to apply
to get a temporary electoral address
13
I do not feel part of the host community enough
to vote at local elections
7
I wanted to vote but did not manage to get
a temporary electoral address
4
Other 2
No response 5
Exercising their right to vote and the opportunity to
vote in elections was considered important by 45%
of IDPs, however 50% said that it was not important
for them (Figure 6.10).
Figure 6.10. Distribution of IDPs by importance of
the right to vote, %
It was repeatedly suggested that the lack of oppor-
tunities for IDPs to participate in elections was a dis-
crimination against their civil rights (Source: Focus
groups with IDPs; Focus groups with key informants).
According to IDPs, the main mechanisms aimed to
ensure the fulfilment of their right to vote in elec-
tions include the transfer of information about IDP
registration to the State Register of Voters (74%) and
the personal application of the person willing to vote
(22%) (Figure 6.11).
Figure 6.11. Appropriate mechanism to ensure
the implementation of the IDPs’ right to vote,
% of respondents for whom the right to vote is
important

When conducting the telephone survey, which in-
cluded 3,109 interviews in all oblasts of Ukraine, 391
respondents were identified as IDPs who returned to
the NGCA and currently live there.
The returnees most often indicated their former
place of residence in Kharkiv (27%), Donetsk (18%)
and Luhansk (10%) oblasts.
Women prevailed by number among surveyed re-
turnee households to the NGCA, reaching 58%.
About half of the returnees (44%) were older than
60 years of age (Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1. Gender and age distribution of
household members of surveyed returnees to the
NGCA, %
Source: Telephone interviews with IDPs, returned to the NGCA
The level of employment of IDPs that returned to the
NGCA was 24% (Figure 7.2). This is significantly low-
er than the level of employment in the GCA, at 46%.
Figure 7.2. Employment of returnees to the NGCA
after displacement, %
The returnees reported that they had problems with
finding a job in the NGCA, stating that mines were
closed (one of the largest industries before the con-
flict) and that a pre-condition for getting a job was
military registration. In these conditions, the rural
residents benefitted from work on private farms
(Source: Focus group with returnees).
Among the returnees to the NGCA, the proportion
of urban residents was 96% and 4% resided in rural
areas.
The level of well-being of returnees remained low.
Focus group participants noted that food prices in
the NGCA were higher than in the GCA, which exac-
erbated the issue of well-being (Source: Focus group
with returnees).
According to the respondents’ self-assessment,
nearly half of them claimed that they had enough
funds only for food or even had to limit expenses for
food. Only 35% of returnees had enough funds for
their basic needs (Figure 7.3).
Figure 7.3. Self-assessment
of the financial situation of households
of returnees to the NGCA, %
7. RETURNEES TO THE NON-
GOVERMENT-CONTROLLED AREAS

29June 2017
The monthly income of most households of return-
ees did not exceed 5,000 UAH (54%) (Figure 7.4).
Figure 7.4 Distribution of households of returnees
to the NGCA by monthly income, %
Up to UAH 1,500 16
UAH 1,500–3,000 19
UAH 3,001–5,000 19
UAH 5,001–7,000 6
UAH 7,001–11,000 1
Over UAH 11,000 0
Difficult to answer or no response 39
Average monthly income per individual returnee
was 1,595 UAH, and is much lower than the average
income of IDPs from the GCA (2,017 UAH)12
.
The main sources of income for IDPs that returned
to the NGCA were retirement pension (41%) and
salary (34%). The third main source, which was the
specific for the returnee category, was other retire-
ment pensions (16%), which included (according to
respondents) pensions paid by the self-proclaimed
Donetsk People’s Republic, by Luhansk People’s
Republic and/or by the Russian Federation. In ad-
dition, 13% of respondents noted social assistance
among the main sources of income. The monthly
IDP support from the Ukrainian Government was
received by about 1% (Figure 7.5).
For comparison purposes, the IDPs in the GCA re-
ferred to the government monthly IDP support (61%)
and salary (61%) as the most important sources of
income, while retirement pension and social assis-
tance were noted as the most important by 35% and
32%, respectively.
12 To compare IDP income levels from the GCA and the NGCA
is necessary to note that the NGCA data had significantly
higher percentage of those refusing to answer questions
about income.
Figure 7.5. Main sources of income in households
of surveyed returnees to the NGCA in the past
12 months, %
Ninety-seven (97%) per cent of the returnees lived
in their own apartments or houses (Figure 7.6). The
remaining 3% reported their houses were destroyed
or damaged as a result of the conflict and they there-
fore live with relatives/host family or rented a house.
In addition, the returned IDP focus group partici-
pants reported that in the NGCA, some returnees
continued to live in damaged houses (Source: Focus
groups with returnees).
Figure 7.6. Distribution of returnees to the NGCA
by accommodation type, %

Safety remained the main problem for IDPs that
returned to NGCA (33%). The issue of feeling safe
is more acute for the population aged 18-59 years
(41%) than for the population over 60 years old
(26%). In addition, compared with the previous
round (March 2017), the issue of social payment
suspensions and pensions became more acute – the
indicator rose from 6% to 17% (Figure 7.7).
Figure 7.7. The most problematic issues
for households of returnees to the NGCA, %
Round 5
(March 2017)
Round 6
(June 2017)
Safety 39 33
Suspension in social
payments/ pensions
6 17
Payment for utilities 11 11
Access to medicines 7 5
Living conditions 5 3
Unemployment 4 2
Access to health services 3 1
Malnutrition 2 1
Delays in payment of wages 2 1
Payment for rent 0 1
Other 0 1
None of the above 21 24
The satisfaction related to living conditions was high
for most of the parameters (electricity, living space,
water supply) being around 90%, with the exception
of safety where only 48% reported their satisfaction
(Figure 7.8).
In general, the focus group participants were satis-
fied with the prices for utility services, but some re-
spondents said that during last winter the heating
provided in the NGCA was not sufficient (Source: Fo-
cus groups with returnees).
Figure 7.8. Returnees’ satisfaction with living
conditions in the NGCA, % of satisfied
The IDPs that returned to the NGCA demonstrated
high levels of satisfaction with the availability of
health care (86%) and administrative (80%) services.
The satisfaction with the availability of social protec-
tion services, such as the opportunity to receive a
pension or other social assistance was lower (60%)
(Figure 7.9). The profile demonstrated by the IDPs
in the GCA was slightly different – satisfaction with
employment opportunities was lower than the pos-
sibilities to receive a pension or social assistance,
the ability to obtain education and the accessibility
of administrative services.
The focus group participants mentioned that they
had access only to basic medical services, while the
access to specialized services is problematic because
there are not enough specialists and the prices for
medicines in the NGCA are more prohibitive than in
the GCA (Source: Focus groups with returnees).
Figure 7.9. Returnees’ satisfaction with social
services, % of satisfied

31June 2017
The difference in the assessment of safety of the
IDPs in the GCA and the IDPs that returned to NGCA
is 59% (Figure 7.10).
Figure 7.10. Assessment on the safety
of the environment and infrastructure
of the settlement, %
GCA NGCA
I feel safe 90 31
I feel unsafe in the evenings and in remote
areas of the settlement
8 41
I feel unsafe most of the time 1 22
Other 0 1
No response 1 5
Source: GCA – interviews with IDPs (combined data),
NGCA – telephone interviews with IDPs returned to the NGCA
Most respondents in the NGCA (73%) identified that
the reason behind their return was that they own pri-
vate property in the NGCA and there is no need to
pay for rent. The second push factor was family rea-
sons, which became stronger in this round, compared
to the previous one in March 2017 (the indicator in-
creased from 36% to 45%). In addition, the share of
reasons such as the lack of employment opportunities
increased from 9% to 19% and the failure to socially
integrate increased from 9% to 18% (Figure 7.11).
Figure 7.11. Reasons for returning and living
in the NGCA, %
Round 5
(March
2017)
Round 6
(June
2017)
There is private property and we do not
have to pay rent
78 73
Family reasons 36 45
Lack of employment opportunities 9 19
Failure to social integrate to local
community at the previous place of
residence
9 18
Limited access to social services – health
care, education etc.
9 8
Suspension in social payments/ pensions 0 3
Other 11 5
No response 3 1
Out of the focus group participants however, the
main reasons behind their return were high costs of
rent in the GCA and problems finding employment.
Specifically they reported that the living conditions
in accommodation provided by authorities for IDPs
often did not meet the minimum standards and em-
ployment services offer vacancies only for low-paid
jobs (Source: Focus groups with returnees).
The subjective assessments of returnees’ satisfac-
tion with the decision to return to NGCA in the cur-
rent round were close to the assessments of the pre-
vious one where about half (52%) are satisfied with
their decision to return (in the previous round, it was
slightly lower – 49%). However, a significant number
(34%) of returnees refused to answer this question
or did not know how to respond (Figure 7.12).
Figure 7.12. Satisfaction with decision of returning
and living in the NGCA, %
The main factors of respondents’ satisfaction also
remained the same from the previous round: return
‘home’ (psychological factor) and no need to pay
for housing (economical factor). The availability of
jobs was also an important factor for the working-
age population (18-59 years) (Source: Telephone in-
terviews with IDPs returned to NGCA – open-ended
questions).
Seventy-three (73%) per cent of the returnees
plan to stay in the NGCA during the next three
months. Compared with the data of the previous
round (March 2017), the number of those wanting
to stay in the NGCA grew by 10%, while the share
of those wanting to return to the GCA declined by
8% (Figure 7.13).

Figure 7.13. Returnees’ to the NGCA plans
for the next three months, %
Round 5
(March 2017)
Round 6
(June 2017)
I plan to stay in the NGCA 63 73
I plan to move to the GCA 16 8
I plan to move abroad 1 1
Other 1 1
Difficult to answer 17 16
No response 2 1
More than half (54%) of the returnees stated that
they did not visit the areas under government con-
trol in order to receive support. Accordingly, those
who visited the GCA for support did not go very of-
ten, once a month or less (Figure 7.14). Compared
to the previous round, the number of persons not
visiting the GCA slightly increased from 48% to 54%.
Figure 7.14. Frequency of returnees travelling
from the NGCA to the areas under government
control for support, %
Round 5
(March 2017)
Round 6
(June 2017)
Once a week 1 0
2-3 times a month 3 1
Once a month 13 8
Once in two months 5 8
Once in three months 5 6
Less than once in three
months
11 12
I do not come to the areas
under government control
48 54
No response 14 11
Half of the respondents (50%) were not aware of the
trade blockade between Ukraine and the Donbas,
which began in February 2017 and 35% hesitated or
refused to answer. Only 15% said they were aware of
the blockade (Figure 7.15).
Figure 7.15. Awareness of the existence of a trade
blockade between Ukraine and Donbass,%
Most of the respondents (about 74%) believe that
theonsetoftheblockadeandrelatedeventschanged
nothing in their households’ situation, while some
respondents mentioned price increases as changes
(Source: Telephone interviews with IDPs returned to
NGCA – open-ended questions). This was also con-
firmed by the focus group participants.

33June 2017
8. ANNEXES
ANNEX 1. Methodology
ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into zones by distance from the NGCA of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls from telephone survey
ANNEX 4. Characteristics of IDP households (face-to-face and telephone data)
ANNEX 5. Additional results of interviews with IDPs (combined data)
ANNEX 6. Results of face-to-face interviews with key informants by zones

The survey methodology, developed within the
framework of the project, ensured data collection in
24 oblasts of Ukraine and Kyiv city, as well as, data
processing and analysis in terms of IDP location, their
movements or intentions to move, return intentions,
major social and economic issues, citizens’ perception
of the IDPs’ situation, IDPs integration into the local
communities, among other socioeconomic character-
istics of IDPs in Ukraine.
The NMS is performed by combining data obtained
from multiple sources, namely:
• Data from sample surveys of IDP households
via face-to-face and telephone interviews.
• Data from key informants interviewed in the
areas where IDPs reside via face-to-face in-
terviews.
• Data from focus groups discussions with key
informants, IDPs and returnees to the NGCA.
• Administrative data.
The sample size of IDP households in 205 randomly
selected territorial units selected for face-to-face in-
terviews totalled 1,025 IDP households (sample dis-
tribution by oblast is provided in Figure 1 and Figure
3. The sampling of territorial units was devised for all
oblasts of Ukraine and distributed in proportion to the
number of registered IDPs in each oblast. It should be
noted that about 42% of this round’s face-to face IDP
sample were surveyed in the previous round. The pur-
pose of preservation of IDP households in the sample
was to ensure a more accurate assessment of chang-
es in the indicators between adjacent rounds.
Included in each territorial unit selected for moni-
toring were, 5 IDP households and 2 key informants
(representatives of the local community, IDPs, local
authorities, as well as NGOs addressing the issues
faced by IDPs). The distribution of the number of
interviewed key informants by oblasts is presented
in Figure 2.
The sampling for the telephone survey was derived
from the IDP registration database maintained by the
Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine. Between April-
June 2017, 3,109 IDP households were interviewed
with this method in 24 oblasts of Ukraine. Out of
them, 391 interviews were conducted with return-
ees to the non-government controlled area. The dis-
tribution of the number of interviewed households by
oblasts is presented in Figure 4.
During the survey period there were 5 focus groups
with representatives from: IDP population (2 FGDs
in Dnipropetrovsk and Chernihiv Oblasts), key infor-
mants (2 FGDs in Lviv and Kherson Oblasts) and those
who had IDP status but returned to the non-govern-
ment controlled areas (1 FGD in Donetsk Oblast).
ANNEX 1. Methodology

35June 2017
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
Kyiv oblast (without Kyiv city) 6
Kirovohrad 4
Luhansk 24
Lviv 4
Mykolaiv 4
Odesa 5
Poltava 4
Rivne 4
Sumy 4
Ternopil 4
Kharkiv 14
Kherson 4
Khmelnytskyi 4
Cherkasy 4
Chernivtsi 4
Chernihiv 4
Kyiv city 12
Figure 2. Distribution of key informants
for face-to-face interviews by oblast
Oblast
Number of key
informants
Total 411
Vinnytsia 8
Volyn 8
Dnipropetrovsk 28
Donetsk 96
Zhytomyr 8
Zakarpattya 7
Zaporizhia 28
Ivano-Frankivsk 8
Kirovohrad 8
Luhansk 48
Lviv 8
Mykolaiv 8
Odesa 10
Poltava 8
Rivne 8
Sumy 8
Ternopil 8
Kharkiv 30
Kherson 8
Khmelnytskyi 8
Cherkasy 8
Chernivtsi 8
Chernihiv 8
Kyiv city 24

Figure 3. Distribution of IDP households
for face-to-face interviews by oblast
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
Khmelnytskyi 20
Cherkasy 20
Chernivtsi 20
Chernihiv 20
Kyiv city 60
for telephone interviews by oblast
Oblast Number
Total 3,109
Vinnytsia 59
Volyn 59
Dnipropetrovsk 202
Donetsk 780
Zhytomyr 59
Zakarpattya 59
Zaporizhia 204
Ivano-Frankivsk 59
Kirovohrad 59
Luhansk 404
Lviv 61
Mykolaiv 62
Odesa 74
Poltava 59
Rivne 59
Sumy 59
Ternopil 61
Kharkiv 158
Kherson 60
Khmelnytskyi 59
Cherkasy 63
Chernivtsi 59
Chernihiv 59
Kyiv city 182

37June 2017
ANNEX 2. Grouping of oblasts into geographic 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
Vinnytsia 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
Khmelnytskyi Oblast
Chernivtsi Oblast

ANNEX 3. Statistics of calls from telephone survey
Summary of calls
Total 7,305
Complete interviews (GCA) 2,718 37%
Complete interviews (NGCA) 391 5%
No answer/nobody picked up the phone 1,173 16%
No connection 1,228 17%
Out of service 711 10%
Not IDPs (the respondents told they
are not IDPs, not often – relatives were
registered as IDPs on this number)
204 3%
Refusal to take part in the survey 880 12%
No connection
Total 1,228
Vodafone 707 58%
Kyivstar 411 33%
lifecell 110 9%
Other 0 0%
Out of service
Total 711
Vodafone 460 65%
Kyivstar 149 21%
lifecell 92 13%
Other 10 1%

39June 2017
ANNEX 4. Characteristics of IDP households
(face-to-face and telephone data)
in Ukraine, by number of members, %
Number
of members
in the household
Face-to-face
interviews with
IDPs (weighted)
Telephone
interviews with
IDPs (unweighted)
1 18 36
2 27 35
3 31 17
4 and more 24 12
Figure 2. Distribution of households
with or without children, %
Face-to-face
interviews
with IDPs
(weighted)
Telephone
interviews
with IDPs
(unweighted)
Households with children 49 25
Households without
children
51 75
Figure 3. Gender distribution of IDP surveyed
household members, %
Face-to-face interviews
with IDPs (weighted)
Telephone interviews
with IDPs (unweighted)
Male 43 44
Female 57 56
Figure 4. Age distribution of IDP surveyed
household members, %
Face-to-face
interviews with IDPs
(weighted)
Telephone
interviews with IDPs
(unweighted)
0 – 4 y.o. 7 7
5 – 17 y.o. 20 9
18 – 34 y.o. 22 21
35 – 59 y.o. 34 31
60 + y.o. 17 32
Figure 5. Distribution of IDP households with
people with disabilities (I-III disability groups,
children with disabilities), %
Face-to-face
interviews
with IDPs
(weighted)
Telephone
interviews
with IDPs
(unweighted)
Households with disabilities 8 13
Households without
disabilities
92 87

ANNEX 5. Additional results of interviews with IDPs
(combined data)
Figure 1. Were you or members of your family
forced to work against your will, %
Figure 2. Were you or members
of your family forced to provide sexual services
against your will, %
involved in criminal activity against your will, %
forced to take part in military conflict against
your will, %

41June 2017
ANNEX 6. Results of face-to-face interviews
with key informants (KIs) by geographic zones
Figure 1. Most relevant issues for IDPs residing
in the key informants’ locality, %
Total
Zone1
Zone2
Zone3
Zone4
Zone5
Unemployment 69.8 68.2 78.8 73.2 63.4 61.6
Suspension
of salary
8.7 5.0 18.7 8.4 9.7 0.0
Suspension of
social payments/
pensions
33.2 35.4 29.4 28.3 31.3 41.2
Living conditions 69.3 68.7 65.4 73.9 73.0 86.7
Payment for
utilities
48.3 41.9 60.1 49.6 56.6 34.9
Payment for rent 45.5 35.3 62.9 29.0 63.2 50.2
Malnutrition 8.7 11.4 9.1 2.6 0.9 2.5
Safety 11.8 12.6 17.4 4.7 4.7 0.0
Access to
medicines
27.9 35.3 24.8 13.2 13.3 2.8
Access to
healthcare services
20.7 20.3 19.0 11.9 29.1 7.1
Access to
education
6.6 2.1 10.7 0.0 19.7 0.8
Self-employment 12.5 7.6 32.4 10.6 4.4 6.6
Payment for bank
loans
4.4 3.6 6.7 7.3 3.2 5.8
Lack of
opportunity to
return to the place
of permanent
residence
30.8 30.5 31.9 31.8 28.7 43.8
Exercising voting
rights
6.2 4.3 12.9 12.7 2.0 7.6
Interactions with
local population
3.0 2.1 1.4 8.0 5.6 14.4
Leisure 5.6 5.0 4.5 10.0 8.1 4.3
Other 8.0 3.6 18.0 10.2 9.2 12.3
None of the above 0.9 0.7 0.0 4.9 1.6 0.0
Figure 2. Did IDPs contact your organization
to resolve the above issues?, %
Total Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
Yes 72.6 59.6 88.5 89.2 90.1 93.2
No 27.4 40.4 11.5 10.8 9.9 6.8
Figure 3. Distribution of KIs’ responses to the
question “Are there any regional or state programs
of IDP support implemented in your locality?”, %
Zone Yes No
Total 36.9 63.1
Zone 1 29.6 70.4
Zone 2 36.6 63.4
Zone 3 48.3 51.7
Zone 4 57.7 42.3
Zone 5 57.6 42.4

question “In your opinion, what kind of support
do IDPs in your locality require the most?”, %Total
Zone1
Zone2
Zone3
Zone4
Zone5
Monetary Government
support
63.0 57.5 85.9 56.8 56.1 43.0
Monetary support from
other donors
32.5 20.8 76.3 15.6 21.6 19.9
Resolution of housing
issues
83.4 83.5 82.9 78.9 86.2 78.0
Getting new qualification
through additional training
31.8 28.1 55.2 15.3 20.7 14.2
Getting decent job 71.6 78.8 73.4 53.4 53.0 38.8
Business start-up support 27.8 23.7 53.7 19.4 12.0 10.8
Enrolment of children in
kindergartens and schools
17.1 11.0 35.7 5.4 19.1 3.2
Reissuance of
documentation
23.6 19.6 40.8 6.7 22.1 8.0
Support in the interaction
with local population
15.6 11.1 34.0 16.1 7.3 7.5
Psychological support 34.5 27.7 65.1 12.4 26.4 15.5
Medical care 22.4 16.8 37.1 14.8 27.0 6.1
Humanitarian assistance 31.7 33.0 42.0 21.1 18.9 10.3
Legal support 26.5 23.8 39.2 30.1 17.8 27.9
Other 1.2 0.9 0.6 3.7 1.6 3.7
Hard to say 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No answer 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0
question “What is your assessment of IDPs’ access
to the following sectors?”, % of respondents that
answered “Fully accessible”
Total
Zone1
Zone2
Zone3
Zone4
Zone5
Employment 49.2 52.1 40.9 40.8 54.8 31.7
Housing 43.5 52.3 38.3 18.5 29.8 20.0
Health care 75.1 75.9 72.0 74.1 75.5 84.3
Education 83.5 83.3 80.9 87.9 84.8 95.0
Social protection 75.4 73.8 72.6 81.4 80.9 91.7
Social services 75.5 76.9 70.4 73.6 77.6 80.5
Figure 6. Distribution of KIs’ responses
to the question “What is your assessment
of integration of the majority of IDPs’ into the local
community?”, %
Total
Zone1
Zone2
Zone3
Zone4
Zone5
Integrated 44.8 57.9 18.3 40.3 32.4 64.3
Non-integrated 4.4 5.2 3.3 7.0 2.3 5.7
Integrated to some
extent
44.7 29.7 70.5 45.8 65.3 30.1
No answer 6.1 7.2 7.8 6.9 0.0 0.0
question “Can you name THREE most important
factors contributing to IDPs’ integration?”, %
Total
Zone1
Zone2
Zone3
Zone4
Zone5
Employment
opportunities
88.9 91.0 94.5 85.4 76.3 78.0
Affordable housing 91.7 92.9 88.5 87.5 93.0 91.6
Education
opportunities
7.4 5.1 12.4 8.0 9.1 3.4
Enabling social
environment
14.6 12.7 19.0 18.2 11.7 33.3
Adequate social
protection
40.6 42.0 44.0 43.2 33.1 15.2
Quality medical
and psychological
care
23.4 22.5 22.9 6.4 34.0 9.1
Effective
community
support
13.2 10.4 13.6 23.4 15.0 51.8
Other 1.1 0.7 1.6 7.5 0.0 0.0
No answer 0.6 0.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 6.0

Social cohesion event for IDP and local children,
organized by IOM in Drohobych, Lviv Region, in June
2017, attracted over a hundred of participants
© Petro Zadorozhnyy/AP Images for ESN

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 REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS June 2017

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS June 2017

Similar to NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS June 2017 (20)

More from DonbassFullAccess

More from DonbassFullAccess (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEM REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS June 2017