IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 2021 - Danish ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
IDPs Integration
Criteria and Indicators
Results of the Consultation Meetings with IDPs,
their Host Vulnerable Communities, and Key
Stakeholders in Ukraine
2021
IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators Results of the Consultation Meetings with IDPs, their Host Vulnerable Communities, and Key Stakeholders in Ukraine
IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators. Results of the Consultation Meetings with IDPs, their Vulnerable Host Communities, and Key Stakeholders in Ukraine – Kyiv, Ukraine; Danish Refugee Council Ukraine, 2021. – 48 p. This report is produced for the project 'IDPs Integration Support Initiative in Ukraine' thanks to the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) within USAID Democratic Governance East Activity. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Danish Refugee Council (DRC) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. Photo Credits: Pages 9, 11, 13, 15, 27, 33 – © DRC, Oleksandr Ratushniak Page 35 – © Afina Haya For more information, please, contact Danish Refugee Council: 47 Volodymyrska Street, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01001 E-mail: drc.ukraine@drc.ngo
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Common definition of ‘integration’. Perceptions and expectations for integration
initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
‘Unpacking criteria’: operationalisation of the MRTOT’s criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Stakeholders’ needs in IDP-related data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Attitude to possible methodological approaches to data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Findings from Focus Group Discussions with IDPs and Their Vulnerable Host
Communities in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Definition of IDPs Integration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Problems and barriers of IDPs by criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Main discussion points on possible methodological approach to data collection for
measurement of IDPs integration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Recommendations on the Draft ‘Criteria for Assessment of the Integration of IDPs
into the Host Territorial Communities’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix 1: IDPs in Ukraine: Situation Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix 2: List of Key Informant Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix 3: List of Focus Group Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CATI computer-assisted telephone interviews
CSO civil society organisation
DG East Democratic Governance East Activity
DRC Danish Refugee Council
ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
FGD focus group discussion
GCA Government controlled areas
IDP internally displaced person
IOM International Organization for Migration
KI key informant
KII key informant interview
MoSP Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine
MRTOT Ministry for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories of
Ukraine
NGCA non-Government controlled areas
NRC Norwegian Refugee Council
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UAH Ukrainian Hryvnia
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
9
Acknowledgments
Danish Refugee Council would like to express its special appreciation and gratitude to
all the representatives of the state national, regional and local authorities, as well as oth-
er organisations, including UN agencies, international organisations and national civil
society organisations focused on IDPs issues, for their valuable contribution provided
for this report during the consultation meetings.
Special thanks are due to internally displaced persons and representatives of host
communities from Volnovakha, Sloviansk, Sievierodonetsk and Starobilsk, who took part
in focus group discussions and have being involved in testing the criteria and indicators.
Finally, the development of this report was not be possible without the thorough
consultations and guidance provided by Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS).11
Introduction
In 2017, the Government of Ukraine declared its in- drafted the ‘Criteria for assessment of IDPs integra-
tention to monitor the situation with internally dis- tion into the host territorial communities’. The doc-
placed persons (IDPs) on a regular basis. The IDPs ument outlined ten criteria for assessing IDPs inte-
Integration Strategy 2017–20201 and the Action Plan gration into the host territorial communities and
2018–20202 had the strategic objective to implement defined approaches to collecting, processing and
the annual monitoring of IDPs integration into host analysing the data. Despite the overall clarity of the
territorial communities and their needs (IDPs Inte- document, many questions and ambiguous points
gration Monitoring). However, the intentions to im- remain to be clarified regarding the measurability
plement the monitoring system have not been ma- of the defined criteria, specific indicators and data
terialised through the implementation of the IDPs sources that would inform criteria, as well as the
Integration Strategy 2020. The plans to launch the materialisation of the monitoring itself. Moreover,
IDPs Integration Monitoring have been reiterated in considering that the document was developed solely
the draft of the IDPs Integration Strategy 20233. by the MRTOT, the criteria and indicators ought to
have been consulted with all stakeholders, includ-
So far, IDPs’ needs and their integration into host ing state and non-state institutions, as well as IDPs
communities have been monitored by the interna- themselves and the representatives of their vulner-
tional organisations: the National Monitoring Sys- able host communities.
tem of the Situation with IDPs4 implemented by the
International Organization for Migration (IOM), The objective of this study was to capture and con-
and the Multi-Sector Needs Assessment5 imple- textualise the common definition of IDPs integra-
mented by REACH Initiative. However, the state au- tion and identify perceptions and expectations of
thorities do not collect any information about IDPs’ key stakeholders and ultimate beneficiaries for the
needs or integration on a regular basis. integration initiatives. The draft ‘Criteria for assess-
ment of IDPs integration into the host territorial
In 2020, following the responsibilities defined in the communities’ was used as a basis for the consulta-
Action Plan 2018–2020, the Ministry for Reintegra- tion meetings. In particular, the study helped op-
tion of Temporarily Occupied Territories (MRTOT) erationalize the criteria, define specific indicators
1
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 909-р-2017 ‘National Strategy of Integration of Internally Displaced Persons
and Implementation of Durable Solutions to Internal Displacement until 2020’ – URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/909-
2017-%D1%80#Text (in Ukrainian)
2
Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine №944-р-2018 ‘Action Plan for Implementation of the Strategy of Integration of
Internally Displaced Persons and Implementation of Durable Solutions to Internal Displacement until 2020’ – URL: https://
zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/944-2018-%D1%80#Text (in Ukrainian)
3
The draft of the National IDPs Integration Strategy 2021–2023 as of the end of October 2020 – URL: https://mtot.gov.ua/30102020-
minreintegraciii-povidomljae-pro-provedennja-elektronnih-konsultaci (in Ukrainian)
4
The National Monitoring System Reports on the Situation of IDPs in Ukraine: Round 1 – 17 / IOM (2016–2020) – URL: https://www.
iom.org.ua/en/periodicals (in English and Ukrainian)
5
REACH Resource Centre, Ukraine – URL: https://www.reachresourcecentre.info/country/ukraine/theme/multi-sector-
assessments/
1 2 3 4 512 Introduction
and discuss challenges and alternative approaches focused on IDPs issues, and twelve FGDs with IDPs
to data collection. Based on the result of the study, and representatives of their vulnerable host com-
recommendations were put forward in compliance munities in four locations of Donetsk (Sloviansk
with the IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for and Volnovakha) and Luhansk (Sievierodonetsk and
IDPs and other respective international documents6. Starobilsk) oblasts, were conducted in the period
from December 2020 through January 2021.
This report is a background paper outlining the key
findings from the thematic consultation meetings The report includes an executive summary, meth-
with the key stakeholders and the ultimate benefi- odology description, outline of the findings from
ciaries on IDPs integration criteria and indicators. the KIIs and FGDs, conclusions and recommenda-
Along with the desk research results on the best in- tions. Furthermore, the report provides recommen-
ternational practices of measuring IDPs integration7, dations on the methodological approach to data
the objective of this report is to inform the Concept collection and validation to assess the level of IDPs
Paper on IDPs integration criteria and indicators integration, including proposed indicators.
which will be produced to guide the implementation
of the state monitoring of IDPs integration into the The study was commissioned by Info Sapiens LLC
host territorial communities in Ukraine. for the project ʻIDPs Integration Support Initiative
in Ukraineʼ implemented by Danish Refugee
The consultation meetings were conducted in the Council (DRC) thanks to the generous support of
format of key informant interviews (KIIs) and fo- the American people through the United
cus group discussions (FGDs). Overall, thirty KIIs States Agency for International Development
with state and local authorities, United Nations (USAID) within USAID Democratic
(UN) Agencies and international organisations, as Governance East Activity. The contents of this
well as Ukrainian civil society organisations (CSOs) report are the sole responsibility of DRC and do not
necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United
States Government.
6
IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons – URL: https://www.unhcr.org/50f94cd49.pdf
7
Desk Research “Best International Practices on IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators” – Kyiv, Ukraine; Danish Refugee
Council – Danish Demining Group Ukraine, 2020. – 40 p.
613
Executive Summary
Access to housing remains one of the key prob- tion. It is noteworthy that IDPs were quite reluctant
lems for IDPs in Ukraine and, at the same time, to disclose information on their income during the
one of the most challenging criteria for opera- pilot of the questionnaire due to the sensitivity and
tionalisation. Consultation meetings with state and complexity of the questions on income. Therefore,
non-state stakeholders, IDPs and representatives only a subjective indicator, such as ‘the share of
of their host communities have confirmed that the IDPs’ households which lack money for food or have
current national, regional or local housing pro- money available for food only’, is suggested.
grammes cannot provide long-term housing for all
IDPs who lost it due to displacement. Furthermore, Among possible recommendations for data collec-
consultations with IDPs and host communities indi- tion, the key informants suggested introducing the
cated that IDPs’ needs in housing are subjective and IDP module to the Household Living Conditions
depend on many factors. These needs correspond to Survey of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. It
age, socio-economic conditions, and housing situa- would enable the monitoring system to collect in-
tion before and after the displacement of IDP house- formation based on more than fifty questions on
hold. Two main indicators (objective and subjective) IDPs’ income and expenditures and, subsequently,
were proposed to measure the access to housing compare the IDPs’ situation with that of the general
based on the consultation meetings. The objective population. If this recommendation lends itself to
indicator aims to assess the share of IDP households implementation, the above-mentioned subjective
by housing tenure types. The subjective indicator indicator has to be replaced by the objective ones
seeks to define the share of IDP households that do for income and expenditures measurement.
not perceive their situation with housing as secure
for the next twelve months. Unemployment is a less crucial problem for IDPs
than low salaries. However, IDPs still possess less
Access to regular income is linked to the housing social capital than the local population, a prereq-
situation, as the rent is a significant part of the un- uisite to find a job with a decent wage or find any
expected expenditure that IDPs incur due to the job at all. The education and work experience of
loss of private housing. The MRTOT suggested the IDPs do not always respond to market needs. The
criterion ‘Existence of a regular income of a work- key informants confirmed that employment and
ing-age person8. However, it is recommended that unemployment rates should be the main indicators
this criterion should be reformulated into ‘Existence of employment that need to be compared with the
of a regular income of household members which same indicators for the general population. Net
covers basic needs of household members’. Most salary is suggested as an additional indicator. How-
IDP households consist of more than one member; ever, the key informants and FGDs’ participants
therefore, there is a need to collect information on confirmed that it could be challenging to get hon-
the income of all household members. It is essential est responses on the informal wages (paid in cash).
for understanding the household’s financial situa- Therefore, the reliability of this indicator is uncer-
8
According to the Law of Ukraine ‘On Employment’, the working age persons are those who have reached the age of 16 who live
on the territory of Ukraine and are able to work actively due to their state of health.14 Executive Summary
tain. Furthermore, the key informants mentioned that the local population can take a worse attitude
that it would be helpful to reflect whether a person towards IDPs. Thus, the share of the IDP population
pursues their occupation or not. At the same time, facing negative attitudes because of their IDP status
the relevant data for the general population is not is suggested as the second major indicator.
available. Consequently, it is recommended mark-
ing this indicator as an additional one. The barriers to reunification with family members
in the non-Government controlled areas (NGCA)
Barriers to accessing education, medical care and and the need to support them can create addition-
administrative services are not crucial for most al barriers for IDPs integration when they have
IDPs but are still relevant for some of them. The to spend much time in NGCA or layout financial
key informants highlighted that some barriers arise resources to help family members in NGCA. The
due to displacement or registration as IDP, but not MRTOT suggested the criterion ‘Reunification of
due to other reasons common for the general pop- family members at a new place of residence’. Still, it
ulation. However, distinguishing between barriers is recommended that it should be revised into ‘Bar-
related to the IDP status and those, which are not, riers to reunification with relatives in the NGCA
could be challenging. Therefore, it is recommended and the needs for their support’. The key inform-
to ask open-ended questions about the existing bar- ants highlighted that availability of tools and legal
riers and then classify them in each case, whether mechanisms for reunification with family mem-
they are related to the problems that anyone might bers in NGCA is vital for IDPs integration. Thus, it
face or constitute solely an IDP status-induced prob- is suggested to measure the share of IDP households
lem. Separate indicators for all levels of education which indicated the objective barriers to the desired
and healthcare were elaborated. family reunification in the Government controlled
area (GCA). Furthermore, it is recommended meas-
Barriers to receiving pensions and social secu- uring the necessity to support family members with
rity payments are also not crucial for most IDPs, the second key indicator: ‘Share of IDP households
but in certain circumstances, IDPs cannot collect in need of supporting family members in NGCA fi-
necessary documents due to displacement. The nancially and/or travelling to NGCA to support fam-
key informants advised distinguishing between the ily members’. IDPs will be able to specify the barri-
barriers that appear at the stage of pension or social ers to reunification and support in the open-ended
payments assignment and regular provision of pen- questions.
sions (timely delivery via the bank branch or else).
Similarly to previous indicators, it is recommended As for the survey implementation, the key inform-
to ask open-ended questions about the existing barri- ants and IDPs had several concerns regarding the
ers and then classify them in each case, whether they data collection via the Unified Information Da-
are related to the problems that anyone might face or tabase on IDPs during the registration of IDPs or
constitute solely an IDP status-induced problem. while having this information updated by the So-
cial Protection Departments at the local level. It
Belonging to permanent social groups of a host could pose a challenge in view of the IDPs’ distrust of
territorial community is a subjective feeling that state authorities, lack of experience in surveys’ im-
depends on the IDP integration level. The key in- plementation among the staff of the Social Protection
formants confirmed that the only possible bench- Departments at the local level, and lack of financial
mark for this feeling is a sense of belonging to the and institutional resources for the respective survey.
territorial community before displacement. There- There are two recommended options for the survey
fore, an indicator based on the comparison between implementation: 1) to contract an independent re-
the subjective senses of belonging to the host and search agency; 2) to add an IDP module to the House-
previous communities was suggested as the major hold Living Conditions Survey of the State Statistics
one. Moreover, the key informants advised collect- Service of Ukraine. Most IDPs and key informants
ing information about the reasons behind the dis- support both options. The detailed recommenda-
tant feeling through additional open-ended ques- tions for data collection were prepared and outlined
tions. One of the possible reasons lies in the fact in a separate section detailed below.15
Methodology
First, the ‘Criteria for assessment of IDPs integra- In total, thirty KIIs were conducted between De-
tion into host territorial communities’ drafted by cember 2020 and January 2021:
the MRTOT in 2020 were reviewed to develop the
methodology and tools of this study. The criteria ▶ state national authorities (9 KIs);
were then operationalised into the draft list of indi- ▶ local authorities, including representatives
cators for each criterion which had been discussed of Social Protection Departments at the local
and tested during the consultation meetings with level, employment centres, local councils
the KIs and FGD’s participants. The recommen- (4 KIs);
dations on the ‘Criteria for assessment of IDPs in- ▶ UN Agencies and International Organisa-
tegration into host territorial communities’ were tions (10 KIs);
produced based on the findings of the consultation ▶ Ukrainian CSOs focused on IDPs (7 KIs).
meetings.
The list of participant institutions in KIIs is provid-
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) ed in Appendix 2. The KIIs were conducted online
or via the telephone.
The representatives of national, regional and local
state institutions, UN Agencies, as well as interna- Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
tional and national CSOs were consulted to:
Twelve FGDs with IDPs and representatives of their
▶ discuss and revise the definition of ‘local vulnerable host communities in Donetsk and Lu-
integration of IDPs’ and criteria listed in hansk oblasts took place to:
‘Criteria for assessment of IDPs integration
into host territorial communities’ drafted by ▶ probe the definition of IDPs integration;
the MRTOT; ▶ identify problems and barriers which IDPs
▶ identify challenges of IDPs and solutions to might encounter in different areas of their
local integration; life due to their displacement;
▶ unpack criteria drafted by the MRTOT (to ▶ identify IDPs’ attitude and expectations for
inform the operationalisation of Criteria); government/local authorities’ initiatives in
▶ identify stakeholders’ needs in IDP-related support of IDPs;
data (to inform which data would be most ▶ collect opinions on possible approaches to
essential for stakeholders); data collection for measurement of IDPs
▶ collect expert opinions on the approach to integration and test the questionnaire for
data collection and analysis (to inform which IDP survey.
approach could be used and what challenges
could be anticipated). The FGDs took place from 11 through 20 December
2020 in four vulnerable host communities in Donetsk
All KIs received the draft list of the indicators be- (Volnovakha and Sloviansk) and Luhansk (Sieviero-
fore the interview, which laid the groundwork for donetsk and Starobilsk) oblasts, which were selected
discussion during the KII. from 15 communities where DG East operated. The16 Methodology
selection of the vulnerable communities was based The main challenge while recruiting KIs was relat-
on the highest concentration of IDPs to contrast ed to the timing of the study implementation. De-
big and small size communities in each of the two cember is the busiest period of the year for most or-
oblasts. The higher concentration of IDPs leads to an ganisations, with some key informants refusing to
increased load on the infrastructure (housing, jobs, participate in the survey or rescheduling interviews
educational institutions, transport, service institu- for January because of business issues.
tions), which causes more problems within the inte-
gration process – for example, it may create more dif- The recruitment of FGD participants among IDPs
ficulties in finding affordable housing, a decent job or, was challenging in various ways. Specifically, IDPs
lead to a worse attitude on the part of the locals, etc. were concerned about disclosing their identity (due
to the video-based interviewing during the FGD).
The composition of eight FGDs with IDPs was as fol- They also harboured doubts as to whether the study
lows: would be useful and bring practical results. Spe-
cific difficulties arose with the search for self-em-
▶ four FGDs in Donetsk oblast (Volnovakha ployed IDPs who then refused to participate in the
and Sloviansk); study due to the lack of time. Also, there were issues
▶ four FGDs in Luhansk oblast (Sieviero- searching for male IDPs aged over 40.
donetsk and Starobilsk).
The technical challenges were related to the Inter-
Each FGD included IDPs of both genders in various net access necessary for the entire duration of the
areas and statuses of employment. Four FGDs were FGDs and poor coverage of the mobile Internet in
conducted with IDPs aged between 20–40 and four small settlements (Volnovakha and Starobilsk). In
FGDs with IDPs aged over 40. addition, the participants were in need of smart-
phone/tablet/laptop to be able to use Zoom platform
In addition, Info Sapiens conducted four FGDs with (and some older participants required their younger
the representatives of the selected vulnerable host relatives’ assistance with Zoom platform).
communities, who were connected with IDPs (e.g.,
friends or relatives of IDPs, employers or colleagues Recruitment of FGD participants ran smoother
of IDPs, teachers of children of IDPs, activists or vol- in bigger cities (Sloviansk, Sievierodonetsk) than
unteers who work with IDPs, etc.). in smaller settlements. The highest number of
refusals during recruitment was observed in Vol-
The FGDs lasted approximately 90–120 minutes novakha, where many potential participants ex-
and were attended by five to seven participants. All plained unwillingness to participate in FGD due to
FGDs were conducted online due to the COVID-19 observed nepotism in the town and, subsequently,
related restrictions and quarantine measures. poor prospects of the improvement of the situa-
tion of IDPs. In addition, this town is located close
The list of FGDs is provided in Appendix 3. to the line of contact, and many potential partic-
ipants were afraid of disclosing personal data.
Data Collection Challenges and Study Moreover, they assumed that their participation
Limitations in the study could potentially generate tensions
with the local authorities (as was also the case
Several challenges were encountered throughout with both IDPs and the representatives of the host
the data collection process. communities).17
Findings from the Key Informant
Interviews
with State and Non-State Actors
Common definition of ‘integration’. Perceptions and
expectations for integration initiatives
The discussion with key informants began with has no stigma related issues. Moreover, there is
consideration of the main challenges faced by IDPs. another prominent issue connected to the general
It was necessary to acquire a deeper understanding inclusion of IDPs into the host communities – the
of the problems faced by Ukrainian IDPs on their access to policy tools on the local level (including
way to integration, as well as discuss the conceptu- political participation), the inclusion of IDPs into
alisation of the integration process, which made it the registers of territorial communities, and their
possible to shed light on perceptions and expecta- involvement in the public and cultural life of host-
tions for integration initiatives. ing communities.
Most key informants agree with the proposed defi- In any case, housing and employment are still
nition of integration: ‘IDPs can be considered in- considered as the main problematic areas by
tegrated as soon as they no longer have any spe- the absolute majority of the KIs. As of now, there
cific assistance or protection needs related to the are no effective and sustainable solutions to the
displacement in their hosting communities’. How- above-mentioned issues. There are no clear strate-
ever, some perceive the definition as incomplete, gies in place, and consequently, funds are distrib-
stating that it omits the comparison with the local uted and spent inefficiently. However, some of the
population. It is important to consider IDPs as ‘in- KIs mention steps having been taken by the gov-
tegrated’ not only if they do not need specific as- ernment towards better integration of IDPs in var-
sistance but also if the difference between them ious areas. For example, a simplified system of uni-
and the local population in terms of possibilities of versity admission in terms of education and some
involvement in the community life and basic civil housing solutions were mentioned and perceived as
rights is absent and their rights, which had been quite successful.
violated before the displacement, were restored.
Some of the informants consider that an integrat- However, most of the existing integration initiatives
ed IDP is provided with housing, employment, and are perceived as unstable and insufficient. Some
regular income. Apart from that, the important as- positive initiatives do not receive sufficient financ-
pect of successful IDP integration is that the IDP ing and, as a result, become unsustainable. One of18 Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors
the examples is a state program ‘Affordable Hous- ducing the approved budget allocations. As a result,
ing’9 launched in 2017, which has nevertheless not the lending program did not receive any funding for
received funding for 2021: 2020.
‘For example, the first provision of housing under ‘In the first year [note – 2019], 200 million were
the programme ‘Affordable Housing’ took place in received from the state budget. In the current year,
2017, when 65 families received housing… In 2018, no funding has been allocated from the general fund
171 families [received housing]. There was quite a of the state budget. We operate only with special
significant growth, which showed the strengthen- funds. And that is, those IDPs who are in a queue,
ing of the state policy in this matter in 2019 when even within the first hundred, they are not sure,
655 families were provided with housing. In 2020, cannot be sure that in the near future their housing
no family was provided [with housing under this issue will be resolved.’ (State national authorities’
programme], and in 2021 the funding has not been representative)
provided at all10.‘ (UN Agencies and International
Organisations representative) Overall, the KIs agree that the state should make
more efforts towards solving the problems of IDPs.
Another example is the program ‘Lending program Undoubtedly, the main problem for IDPs remains
for IDPs and participants of ATO/JFO’11 launched in housing and employment – it is expected that most
2019 with 200 million Ukrainian Hryvnia (UAH) of of the integration initiatives will be implemented
financing from the state budget. As stated by one to this end. However, some barriers still exist in
of the state authorities’ representatives, funding of other areas. It is therefore worth monitoring all of
these programs is not covered by protected budget the proposed criteria and searching for appropriate
expenditures and, accordingly, the amount of ex- and effective decisions based on the information
penditure on these programs may vary when re- obtained through such monitoring.
‘Unpacking criteria’: operationalisation of the MRTOT’s criteria
The next stage of the discussion within KIIs was ded- Majority of the KIs agreed to the list of the crite-
icated to unpacking criteria. The draft table with cri- ria developed by the MRTOT. Most of the KIs’ con-
teria operationalisation was presented to the KIs who cerns and comments referred to indicators. As for
were then asked to share their expert opinion on the the data disaggregation, the KIs stated that adding
criteria themselves and the proposed indicators. This different categories for the analysis would be very
helped to revise the criteria and indicators which are helpful – especially in terms of smaller administra-
presented more specifically in this chapter. tive units (amalgamated territorial communities).
9
‘Affordable Housing’ is a programme that is implemented by the State Fund for Youth Housing. The program was renewed in
2017 and under the updated conditions, IDPs were entitled to state support, which included the state covering 50% of the cost
(purchase of affordable housing and / or preferential mortgage for citizens covered by the Law of Ukraine ‘On ensuring the
rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons’).
10
Based on the statistics of Indicators of implementation of the State socio-economic programme ‘Affordable Housing’ (State
Fund for Youth Housing) the amount of housing provided is somewhat different from that mentioned by the KI, but the general
trend is correct: 2017 – 111 apartments were provided, 2018 – 263 apartments, 2019 – 974 apartments, 2020 – 95 apartments. URL:
https://www.molod-kredit.gov.ua/zhytlovi-prohramy/dostupne-zhytlo/statystyka (in Ukrainian)
11
‘Provision of preferential long-term state credit to internally displaced persons, participants in the anti-terrorist operation and
/ or participants in the Joint Forces operation to purchase housing’ is a program which is being implemented by ‘State Fund
for Youth Housing’. The loan under this program is provided for up to 20 years, and the interest rate is 3% per annum. The
amount of funding for the program in 2019 was UAH 200 million. URL: https://mva.gov.ua/ua/news/uryad-zatverdiv-poryadok-
nadannya-derzhavnogo-pilgovogo-kreditu-na-pridbannya-zhitla-vpo-ta-uchasnikami-atooos (in Ukrainian)
10 11IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 19
In addition, several key informants stated that spe- However, as one of the key informants noted, the is-
cial attention should be paid to people with disabili- sue of legal protection is not specific solely to IDPs.
ties – this category is vulnerable and the integration It applies to the entire population of Ukraine, as the
process for them could be more difficult. Another level of formal agreements between tenants and
idea regarding disaggregation is about paying atten- landlords is quite low among all categories of the
tion to households with elderly people. It should be Ukrainian population12.
noted that the possibility to include various catego-
ries for analysis largely depends on the survey de- ‘It is worth differentiating (this indicator) – for
sign, including sample size, length of the interview example, the share of IDPs who own housing, the
and other methodological aspects. share of IDPs who rent housing and the share of
IDPs who have some documents confirming prop-
The detailed summary, comments on the criteria erty rights or rights to use real estate. And this
themselves and proposed indicators are detailed will give a real picture of whether their situation
below. is stable or not.’ (UN Agencies and International
Organisations representative)
1. Existence of permanent or temporary housing
‘Security issue is not just specific for IDPs, it is actu-
The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at ally general for Ukraine, as the level of conclusion of
the interviews included the following indicators on formal agreements between tenants and landlords
the access to housing: in Ukraine is quite low.’ (UN Agencies and Interna-
tional Organisations)
1.1. Secure perception of household situation for
next 3 (6 or 12) months. The indicator of permanent housing considers the
1.2. Availability of basic living conditions right to property of the respondent or their family
(heating, sewerage, bath or shower, water members, whereas other types of housing are con-
supply). sidered to be temporary. At the same time, it is not
1.3. Living square per household member. recommended that the indicator for ‘contract of
rent’ should be included, since it is a sensitive ques-
Most of the KIs agreed to the indicators ‘(1.2) Avail- tion. However, it is recommended adding the indi-
ability of basic living conditions’ and ‘(1.3) Living cator ‘Share of IDP households which pay rent, and
square per household member’. However, ‘(1.1) Se- the average size of the rent’.
cure perception of household situation for next 3 (6
or 12) months’ is more problematic, as for several There is a consensus among the KIs that the min-
KIs, this indicator is too subjective as it is based on imum term which denotes a secure situation for a
the personal perception of the individual, which household starts from at least 6 months, albeit a
may differ from one person to another. Based on more reliable indicator is 12 months. It is better to
the KIs’ opinion, it is especially important to oper- have this indicator linked to the frequency of the
ationalise this indicator in a more concrete way, so survey, which makes it easier to monitor the dy-
there will be specific indicators by which it will be namics. However, there is still a risk that it would be
possible to state whether the situation with housing difficult for some respondents to assess a 12-month
in this household is secure. Thus, experts advised time horizon, as not all people are able to make any
to ask IDPs about type of accommodation they live predictions over such a lengthy period.
in (own housing, rent with formal agreement, rent
without formal agreement, housing provided by the Moreover, some of the KIs advised extending this
government, etc.) and request them to assess the criterion with several other indicators. One of the
risks of being evicted from their current housing at ideas was to add the share of those who participated
some point in the future. in the state program ‘Affordable Housing’. In addi-
tion, it was recommended measuring the proportion
According to some KIs, legal aspects of permanent of those who would participate in this program in
or temporary housing are particularly important. the future. These questions were not added because
12
Government portal (Урядовий портал). Hennadiy Zubko: We are drafting a bill that will set the rules in the field of rental
housing. URL: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/gennadij-zubko-gotuyemo-zakon-yakij-viznachit-pravila-u-sferi-orendnogo-
zhitla. (in Ukrainian)
1220 Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors
the housing within ‘Affordable Housing’ program re- advised to monitor household expenditures and in-
mains temporary for IDPs unless they pay the mort- comes, determine what their incomes consist of, and
gage and become owners. All IDPs with the mortgage only then assess the average. The latter should be
would estimate whether they perceive the situation compared with the average of the local population in
with housing as secure for the next 12 months. this region. Apart from that, it would be beneficial to
monitor the poverty rate among IDPs and compare it
2. Existence of a regular income of a working age with that of the local population as well.
person
The questions about sources of income were tested
The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at during the FGDs, and it turned out that IDPs were
the interviews included the following indicators on quite reluctant to answer the numerous questions
IDPs income: about income (which were taken from Household
Living Conditions Survey of the State Statistics Ser-
2.1. Average household income per household vice in order to compare IDP income and expendi-
member (with the exclusion of the amount tures with those of the general population).
of rent).
2.2. Expected household income per household Therefore, it is still recommended that a subjective
member (with the exclusion of the amount evaluation of the financial situation of the house-
of rent) in the next month. hold should be asked for (see Table 1 in the Recom-
2.3. IDP population who cannot predict any mendations chapter).
income in the next month.
However, it is assumed that if the IDP module is in-
Most of the KIs perceive this criterion and indica- cluded in the Household Living Conditions Survey
tors as important, but it is considered that it would of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, it would
be difficult to verify the data regarding incomes and enable to list more than 50 questions regarding
expenditures. It is expected that many people will household income and expenditures.
not be ready to answer the questions related to fi-
nancial matters openly. Despite this fact, most of 3. Employment of a working age person on a
the KIs declare the necessity to measure this crite- permanent basis
rion in any case, stating that it should be analysed
precisely with the indicators of the third criterion The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at
(3. Employment of a working-age person on a per- the interviews included the following indicators on
manent basis). Income assessment conducted sep- IDPs employment:
arately makes sense for comparison and identifica-
tion of IDPs with high/low level of income. Besides, 3.1. Employment rate.
it is important to define sources of incomes, which 3.2. Unemployment rate.
would help to develop appropriate local programs. 3.3. Unemployed IDP population by duration of
For instance, if a certain administrative unit has job search.
a high percentage of IDPs who rely exclusively on 3.4. Salary and expected salary in the next
pensions and social payments, then it would be ob- month.
vious that less emphasis should be laid on the pro-
motion of employment programs among IDPs in Key informants mostly positively evaluate the first
this location. Thus, key informants supported the two indicators (‘3.1. Employment rate’ and ‘3.2. Un-
suggestion to expand the criterion for the general employment rate’) of this criterion, at the same time
population (see Recommendation chapter). questioning the following two indicators (‘3.3. Un-
employed IDP population by duration of job search’
Furthermore, some informants expressed their opin- and ‘3.4. Salary and expected salary in the next
ion that it would not be necessary to measure any ad- month’). In terms of salary, it is difficult to obtain
ditional indicators. However, they consider it useful honest responses regarding informal salary (paid in
to integrate this criterion into the existing method- cash), thus, the reliability of the indicator remains
ology of the Household Living Conditions Survey of uncertain (the same remark goes for the indicators
the State Statistics Service. In that case, it would be from the previous criterion).
simpler to compare IDPs with the general population
not only in terms of regular income but also in oth- In addition, the KIs mentioned that it would be help-
er aspects. More specifically, several key informants ful to reflect whether a person pursues their profes-IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 21
sion. This may be explained by the fact that some As a result, it is recommended to ask an open ques-
professions, which are in demand on the territories tion about barriers as this would give an opportu-
of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, are less in demand nity to analyse the link between the barrier and
in other Ukrainian regions. This means that the the IDP status in each specific case. Moreover, the
inclusion of such question can help to determine open-ended question can be coded afterwards,
the relevance of retraining programs among IDPs. which would enable to split the nature of barriers
There is no official data for a benchmark indicator into categories. Besides, the indicators are divided
of the share of the population which pursue their by level of education as different barriers can be en-
profession. Therefore, it is suggested that a corre- countered depending on whether the IDP is receiv-
spondent indicator should not be added. Instead, ing preschool, school, vocational or higher educa-
an open question on the reasons for unemployment tion (see Table 1 in Recommendations chapter).
is to be included. (The lack of vacancies for certain
professions would be among the possible reasons). 5. No barriers to accessing administrative services
Based on the KIs’ opinion, it is suggested that ‘3.1. The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at
Employment rate’ and ‘3.2. Unemployment rate’ the interviews included the following indicator on
should be kept as the main indicators and that other IDPs barriers to administrative services:
indicators should be considered as additional ones.
5.1. Share of the IDPs who faced barriers due to
4. No barriers to accessing education their IDP status among those who require
administrative services.
The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at
the interviews included the following indicator on Like the previous indicator, it is important to under-
IDPs barriers to education: stand that the reason for certain barriers lies in the
IDP status, and not in anything else. It was advised
4.1. Share of the IDPs who faced barriers due to to conduct the analysis based on the types of admin-
their IDP status among those who require istrative services and ensure that IDPs are asked
educational services (by educational stages). whether they had had any experience accessing
these services. List of administrative services could
The KIs mentioned that in terms of this indicator be elaborated in advance based on the preliminary
(and some of the following) it is crucially important analysis of areas where barriers may arise and be
to understand that certain barriers arise precisely related specifically to the IDP status.
because of the IDP status and not in view of any oth-
er reasons. Many of the KIs expressed the opinion Besides, it was advised by one of the key inform-
that IDPs are not currently experiencing any prob- ants to add yet another indicator – the share of IDPs
lems with access to education (nor are there any who cannot receive administrative services due to
major problems with the access to administrative the inability to pay for this service. This indicator
and health services). Hence, to put it more precise- could be compared with those based on the surveys
ly, several KIs advised splitting the barriers into of non-IDPs (all-Ukrainian population).
groups as this would help to understand the nature
of the barrier (e.g., regulatory restrictions or barri- ‘There are administrative barriers, namely a person
ers created by the hosting community) and define cannot get a document or something due to their IDP
whether this particular barrier is connected to the status. And there is another thing, when a person
IDP status. seems to be able to obtain everything they need, but
in fact they cannot pay the court fee, because it con-
‘Well, I would try to divide the lack of barriers to ed- stitutes half of their monthly income.’ (UN Agencies
ucation into two factors: the first factor implies that and International Organisations representative)
such barriers are illegal requirements, e.g. demands
of documents, IDP certificates, and it is needed to Therefore, it is proposed to use a similar approach
count the number of people who have encountered as with the previous indicator. Open questions
them. And the second point will be the increase in about barriers will be asked and each case will be
the number of people who enrol [at the education- coded (see Table 1 in Recommendations chapter). It
al facility] every year, which shows the absence of is recommended not adding an indicator ‘share of
barriers.’ (UN Agencies and International Organi- IDPs who cannot receive administrative services
sations representative) due to the inability to pay for this service’ as it could22 Findings from the Key Informant Interviews with State and Non-State Actors
not be clearly interpreted as being related to the IDP pension provision was stable (not only available),
status. For example, other population groups also which means that there are barriers neither at the
lack money for administrative services. In any case, stage of pension registration nor during further
the financial status of IDPs will be compared with provision by the state. In terms of these indicators,
the financial status of the population in general and it is important to understand whether the pension is
the existence of such a barrier will be possible to fix paid in full and whether all the debts are repaid by
in the answers to an open question. the state (if any). Like the previous indicators, it is
important to determine whether problems are relat-
6. No barriers to accessing medical care ed to the IDP status.
The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at Subsequently, it is recommended to use an open-end-
the interviews included the following indicator on ed question to obtain the necessary data for this cri-
IDPs barriers to accessing medical care: terion. Based on the answers of one of the KIs, corre-
spondent indicators were worked out, which allows
6.1. Share of the IDPs who faced barriers due to differentiating barriers that are faced during the
their IDP status among those who require process of drawing up documents for a pension from
healthcare services. those that arise during the process of receiving one
(see Table 1 in the Recommendations chapter).
Feedback from the KIs on this criterion was simi-
lar to that obtained from the previous two criteria. 8. Availability of social protection for a person at
The key informants stated that there was a need to the new place of residence (stay)
understand what are the reasons for barriers in ac-
cessing medical care. The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at
the interviews included the following indicator of
Several KIs expressly mentioned programmes of so- the social protection availability:
cial and psychological adaptation in regards to this
criterion. They stated the need to assess whether 8.1. IDP population which faced barriers due to
IDPs have access to them, as this can influence their their IDPs status to receiving social security
integration. However, there is no official data on the benefits among those who have applied.
share of population who need or have access to the
programmes of social and psychological adaptation As mentioned by the KIs it is important to provide
for the benchmark indicator, which is why such in- respondents with a clear understanding of what is
dicator was not added. Besides, in terms of analy- meant by ‘social security benefits’. There is a pos-
sis, the KIs advised checking whether the IDP has sibility that most respondents would focus on ad-
signed declaration with a family doctor. ministrative social payments and not on social ser-
vices. There were no other significant comments
Respectively, like the previous indicator, an open regarding this criterion, except for ensuring that
question about barriers would be asked, and each the barriers relate to the IDP status. Thus, it is sug-
case would be interpreted as to whether such a bar- gested that a unified approach should be used, and
rier was faced with because of the IDP status (see an open-ended question should be asked regarding
Table 1 in the Recommendations chapter). the barriers to accessing social security.
7. Availability of pension provision for the person 9. Belonging to permanent social groups of the
at the new place of residence (stay) host territorial community (including reli-
gious, national minorities)
The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at
the interviews included the following indicator on The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at
the pension provision availability: the interviews included the following indicators of
the sense of belonging to permanent social groups
7.1. IDP population which faced barriers to re- of the host territorial community:
ceiving pension due to their IDP status among
those who have reached retirement age. 9.1. IDP population feeling distant from the
community.
One of the informants advised making the indica- 9.2. IDP population feeling a bad attitude in view
tor more detailed and operationalising whether the of their IDP status.IDPs Integration Criteria and Indicators 23
There is no one-way agreement on the indicators of The KIs mentioned another need for disaggregation.
the above-mentioned criterion among the KIs; how- It would be beneficial to check whether the feeling
ever, most of the KIs consider it important to mon- of belonging differs across various national and re-
itor the feeling of being distant from the host com- ligious minorities. For instance, some IDPs belong
munity and ask the IDP to compare this feeling with to certain religious or ethnic groups (e.g., a signif-
the situation before the displacement. Apart from icant share of Crimean IDPs are Crimean Tatars),
this, in several cases, informants advised measur- which is not represented in the hosting community.
ing subjective integration (positive connotation) In this case, their belonging to a certain group may
and not the feeling of being distant. However, the be an additional factor that determines the success
proposed scale measures both the feelings of being of the integration process. As a result, the indica-
close and distant, with indicators mainly reflecting tor was reformulated into ‘Share of IDP population
the share of IDPs experiencing certain problems. feeling more distant from the present community
Therefore, it is recommended to analyse the feeling compared to the previous one’ according to the key
of being distant within this criterion. informants’ recommendations.
Regarding this criterion, it was advised by one of the 10. Reunification of family members at a new place
informants that the information about the reasons of residence (stay)
causing the feeling of being distant should be gath-
ered. This would provide an opportunity to check The draft questionnaire proposed for discussion at
whether this negative feeling is directly connected the interviews included the following indicator on
with the IDP status. the reunification of family members at a new place
of residence:
‘I would propose a share of IDPs who feel they are
distantt from the community. And if the person 10.1. IDP population which indicated barriers to
answers ‘yes’, then the reason should be stated. Be- desired family reunion in GCA.
cause it may not be necessarily a hostile treatment.
Maybe, it is just the feeling of being distant for some According to the KIIs, the evaluation of the avail-
other reasons. And the reasons for this may be not ability of tools and legal opportunities for reinte-
only because they are IDPs. The reasons may be dif- gration and mutual support (including financial) is
ferent, for example, they are not keen on contacting crucially important in terms of monitoring and of
other people. And this is not connected to the IDP this particular criterion. It was proposed by one of
status’ (State national authorities’ representative) the KIs that the possible indicator should reflect the
share of IDPs who indicated that they have the op-
In addition, it was advised to measure the level of portunity for safe and systematic communication
involvement in the social/ cultural/political life of with and support (including financial as mentioned
the hosting communities, as this could be a possi- above) from or for their family members who live
ble indicator of integration. However, as stated by in NGCA.
one of the KIs, despite the adoption of the Elector-
al Code13 (that provided IDPs with a mechanism to ‘In my opinion, reunification is not always possible,
vote in local elections), only a small percentage of or the family may not intend to reunite, but it is
internally displaced people had exercised this right. important to have the tools and legal mechanisms
This situation demonstrates that, for some reason, for contact and mutual support.’ (UN Agencies and
IDPs do not take part in the political life of the so- International Organisations representative)
ciety to which they now belong. Another is to what
extent internally displaced persons are involved in Based on the obtained information from the KIs, it
public life and whether they have access to mecha- is suggested that the criterion should be modified
nisms for influencing the decision-making process. and reworded as follows: ‘Barriers to reunification
This could mean, for example, attending local coun- with relatives in NGCA and their needs for support’.
cil meetings, gaining access to signing petitions, to Indicator 10.1 was left unchanged, but it is also rec-
advisory bodies, as well as using other mechanisms ommended to measure the necessity to support
for participation in public life. family members with the indicator ‘Share of IDP
13
Electoral Code of Ukraine – URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/396-20#Text
13You can also read
