Area-based assessment: Dnipropetrovska Oblast - Ukraine, August 2022

Introduction

The sudden escalation of the war in Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has intensified the humanitarian crisis in the country. Among the primary issues of concern are nearly seven million people displaced within the country as of August 2022. 1 The scale of the displacement has led to questions about the impacts of population influx on host communities. In response, collective sites were established in different types of public and private buildings, including in many educational facilities (schools, kindergartens, university dormitories, etc). 2 The Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) cluster has currently mapped more than 7,000 collective sites across Ukraine. 3 According to the International Organisation for Migration's (IOM) General Population survey, approximately 4% of the displaced population resides in a collective center, while the majority live in private residences in the community. While there are indications that needs among the population in collective centers are higher than those in the general population, there is limited reliable data available to allow for representative comparisons between demographics such as host communities, displaced households living in collective sites, and those living out of collective sites. In addition, while many displaced households are located within the communities, little is known concerning their access to public services, in parallel with the humanitarian support they receive in and out of collective sites. Similarly, the scale-up of the response to involve national government, local civil society, and international humanitarian actors has led to questions around coordination between these various actors. In a recent study by ACAPS, it was found that challenges exist in distribution systems and coordination structures at different levels of the response.4 As of June 2022, there was limited information available at the subnational level on the coordination of response efforts to address displacement concerns. Dnipropetrovska oblast plays a key role in hosting displaced populations inside Ukraine. Official statistics in May reported the registration of 225,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), a number representing less than a third of the actual figure according to the regional council.5 According to the Organisation for Migration's (IOM) Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM), this influx makes Dnipropetrovska oblast the host to the largest number of refugees in the country.6 Moreover, the crucial role of the oblast as an arrival transit hub is only expected to increase in the coming months as hostilities continue to escalate in the East and South of the country.7 In this context, REACH worked with the CCCM cluster to develop and implement an assessment on displacement dynamics and the humanitarian response in Dnipropetrovska to support the information needs of the cluster and other actors who work in the displacement response in the oblast. REACH and the cluster consulted with a wide range of additional stakeholders to gather input on the research design as well as interpretation of findings, including local authorities and local organisations.

The purpose of the assessment and this report is to provide an overview of the needs and concerns of displaced populations in Dnipropetrovska Oblast, including a comparison of the needs and concerns with non-displaced populations, and an assessment of how these needs and concerns are currently being met by local response actors. To that end, REACH conducted:

• A total of 1,304 household surveys (HHS) with displaced households (HHs) in collective sites and living in the community, and non-displaced households. Surveys were conducted through face-to-face interviews between 2nd and 17th July 2022. The sample was stratified by displacement status and geography to allow for a granular analysis of needs and concerns by these characteristics. Households were randomly selected in two-stages: In the first stage appropriate locations for each demographic were selected at random using randomly generated GPS points, or a prepared sample frame (e.g. CCCM master list of collective sites). In the second stage additional randomization techniques were applied to ensure respondent participation was random, such as approaching each fifth person to enter or leave a building. The survey instrument sought to capture key socio-economic indicators for each demographic, their needs and concerns, including issues of social cohesion, and movement intentions among displaced households.

• A mapping of local response actors (LRAs) working in the oblast including local non-government and civil society organisations, and individual volunteers between 22 and 30 June 2022. The mapping process involved a snowballing approach to compile a list of 53 LRAs, contacting one focal point for each organisation to participate in a short telephone survey (LRA-KIIs). The survey included questions on the size of the organisation, key activities and partner networks.

• Eight focus group discussions with local response actors (LRA-FGDs). The discussion guide of the FGDs explored perceptions on issues surrounding social cohesion, challenges in coordination and collaboration among actors, and risk mitigation. Participants were selected from contacts gathered through local authorities and the mapping exercise, ensuring they included actors in both urban and rural settings. This report seeks to draw together the findings from these sources to respond to the research questions, using a sequential triangulation approach.

Key Findings

The stratified survey sample allows for a comparison of vulnerabilities, needs and levels of assistance between three types of households: displaced household living in collective sites, out of collective sites, and nondisplaced. Interviews and focus group discussions with public service providers, local response and economic actors shed additional light on the organisation of the current response and the current capacity to respond to those needs. Below are some of the key take-aways:

• The international response remains more focused on Dnipro city compared to other parts of the oblast. IDP households in Dnipro city much more often reported receiving assistance from international organisations (53%) and UN agencies (59%), compared to their counterparts living outside of Dnipro city (33% and 41% respectively). Concerns that international assistance was not sufficiently reaching beneficiaries living in the periphery of the oblast were also raised by local response actors and regional authorities.

• Conflict-affected hromadas are in strong need of early recovery support to cope with the impact of shellings on infrastructure, energy and water facilities. Acute needs concern repair and construction work, provision of construction material, heating solutions, and energy and water provision alternatives.

• IDP households living in collective sites tend to be more vulnerable than IDP households out of collective sites, and non-displaced households. 54% of IDP households in collective sites reportedly include at least one pensioner, 32% have one chronically ill member, and 24% reported one member with disabilities. Importantly, data from REACH’s collective site monitoring (CSM) shows that 48% of assessed collective sites in Ukraine do not have an allocation plan for households with specific vulnerabilities.

• IDP households earned less income on average than non-displaced households before the conflict. In addition, they also reported suffering a greater loss of income since. This is particularly the case for displaced households in collective sites outside of Dnipro city; with 51% reportedly earning very low incomes (less than 5.000 UAH per month) since the start of the conflict, versus 20% of them before the conflict. By comparison, only 28% of non-displaced households outside of Dnipro city reported earning this level of income since the start of the conflict, versus 19% before the conflict.

• Most reported needs by households overall are economic assistance (54%), food (48%) and employment support (48%). IDP households reported additional needs such as long-term displacement solutions (43%), but overall non-displaced households reported similar needs, and sometimes an even larger proportion reported needs in essential areas such as healthcare (31% versus 24% for IDPs) and WASH (10%, versus 4% for IDPs). However, they were 11% to report not needing any assistance (versus 1% for IDP households).

• Households living outside Dnipro City reported higher levels of needs than those living in Dnipro City. It is the case notably for economic assistance (61% for households living out of Dnipro City, versus 46% for households living in Dnipro City), and employment (39% for households living out of Dnipro City, versus 24% for households living in Dnipro City). Importantly, non-displaced households outside Dnipro city reported a need for economic assistance far more important than those residing in Dnipro city (60% versus 35%).

• Non-displaced households are far less likely to benefit from humanitarian support (32% versus 91% for displaced households). For instance, the proportion of households reporting receiving financial assistance varies markedly (IDP in-site: 72%, IDP off-site: 68%; non-displaced: 19%) despite similar levels of needs reported. It may therefore be beneficial to further explore the degree to which, and under what conditions, non-displaced households are provided with humanitarian assistance.

• The main types of assistance providers, according to household recipients are; Public service providers (67%), volunteer initiatives (64%), UN organisations (51%), international organisations (44%) and local organisations (41%). IDP households in collective sites reported receiving assistance mostly from volunteer initiatives (73%), while those living out of collective sites most often reported receiving assistance from public service providers (69%). For non-displaced households, this was equal (69%), followed by local organisations (22%) and volunteers (13%).

• Many local response actors appear to implement their activities independently, without engaging structures put in place by local authorities to supervise the response. This leads to a multiplicity of coordinating bodies and channels of communication, potentially raising difficulties for international actors looking to engage with unique interlocutors at the local level.

• Many collective sites may struggle to continue to house IDPs in winter, according to local response actors. Of particular concern are the utility fees for electricity and heating likely to rise significantly in the coming months. While government and municipal institutions receive compensation for the cost of utilities, many collective sites managed by local organisations do not. When costs rise, many may not be able to continue providing assistance.

• Only 9% of displaced household reported a clear intention to move again in the month following data collection (11% for displaced households in collective sites, 6% for displaced households out of collective sites). Of those (n = 76), 49% reported intention to return to their settlement of habitual residence, 39% to another settlement, and only 12% reported planning to move to another country.

In conclusion, the findings reveal a concerning trend in the way current assistance in targeted. Households living in Dnipro City are much more likely to report receiving assistance from international respondents versus those living in areas outside Dnipro City. Likewise, displaced households are more likely to be targeted for assistance compared to non-displaced households, despite this latter group often reporting similar or in some cases even higher needs than the former. Findings do support the notion that IDP households living in collective sites tend to be characterised by additional vulnerabilities compared to IDP households living out of collective sites and non-displaced households.

The approach of winter also raises new challenges. Local actors involved in the management of collective sites voiced concerns about their ability to continue to house IDPs. Of particular importance are the utility fees for electricity and heating which will rise significantly in the coming months. Considering the role of Dnipropetrovska oblast as a key arrival and transit hub is presumably going to increase as the conflict wears on, this issue is likely to grow more salient. Also of high priority is the need for early recovery support in conflict-affected hromadas, where numerous infrastructures need repair or heating solutions. It matters therefore that needs, and the capacity of local actors to meet those needs, continues to be monitored regularly and that additional assistance is made available and delivered to where it is most needed.