IOM_UKR_Income_Social Protection and Coping Strategies_Thematic Brief_November 2024

INCOME, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND COPING STRATEGIES IN UKRAINE

THEMATIC BRIEF SERIES: LIVELIHOODS AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY

NOVEMBER 2024

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the country has confronted profound economic disruptions alongside widespread displacement. To date, 3.7 million people remain internally displaced (IDPs), while 4.4 million people who had been displaced have since returned to their primary places of residence.1 According to the World Bank, more than 9 million people in Ukraine are estimated to be living in poverty, an increase of 1.8 million people since February 2022.2 The pace of recovery in Ukraine is also projected to slow to 3.2 per cent in 2024 from 4.8 per cent in 2023, due to a smaller harvest and a persistent labour shortage.3 With millions seeking safety and stability, often while remaining in displacement, the challenges of maintaining livelihoods and accessing social protection are paramount, necessitating focused interventions to mitigate economic hardships.

This report provides a snapshot of livelihoods in Ukraine, focusing on income, social assistance and coping strategies, as well as exploring the relationship between income levels and displacement. Additionally, to better support evidence-based programming, the brief analyses the relationship between income and estimated eligibility for Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA). The analysis foregrounds the age and gender dimensions, highlighting that priorities, capacities and needs are unique to different individuals and notably vary based on the intersection of vulnerabilities, exclusion and discrimination.

KEY FINDINGS

Income trends: The median monthly household income per person in August 2024 (UAH 5,000) had increased by 33 per cent compared to June 2023. However, it remained significantly lower than the median household income levels reported before February 2022 (UAH 7,000).4 Some regions, particularly heavily conflict-affected areas (e.g., Donetska and Zaporizka Oblasts), saw income stagnation or decline since December 2023, which reflects the increasing economic precarity in these regions.

Income below the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB): Over half of the population (59%) were found to live in households with a median monthly income per person below the MEB threshold of UAH 6,318. This proportion was particularly high among members of vulnerable households and among households that relied on social assistance5 for more than half of their income (84%).

Reliance on social assistance: Approximately 5 per cent of the population relied upon cash assistance for more than half of their household income, including disability pension and other social benefits, the IDP living allowance, and humanitarian financial assistance relied on social assistance for more than 50 per cent of its income, including disability pension and other social benefits, the IDP living allowance, and humanitarian financial assistance.6

Sources of income for IDPs: While the median household income per person did not vary between IDPs and the general population, displaced individuals were less likely to rely primarily on regular salaries (46% compared with 50% of the general population) and more likely to depend on social assistance for more than half of their household income (10%) compared to the other population groups.7 A sharp decrease was recorded in the proportion of IDPs reporting the IDP monthly living allowance as the main source of income for their household (-50%) compared to December 2023, which can be attributed to the amendments to Resolution #332 and their impact on eligibility to the allowance.

Prevalence of coping strategies: Reliance on negative coping strategies was higher among IDPs and vulnerable households, highlighting the unique challenges faced by these groups in accessing basic needs. Additionally, IDPs more commonly reported using negative strategies related to housing, such as skipping rent payments (14%) and moving to lower-quality dwellings (12%). This underscores the negative impact of insecure livelihoods and higher costs on security of tenure and housing conditions for this population group and suggests a likely exacerbation of vulnerability in winter months.

MPCA eligibility: Forty-eight per cent of IDPs (i.e. 1,748,000 individuals) were estimated to be eligible for MPCA based on socio-economic and vulnerability criteria.8 Approximately a quarter (28%) of IDP households estimated to be eligible for MPCA relied on regular salaries as their main source of income, indicating that regular salaries may not be sufficient to ensure minimum income levels in households with vulnerable members. The proportion of individuals living in households estimated to be eligible for MPCA was significantly higher in rural settlements (58%) compared to large cities (39%).

MPCA eligibility and IDP living allowance: Among IDPs who lost access to the monthly IDP living allowance after March 2024, approximately 35 per cent were estimated to be eligible for MPCA. With 65 per cent of IDPs who lost access to the monthly IDP living allowance not being eligible for MPCA, securing employment in an already challenging labour market becomes critical to meeting their basic needs independently. Meanwhile, the 35 per cent who lost access but are eligible represent a priority group for continued MPCA support, underscoring the essential role of targeted humanitarian funding to support this vulnerable population. Addressing both employment access and sustained MPCA support is therefore vital for reducing economic vulnerability and fostering resilience among displaced households in Ukraine.

4 The median household income per person reflects the median available household income per household member. It is calculated by dividing the total household income (as reported by the respondent) by the number of reported household members.

5 Social assistance includes the IDP monthly living allowance, disability benefits/pensions, other social benefits (such as allowances for low-income households and households with children), humanitarian financial assistance.

6 This section focuses on social assistance contributed in recognition of one or more criteria of vulnerability. Hence, pensions are not included in this analysis, as they are based on insurance premiums.

7 57 per cent of returnees and 49 per cent of non-displaced reported relying on regular salaries as their main source of income. 3 per cent of returnees and 4 per cent of non-displaced relied on social assistance for more than half of their household’s income.

8 This percentage includes both those respondents who re-applied to the allowance and either were rejected or have not re-obtained it yet, and those who did not re-apply. For more information on this topic, see IOM, IDP Allowance Update: The Impact of the March 2024 Law Amendment on Ukraine’s Internally Displaced Population, September 2024, available here

INCOME LEVELS

At UAH 5,000, the median household income per capita was 29 per cent lower than the levels before February 2022 (UAH 7,000). Considered against a cumulative inflation rate of 37.73 per cent from January 2022 to August 2024,9 this highlights a significant loss of purchasing power for the Ukrainian population since the full-scale invasion.

IDPs reported similar levels of income compared to the nondisplaced population (both reporting UAH 5,000 monthly household income per person), possibly indicating that the negative impacts of displacement on income were mitigated by social assistance and higher levels of income prior to the war.10 By contrast, the median household income per person among returnees was significantly higher at UAH 6,000. However, this difference was in large part driven by the higher concentrations of returnees in Kyiv City and Kyivska oblast, where levels of income were generally higher. Within each macro-region, levels of income were comparable between all three population groups.

More than half (59%) of the current population, regardless of displacement status, failed to meet the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) threshold of UAH 6,318 per person/month,11 which points at a widespread livelihoods crisis. The proportion of individuals with a reported household income per person below the MEB was higher among IDPs (64%) and non-displaced (59%) compared to returnees (51%). Notably, almost all IDP households currently relying on the IDP allowance for more than half of their income fell in this category (96%), indicating that this group remains in a precarious situation and reflecting the re-targeting of the allowance at the most vulnerable IDPs

households. Conversely, 55 per cent of IDP households that lost access to the IDP monthly allowance reported an available income per person below the MEB and may therefore be in need of emergency assistance to meet basic needs.12

More broadly, the majority of respondents whose household’s income mostly derived from any forms of social assistance also reported an income lower than the MEB, regardless of their displacement status (84%). Households with vulnerable individuals generally reported lower income levels than the general population, with most respondents who lived in families with persons with disabilities (70%), elderly (69%), and children (68%) reporting a household income per person lower than UAH 6,318.

The median household income per person increased by 33 per cent between June 2023 (GPS Round 13) and August 2024 (GPS Round 17), from UAH 3,750 to UAH 5,000, although remaining considerably lower than levels before February 2022 (UAH 7,000), as mentioned above. Notably, the increase in income levels was found to accelerate during the above-mentioned period, from a 7 per cent variation between June and December 2023, to a 25 per cent growth between December 2023 and August 2024.

While income increased for both displaced and non-displaced groups compared to June 2023, the variation was particularly remarkable in the case of IDPs, with a 50 per cent increase in the household income per person compared to June 2023 (from UAH 3,750 to 5,000), which may be partly explained by an increase in the employment rate of working-age IDPs over the same period of 7 percentage points.

GEOGRAPHY AND TYPE OF SETTLEMENT

Income levels varied significantly across the country, with Kyiv City recording a median household income per capita twice as high as the income reported in the Southern macro-region13 (UAH 8,333 and 4,183 respectively). The oblasts with the lowest median income were found in the frontline

area , where Khersonska and Donetska Oblasts recorded UAH 3,398 and 3,933 respectively, and in the Western macroregion (Chernivetska, UAH 3,759). In Donetska, 4 per cent of respondents (i.e. 29,000 individuals) reported that their household had no income at all.

9 Calculated based on changes in the Consumer Price Index to December 2010: SSSU, Data Bank, available here

10 The median monthly household income per person prior to the war amounted to UAH 8,000 in the case of IDPs, compared to an overall median household income per person of UAH 7,000.

11 In Ukraine, the MEB was revised in 2023 for the purposes of the Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA) response in Ukraine, by excluding non-humanitarian consumption items. The final MEB value was estimated at 6,318UAH/person/month. Ukraine Cash Working Group, Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB), August 2023, available here

12 See also IOM, IDP Allowance Update: The Impact of the March 2024 Law Amendment on Ukraine’s Internally Displaced Population, September 2024, available here

13 The Southern macro-region encompasses the following oblasts: Khersonska, Mykolaivska, Odeska Oblasts.

Donetska (78%), Khersonska (72%), Chernivetska (72%) and Mykolaivska (70%) Oblasts hosted the highest proportions of individuals with a household income per person below the MEB, while this percentage was the lowest in Kyiv City, where a third of the population reported an income below the MEB (34%).

The type of settlement was also correlated with different levels of income, with respondents in rural areas reporting the lowest level of household income per person (UAH 3,500 UAH), compared to UAH 5,000 in small towns and suburbs of large cities, and UAH 6,667 in large cities. The proportion of the population with critically low levels of income

Among acutely conflict-affected or temporarily occupied oblasts, Sumska (+45%) and Odeska (+44%) recorded the largest increase in median income between June 2023 and August 2024, while Zaporizka (+7%) was the oblast recording the smallest increase in the level of household income per capita. Despite the general increase in income levels, the share of individuals reporting a very low household income (below 7,000 UAH monthly) increased in Chernivetska and Zaporizka by 10 and 8 percentage points respectively compared to December 2023.

was significantly higher in rural settlements, where three-quarters of respondents reported a household income per person below the MEB (76%) compared to large cities (45%), highlighting a trend of depletion of rural areas. Individuals in rural areas in the Southern and Western macro-regions recorded the lowest values of income, at UAH 3,000 and 3,333 respectively.

NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH INCOME LOWER THAN THE MEB

Respondents who reported a household income per person below the MEB also consistently reported higher needs for basic goods and services, which points at affordability being an important barrier to satisfying basic needs. According to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine (SSSU), annual inflation rose

to 7.5 per cent in August, reaching its highest point since August 2023 (8.6%).14 The National Bank of Ukraine, in its August inflation update, stated that a further rise in inflation was expected in the following months.15,16

Map 2: % variation in median reported household income per person between June 2023 (GPS Round 15) and August 2024 (GPS Round 17), by oblast

2: % of respondents reporting lack of access to basic goods and

This was confirmed by KIs, who stressed that high prices are an important barrier, particularly in the case of food and medicines.17

“Prices are rising, but social benefits and wages are not. People are getting poorer, and their purchasing power is decreasing” (KI, Kyivska Oblast)

With regards to medicines specifically, KIs stressed that prices are particularly high in rural areas (KI, Sumska Oblast). Considering that the elderly represent almost half of the population in rural settlements

17 For more information on the KI interviews, see the section ‘Methodology’ at page 13.

(41%, as opposed to 31% in large cities), they can be expected to be disproportionally affected by the high price of medicines, as the prevalence of needs for medicines was found to be positively correlated with age:

“(Some) elderly people need help with food, because prices are rising, pensions remain at the same level, and they still need to buy medicines” (KI, Sumska Oblast).

SOURCES OF INCOME

In Ukraine, labour remains the main source of income,18 with half (50%) of respondents reporting that their household’s income derived from salaries received for regular periods of work, followed by pensions for retired workers based on age (60 years old for men and 58.5 for women) and years of service (25 years), reported by almost a third (30%) of respondents.19 If the relatively high level of households deriving their income from pensions can be explained with Ukraine’s ageing population, as well as a pension

system providing options for early retirement,20 KIs further pointed out that difficulties in finding employment are driving working-aged individuals to rely on their parents’ pensions:

“There is practically no work, only in state institutions, there is a working-age population that remains, they live with their retired parents, (who) run a household and receive a pension, and live on this.” (KI, Sumska Oblast)

3: % of respondents reporting their household’s main source of income, by displacement status

Overall, most households in Ukraine (68%) relied on their main source of income (regardless of its type) for the majority of their income (between 76% and 100% of income), which is compatible with a country with a generally functional formal labour market and social protection system. However, IDP households were significantly less likely to derive 75% or more of their income from their main source of income (52%), compared to returnees (69%) and the non-displaced population (70%). This may reflect both the wider range of social protection options available to this group and the need by IDPs to diversify their sources of income due to the inability to fully sustain their livelihoods by means of regular employment.

GEOGRAPHY AND TYPE OF SETTLEMENT

Regular salaries were most reported as the main source of income in Kyiv City, where two-thirds of respondents mentioned that income in their household derived from salaries (64%), while the prevalence of this source of income was lowest in the Eastern macro-region, where it was reported by less than half of respondents (44%). Notably, only approximately a third of respondents in Donetska (34%) and Khersonska (35%) reported that their main source of household income was regular salaries, highlighting the current crisis of employment in the regions closer to the frontline.

Important differences were also observed between rural and urban areas. Respondents in rural areas were significantly less likely to report their household to rely on regular earnings (40%) as their main source of income compared to large cities (56%). By contrast, one-third (34%) of respondents in rural areas reported that their household’s income derived from pensions and 6 per cent from disability benefits (compared to 27% and 2% respectively in large cities), which may be explained with the higher presence of older persons in rural settlements (41%) compared to urban ones (31%).

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AS THE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME

The Ukrainian social assistance system includes cash transfers, social assistance services, as well as employment and insurance programmes. Cash transfer programmes encompass categorically targeted schemes (family and care allowance, IDP housing allowance, etc.), poverty targeted schemes, and the IDP monthly living allowance, introduced in March 2022 under Resolution #332 to provide financial support for IDPs.21

Overall, 5 per cent per cent of the population, i.e. 1,468,000 individuals, reported that their household relied on social assistance for more than 50 per cent of its income, including disability pension and other social

benefits, IDP living allowance, and humanitarian financial assistance.22 Among this subset, disability benefits represented the most common source of income, reported by half of respondents (52%), followed by other social benefits, such as payments for low-income families, households with children, or other vulnerable categories (30%). Additionally, 17 per cent of this subset reported relying on the IDP living allowance as the main source of income for their household, while humanitarian financial assistance was reported by 1 per cent of the population in this group. The median monthly value of governmental financial support amounted to UAH 2,100 per person at the time of data collection.23

4: Among respondents in households relying on social assistance for more

displacement status24

IDPs were found to have a higher reliance on social assistance, with 10 per cent deriving more than half of their household’s income from it, as opposed to 3 per cent of returnees and 4 per cent of the nondisplaced population. While reliance on social assistance was generally higher among vulnerable households,25 it appeared to be highest in the case of single-parent households (15%, compared to 4% of non-singleparent households).

Among individuals living in households relying on social assistance for more than half of their income, the household income per person (UAH 2,787) was significantly lower than the national level (UAH 5,000), with minor differences between IDPs (UAH 2,667) and the non-displaced population (UAH 2,936). If this may reflect the use of income as an eligibility criterion for certain forms of social assistance, it also points to the fact that, in the absence of more sustainable sources of income, social assistance is not sufficient to guarantee an adequate minimum income to support the increasing cost of living.

non-displaced

LEVEL OF NEEDS AND USE OF COPING STRATEGIES BY INDIVIDUALS RELYING ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Respondents who relied on social assistance for over half their household income reported greater difficulty accessing basic goods

and services than the general population, showing that social assistance alone may not be sufficient to meet basic needs.

Income-earning opportunities were the most reported need among individuals whose household relied on social assistance for more than half of its income (44%), while this was only the fourth most prevalent need overall

(26%). This trend appeared to be mostly driven by the high proportion of IDPs heavily relying on social assistance who reported lacking access to income earning opportunities (56%, compared to 38% of the nondisplaced population also relying on social assistance).

REPORTING SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AS THE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THEIR HOUSEHOLD

Regardless of the share of income derived from it, social assistance represented a common source of income for IDPs. Around 40 per cent of IDPs reported that their household received the IDP living allowance and 14 per cent mentioned other social benefits, which may contribute to explain the fact that IDPs reported a level of income very close to the one reported by non-displaced households.

Notably, 9 per cent of IDPs (306,000 individuals) reported their household to rely on the IDP monthly living allowance as its main

source of income,26 showing a 50 per cent decrease compared to December 2023 (18%). Such a sharp decrease can be attributed to the changes to Resolution #332 regulating access to the IDP allowance: the amendment came into effect in March 2024 and resulted in approximately 1.4 million IDPs (39%) losing access to the allowance.27

Among the 9 per cent of IDPs reporting the monthly living allowance as the main source of income for their household, almost half (42%) reported their household to rely on it almost entirely, as the allowance provided between 75 per cent and 100 per cent of the total household income.

INCOME AND MOBILITY INTENTIONS

Among IDPs, long-term movement intentions seemed to be correlated with income levels, as respondents living in households with an income per person above 6,318 UAH (the MEB) were more likely to plan to remain in their current location beyond the following three months (73%) as opposed to those whose income was below this threshold (68%).

Levels of income also appeared to be associated with different displacement patterns, as IDPs displaced within their oblast of origin were more likely to report a household income per person below the MEB (73%) compared

COPING STRATEGIES

Half of the current population in Ukraine were found to live in households that had adopted either crisis or emergency coping strategies to satisfy basic needs during the month prior to data collection.28 This can be expected to damage the household's well being in the long term and its resilience in the case of shocks, as these strategies may be difficult to reverse and erode a household’s ability to mitigate negative impacts. The most reported coping strategies used during the month prior to data collection were reducing the usage of utilities and switching to cheaper food (both at 51%), followed by spending savings (46%), reducing quantity of food consumed (40%), and reducing health expenditures (36%).

IDPs more commonly reported that they or someone else in their household had adopted either crisis or emergency coping strategies (62%) compared to returnees (52%) and the non-displaced population (48%).

to those displaced to other oblasts (60%). This may indicate the need for lower-income households to remain closer to the area of work to avoid losing employment, as well as the lack of sufficient funds to move to more distant locations, where IDPs may not have any support networks or personal connections to sustain themselves. However, the level of income did not seem to correlate with the prevalence of movement abroad, as approximately the same proportion of individuals from both income groups (household income per person below and above the MEB) reported having spent at least 14 days outside of the country since February 2022 because of the war (9% and 8% respectively).

Notably, IDP households were significantly more likely to depend on humanitarian assistance to meet their basic needs (40%, compared to 19% of returnees and 13% of non-displaced respondents). Additionally, IDPs more commonly reported using negative strategies related to housing, such as skipping rent payments (14%) and moving to lower-quality dwellings (12%). This underscores the negative impact of insecure livelihoods and higher costs on security of tenure and housing conditions for this population group and suggests a likely exacerbation of vulnerability in winter months.

Negative coping strategies were primarily used to access food and housing, both reported by 47 per cent of those whose household had employed at least one coping strategy, as well as healthcare (46%). Among IDPs, almost two-thirds reported of IDPs (63%) reported that the use of coping strategies was motivated by the necessity to access housing, confirming the latter as a key need to be addressed to support the resilience of IDPs.

Figure 6: % of individuals reporting themselves or their household members having had to adopt livelihoods-based coping strategies to be able to meet basic needs in the 30 days prior to data collection, by strategy

their household had some income.

27 This percentage includes both those respondents who re-applied to the allowance and either were rejected or have not re-obtained it yet, and those who did not re-apply. For more information on this topic, see IOM, IDP Allowance Update: The Impact of the March 2024 Law Amendment on Ukraine’s Internally Displaced Population, September 2024, available here

28 None: Households using mildly negative coping strategies that may not affect the overall household’s resilience capacity in the longer term. Stress: Households using a limited number of negative coping strategies that could potentially affect the household’s resilience capacity. Crisis: Households using negative coping strategies extensively, which may indeed affect their resilience capacity in the longer term.

Emergency: Households using the most severe coping strategies, which not only will affect their resilience capacity, but also their members’ well-being. The classification of strategies into stress, crisis, and emergency categories follows the methodology used by REACH and the World Food Programme for Ukraine in 2024. For the purpose of the severity analysis, coping strategies were classified as follows:

– Emergency-level strategies: selling house or land, using degrading sources of income, illegal work, or high-risk jobs, asking strangers for money to cover essential needs

– Crisis-level strategies: selling productive assets or means of transport, reducing essential health expenditures, reducing essential education expenditures

– Stress-level strategies: selling household assets/goods, spending savings, purchasing food on credit or borrowed food, accepting lower qualification or low-paid job

GENDER AND AGE ANALYSIS

Vulnerable households were more likely to report using coping strategies to meet their needs. Households having at least one member with disabilities or with a chronic illness most frequently reported using crisis or emergency level coping strategies (59% for both groups) compared to households without members with disabilities (47%) or chronic illnesses (44%).

Additionally, more than half of respondents who lived in households composed of women and children only (56%) or including at least one

GEOGRAPHY AND TYPE OF SETTLEMENT

The severity of the adopted coping strategies was highest in the Southern macro-region, where 59 per cent of the population were living in households that employed crisis or emergency coping strategies, followed by the Eastern one (55%). Even in Kyiv City, where this proportion was lowest, those employing crisis or

EXHAUSTION OF SAVINGS

Almost half (46%) of respondents across the country reported that their household had to spend their savings during the month prior to data collection to be able to meet some basic needs. Additionally, a quarter (23%) of respondents mentioned either having already exhausted this coping strategy or having no savings to start with, while only 31 per cent said that their household had not needed to use their savings. This points at a constant depletion of savings, with a negative impact on the households’ ability to support livelihoods and consumption and to withstand any future shocks, such as further displacement.

Both IDPs and returnees reported higher levels of use of savings (55% and 53% respectively) compared to the non-displaced population

SUPPORTING BASIC NEEDS

Across the board, households that employed crisis or emergency-level coping strategies reported higher needs across all categories: for example, 55 per cent of households using emergency-level strategies reported being in need of power banks and generators, compared to 33 per cent of households that ‘only’ resorted to stress-level coping strategies. This may indicate that adopting negative strategies is not sufficient to fill the gap between needs and available resources and suggests that their usage may be continued in the future due to the persisting inability to satisfy basic needs. As the protracted use of negative coping strategies can be expected to further deplete the economic capacities and resilience of the households using them, in the long period, this is likely to result in increasing portions of the

CORRELATION WITH INCOME

As it can be expected, low household income appeared to be positively correlated with high prevalence and severity of coping strategies. Indeed, 60 per cent of those in households with an income per person below the MEB reported the usage of crisis or emergency coping strategies, as opposed to 36 per cent of individuals reporting a household income per person above the MEB.

Among households relying on social assistance for more than half of their income, the use and severity of coping strategies were also found to be higher compared to the general population, with 64 per cent of individuals from this group reporting that their household had used crisis

older person (54%) reported that their household had used stress or crisis coping strategies during the 30 days prior to data collection. Notably, households composed of women and children only were found to more commonly reduce expenses on several essential categories, such as food (with 57% reporting saving on quality and 48% reporting saving on quantity), utilities (56%), and essential healthcare (43%), making this household category particularly vulnerable to shocks, including the higher costs of basic goods during the winter season.

emergency coping strategies amounted to 42 per cent of the population. Oblasts that were directly affected by the conflict recorded the highest prevalence of individuals in households employing crisis or emergency strategies, with 67 per cent in Khersonska and 63 per cent in Zaporizka Oblasts, followed by Donetska and Mykolaivska Oblasts (both at 59%).

(43%). However, IDPs more often reported that their household had already exhausted savings (17%) compared to returnees (9%), while only 18 per cent of IDPs reported not having had to use their savings during the previous month, compared to 28 per cent of returnees and 33 per cent of non-displaced. This indicates a higher rate of depletion of savings and loss of economic resilience among IDPs compared to the other population groups. Notably, 58 per cent of IDPs who lost the IDP living allowance after March 2024 reported that their household had had to resort to savings to cover essential expenses, while a third (33%) of IDPs relying on social assistance for more than half of their household income reported having exhausted their savings, indicating that this subset would likely be unable to meet basic necessities if they were to lose social assistance.

population having unsatisfied needs and limited to no capacity to address them.

Individuals who did not report having unmet needs still often reported that their household had used coping strategies to support their livelihoods, with 18 per cent mentioning crisis or emergency-level strategies and 27 per cent stress-level strategies. This suggests that an important share of the population who currently have no unsatisfied needs are using harmful coping strategies to maintain basic standards of living. If this situation persists, these households can be expected to deplete their resources and capacities to the point where they will be no longer able to sustain their needs and will therefore join the ranks of households with unmet basic needs.

or emergency coping strategies during the previous 30 days, as opposed to 50 per cent of the general population. Values appeared to be driven by IDPs, who reported a higher use of most coping strategies, compared to both the general population and the non-displaced population also relying on social assistance. However, the latter showed a higher prevalence of use of one of the most severe coping strategies, i.e. reliance on degrading, illegal or high-risk labour, as 13 per cent of respondents from this group reported that their household either had used this strategy or had already exhausted it, compared to 8 per cent of IDPs. This may indicate a specific exposure of this subset of the non-displaced population to the risks of illegal or degrading labour to sustain their livelihoods.

THEMATIC FOCUS: MPCA ELIGIBILITY

Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance in Ukraine targets two groups: 1. IDP households displaced for more than 30 days and who meet socio-economic and vulnerability criteria, and 2. households, residing in areas where armed conflict has taken place in the last four months, who meet socio economic and vulnerability criteria.30 This section outlines key findings with regards to IDPs’ eligibility to MPCA, drawing upon the analysis of a composite index designed based on the MPCA criteria and calculated using GPS data.31

Among IDPs who lost access to the monthly IDP living allowance after March 2024, approximately 35 per cent were estimated to be eligible for MPCA. With 65 per cent of IDPs who lost access to the monthly IDP living allowance not being eligible for MPCA, securing employment

INCOME

Income below the MEB is one of the criteria used for determining eligibility for MPCA, with the consequence that no households with a higher income (regardless of vulnerabilities) are considered eligible. Among the subgroup of IDPs in households with an income per member below the MEB, 75 per cent lived in households that were estimated to be eligible for cash assistance. Additionally, a similar eligibility rate (74%) was estimated for IDPs relying on social assistance for more than half of their household income.

Individuals living in households estimated to be eligible for MPCA were less likely to report regular salaries as the main source of household income compared to those not eligible. Yet, this was reported by more than a quarter (28%) of respondents in this subset, indicating that regular salaries may not be sufficient to ensure minimum income levels in households with vulnerable members. Hence, securing stable employment opportunities and ensuring that regular salaries

in an already challenging labour market becomes critical to meeting their basic needs independently. Notably, among working-age IDPs who lost access to the allowance, 15 per cent were unemployed. Of this subset, the majority (61%) resided in households estimated to be ineligible for MPCA. This gap indicates a critical need for targeted interventions to address both unemployment and financial sustainability among displaced population.

Meanwhile, the 35 per cent who lost access but is eligible represent a core priority group for continued MPCA support, underscoring the essential role of targeted humanitarian funding to support this vulnerable population. Addressing both employment access and sustained MPCA support is therefore vital for reducing economic vulnerability and fostering resilience among displaced households in Ukraine.

meet minimum household income requirements is an essential step towards reducing reliance on MPCA.

Conversely, pensions were the most reported source of household income by respondents in this subset, which is coherent with the fact that presence of elderly household members is one of the vulnerability criteria used to determine eligibility for MPCA.

Notably, individuals in households estimated to be eligible for MPCA were significantly less likely to report that their household relied almost entirely32 on its main source of income (39%, compared to 66% of those in households not eligible for MPCA), which confirms that households in this subset have to diversify their sources of income to meet their needs. The findings highlight the importance of a comprehensive response to target those unable to meet their needs without MPCA, as well as increasing economic resilience through programs to support employment activities.

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

The estimated eligibility rate was generally stable across macro-regions, with the exception of Kyiv City, which recorded the lowest proportion of individuals in households eligible for MPCA at 33 per cent. At oblast level, the highest eligibility rate was estimated in Zaporizka (59%) and Mykolaivska (57%) Oblasts, likely driven by the considerable proportion of respondents in households with an income per member below the MEB in these oblasts (75% and 77% respectively).33 A more significant geographical variation was observed between rural and urban areas, with the estimated eligibility rate in rural settlements (58%) being almost 20 percentage points higher than in large cities (39%).

29 This should be considered only as a proxy estimate, as not all the MPCA eligibility criteria corresponded to indicators in the GPS.

30 The set socio-economic and vulnerability criteria for IDPs are the following: 1. Socio-economic criteria: The household earns less than the value of the Minimum Expenditure Basket value of UAH 6,318. 2. Vulnerability criteria: Households with multiple children (3+); Households with people with disabilities; Single-headed households; Households with pregnant and breastfeeding women; Household with elderly members. (Ukraine Cash Working Group, Emergency targeting framework, August 2023, available here).

31 The criterion “households with pregnant and breastfeeding women” was not included in the index, as this information was not encompassed by the GPS dataset. Additionally, the classification of a household as having members with disabilities is based on self-reporting, irrespective of whether or not the disability was registered, and the classification as a single-parent household is based on household composition rather than direct reporting. Consequently, the figures presented should be considered as proxy estimates only.

32 Between 75 per cent and 100 per cent of the household income.

33 Representative data were not available for all oblasts.

KEY DEFINITIONS

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME PER PERSON:

The median household income per person reflects the median available household income per household member. It is calculated by dividing the total household income (as reported by the respondent) by the number of reported household members.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE: For the purpose of this brief, social assistance includes the IDP monthly living allowance, disability benefits/pensions, other social benefits (such as allowances for low-income households and households with children), humanitarian financial assistance.

LABOUR INCOME: Labour income is the amount that employed people earn by working and includes the wages of employees and part of the income of the self-employed. Economists use this concept to distinguish it from capital income (earned through property) or income derived from social assistance. See ILO, Statistics on labour income and inequality, available here

MINIMUM EXPENDITURE BASKET: A Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) is defined as what a household requires to meet their essential (or basic) needs, on a regular or seasonal basis, and its cost. It is a monetary threshold – the cost of these essential good and services. The MEB is an operational tool, used to identify and calculate, in a particular context and for a specific moment in time, the average cost of a socioeconomically vulnerable household’s multisectoral basic needs that can be monetized and accessed in adequate quality through the local market. The MEB methodology in Ukraine has been developed per capita, over an average period of one month. The MEB threshold for Ukraine has been estimated at a cost of 6,318UAH /person/month as of June 2023. For more information, see Ukraine Cash Working Group - Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) August 2023, available here

COPING STRATEGIES: Households tend to adapt and cope in a variety of ways to ensure access to basic food and other essential needs. Coping can be defined as a series of behavioural changes taken to manage specific external or internal demands or shocks that exceed the existing resources or capacity of an individual or household. The coping behaviours applied by households can vary from shorter-term consumption-based related strategies to longer-term livelihood-based coping strategies, to overcome food shortages and/or meet their essential needs. For the purpose of this brief, coping strategies have been classified as follows:

– Emergency-level strategies: selling house or land, using degrading sources of income, illegal work, or high-risk jobs, asking strangers for money to cover essential needs

– Crisis-level strategies: selling productive assets or means of transport, reducing essential health expenditures, reducing essential education expenditures

– Stress-level strategies: selling household assets/goods, spending savings, purchasing food on credit or borrowed food, accepting lower qualification or low-paid job

The classification of strategies into stress, crisis, and emergency categories follows the methodology used by REACH and the World Food Programme for Ukraine in 2024.

BRIEF METHODOLOGY

Data cited in this report were compiled from Round 17 of the General Population Survey (12 August 2024), which was commissioned by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and collected by Multicultural Insights through screener phone-based interviews with 40,000 randomly selected respondents and follow-up interviews with 1,488 IDPs, 1,188 returnees, and 1,800 residents, using the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) method, and a random digit dial (RDD) approach, with an overall sample error of 0.49% [CL95%]. The survey included all of Ukraine, excluding the Crimean Peninsula and occupied areas of Donetska, Luhanska, Khersonska, and Zaporizka Oblasts. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are defined as individuals who have been forced to flee or to leave their homes or who are staying outside their habitual residence in Ukraine due to the full-scale invasion in February 2022, regardless of whether they hold registered IDP status. The term “returnee” refers to all people who have returned to their habitual residence after a period of displacement of minimum two weeks since

February 2022, whether from abroad or from internal displacement within Ukraine.

Additionally, where specifically indicated, GPS Round 14 (September 2023), 15 (November/December 2023) and 16 (March/April 2024) data was used to complement the findings, as well as narrative feedback from Key Informants (KIs) interviewed for the tenth round of the Mobility and Needs Assessment (MaNA) (July/August 2024).

Limitations: Those currently residing outside the territory of Ukraine were not interviewed, following active exclusion. The sample frame is limited to adults that use mobile phones, in areas where phone networks were fully functional for the entire period of the survey. People residing in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) or the occupied areas of Donetska, Zaporizka, Luhanska, and Khersonska Oblasts were not included in the survey.

IOM UKRAINE