IOM_UKR_Synthesis Repport on Joint Analytical Framework_January 2025

MEASURING PROGRESS TOWARDS DURABLE SOLUTIONS TO INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT IN UKRAINE

SYNTHESIS REPORT ON A JOINT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

JANUARY 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE AND CONTEXT

Over two years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, extensive and protracted displacement has affected 3.6 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 4.3 million returnees, with a further 6.8 million displaced abroad (as of December 2024). In response, the Government of Ukraine and international partners have begun to prioritise early recovery and durable solutions efforts to address long-term integration and reintegration needs, alongside the humanitarian response. However, the growing number of stakeholders and the diversity of programmes and policies have made it difficult to develop a shared understanding and coordinate action on durable solutions in Ukraine.

To address one component of these challenges, the consultative development of a Joint Analytical Framework (JAF) was implemented between May and November 2024 by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and REACH Initiative, with support from the Data for Solutions and Recovery (D4SR) working group. It provides a foundation and a set of recommendations for establishing a context-relevant framework to monitor progress toward durable solutions for IDPs in Ukraine, drawing on a desk review of global guidelines and a consultative process with key national and international stakeholders.

This report notably outlines definitions, concepts, criteria and a discussion surrounding their application that can be already be operationalised by partners as a flexible set of references to guide durable solutions activities.

The Joint Analytical Framework process will enter a new phase in 2025, which will promote the alignment of national and international stakeholders that are part of the durable solutions coordination architecture to the recommendations outlined in this report. The objective of this second phase will be to ensure the JAF is operationalised and used in the production of official JAF-aligned IDP statistics in Ukraine.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This report examines the key considerations for establishing the JAF in Ukraine, many of which require selecting among multiple viable options. The recommendations outlined below represent the most suitable choices for national and international actors to align with. They are grounded in a comprehensive analysis of all alternatives and informed by the latest global guidance and an extensive consultative process with key stakeholders in Ukraine.

• Production of JAF-aligned official IDP statistics: The current fragmentation of efforts within the Government of Ukraine (GoU) and the international coordination architecture

presents a challenge to establishing a fully integrated mechanism for IDP official statistics. As an interim solution, it is recommended that national research institutes, such as the Ptoukha Institute of Demography, and United Nations agencies jointly conduct a JAF-aligned national household survey, validated by the National Statistical Office’s (NSO) statistical standards. This approach offers a temporary yet reliable method for producing robust IDP official statistics, providing essential insights to guide policymaking and programming.

• Terminology on internal displacement and definition of displacement categories: It is recommended that the primary criterion for statistically categorising individuals as IDPs be based on their de facto forced displacement, irrespective of their registration status. Plus, returning refugees should be included in IDP stock estimates, categorised either as de facto IDPs or Returnees, depending on their current place of residence. Finally, the definition elements of spatiality, temporality, and the nature of displacement, as introduced in this report, should be applied consistently to identify displacement categories within a comprehensive identification module embedded into the JAF Indicator Bank.

• Durable solutions criteria and indicators: This report offers a proposed detailed breakdown of contextspecific criteria, sub-criteria, and population-level indicators to guide data compilation and analysis around durable solutions in Ukraine. Wherever feasible, indicators should align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework 2025–2030 and relevant nationwide assessments. These indicators will be consolidated into the JAF Indicator Bank during the JAF’s strategic alignment phase before implementation.

• Joint Progress Monitoring Method (JPMM): The JPMM implemented in Ukraine should measure the achievement of durable solutions by IDPs and Returnees, equivalent to their statistical exit from IDP stocks. Additionally, it should capture progress within the stock, tracking shifts from acute needs (i.e., requiring lifesaving assistance) to integration needs (i.e., requiring long-term integration support) before durable solutions are fully achieved. This dual focus addresses the limitations of relying solely on exit measurement while supporting Ukraine’s transition efforts by identifying clear, well-defined ‘transition points’ that reflect evolving assistance needs on the path towards durable solutions. These transition points enable relevant actors to target beneficiaries accurately, ensuring continued support for vulnerable individuals. The proposed JPMM presented in this report is in a ‘blueprint’ format and should be operationalised into a functional tool following the stakeholder alignment with the JAF.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CATI: Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview

CCCM: Camp Coordination and Camp Management

CDSD: Center for Durable Solutions Dialogue

CPDSR: Community Planning, Durable Solutions and Recovery Working Group

D4SR: Data for Solutions and Recovery Working Group

DRC: Danish Refugee Council

DSID: Data for Solutions to Internal Displacement

EGRISS: Expert Group on Refugee, IDP and Statelessness Statistics

GoU: Government of Ukraine

GPS: General Population Survey

HCT: Humanitarian Country Team

HLP: House, Land and Property

IASC: Inter-Agency Standing Committee

IDP: Internally Displaced Person

INGO: International Non-Governmental Organisation

IOM: International Organisation for Migration

IRIS: International Recommendations on IDP Statistics

JAF: Joint-Analytical Framework

JIPS: Joint IDP Profiling Service

JPMM: Joint Progress Monitoring Method

KI: Key Informant

MHPSS: Mental Health and Psychological Support

MoSP: Ministry of Social Policy

MPCA: Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance

MRTOT: Ministry for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine

MSNA: Multi-Sectoral Needs Assessment

NEET: Not in Education, Employment, or Training

NNGO: National Non-Governmental Organisation

NRC: Norwegian Refugee Council

NSS: National Statistical System

NSO: National Statistical Office

PiN: People in Need

UID: Unified Information Database

UISSS: Unified Information System of the Social Sphere

UNCT: United Nations Country Team

UNDP: United Nations Development Programme

UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund

UNSDCF: United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

RCO: UN Resident Coordinator Office

SDG: Sustainable Development Goals

SSS: Stabilization Support Service

SSSU: State Statistics Service of Ukraine

INTRODUCTION

Nearly three years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, extensive and protracted displacement has affected 3.6 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 4.3 million returnees, with a further 6.8 million displaced abroad (as of December 2024). As of the latest data, 81 per cent of IDPs have been displaced for more than a year, and 70 per cent report the intention to remain in their location of displacement (IOM, October 2024). These trends towards stabilisation of population movements coincide with the protracted nature of the conflict, which characterised the ground evolution in 2023 and 2024 (ACAPS, February 2024).

In this context, the Government of Ukraine (GoU) and its international partners have gradually transitioned their focus from solely humanitarian action to early recovery efforts and the pursuit of durable solutions to address internal displacement. This approach is enshrined in the Government of Ukraine’s 10-year Recovery Plan 2022-2032 and its State Strategy on Internal Displacement until 2025. Similarly, the United Nations (UN) Transitional Framework 2022-2024 emphasises the centrality of durable solutions in the country’s response, recovery, and reconstruction efforts.

While these frameworks explicitly advocate for a ‘data-driven approach’ to support the response, the unprecedented growth in the number of stakeholders and the diversity of programs and policies has hindered the establishment of shared understandings surrounding approaches and definitions concerning internal displacement in Ukraine. These divergences, in turn, strongly hinder the capacities of data collectors and users to align on a common method to monitor IDPs’ progress towards durable solutions.

To address these challenges, national and international technical experts convened during the Data for Solutions Symposium in Kyiv (March 2023) and recommended the development of a Joint Analytical Framework (JAF) for Monitoring Access to Durable Solutions for IDPs in Ukraine. The responsibility for initiating the JAF process has been entrusted by the UN Country Team (UNCT) and Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) to the Data for Solutions and Recovery Working Group (D4SR), it was implemented by IMPACT Initiatives and commissioned by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).

This report provides an overview of the consultative development of a Joint Analytical Framework, which ran from May to November 2024. The consultative process combined a desk review of global guidelines with a consultative process that engaged key stakeholders. This included 23 bilateral meetings with the Ministry of Social Policy (MoSP), the Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories (MRTOT), UN agencies, international and national NGOs, and academia, as well as an inter-agency workshop held in Kyiv in October 2024. This report is intended for stakeholders engaged in collecting or analysing IDP-related data in Ukraine, whether for shaping policy, designing programmes, monitoring progress, allocating resources, or exploring new conceptualisation efforts toward a shared understanding of internal displacement and durable solutions in Ukraine.

The report starts with a section outlining the JAF’s expected outcomes and overall process (Section 1), followed by four sections aligned with the objectives of the consultative process: presenting elements to guide discussions on producing official IDP statistics in Ukraine (Section 2), building a shared understanding and common terminology on internal displacement (Section 3) and durable solutions (Section 4), as well as supporting discussions around the establishment of a joint method to measure access to durable solutions (Section 5). Key recommendations are outlined at page 5. Importantly, any recommendations with substantial strategic implications should be regarded as advisory, or at most provisional, until anchored within a shared durable solutions strategic vision and coordination structure in Ukraine.

This report was prepared by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and REACH Initiative in Ukraine, with the support of the Data for Solutions and Recovery (D4SR) Working Group, the Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS), the Data for Solutions to Internal Displacement (DSID) Task Force, and the Ptoukha Institute for Demography and Social Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

The insights presented in this report are the result of consultations with national and international stakeholders in Ukraine engaged in durable solutions programming, policymaking, data collection, and analysis. We extend our gratitude to the Ministry of Social Policy and the Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories for their valuable contributions to this effort.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This section outlines recommendations for stakeholders to implement the JAF and achieve its outcomes in Ukraine, building on the key considerations discussed throughout this report. As noted in Section 1.3, these recommendations are provisional and should remain so until further alignment among stakeholders has been achieved.

a. Implementing the Joint Framework

Establishing a coherent national coordination mechanism for IDP official statistics in Ukraine necessitates a concerted approach involving various stakeholders at multiple levels of the GoU and the international coordination architecture. Navigating and assessing this evolving environment is essential, as factors such as political developments, changes in ministerial structures, and adjustments within the international coordination system can greatly influence stakeholders’ capacity and readiness to participate.

As observed in Section 2, the current fragmentation of efforts presents a challenge to creating a fully integrated coordination mechanism for IDP statistics which would require combining or accessing data from multiple registries and surveys. As an interim solution, it is recommended that national research institutes, such as the Ptoukha Institute of Demography and UN agencies jointly conduct a JAF-aligned national household survey, validated by the National Statistical Office’s (NSO) statistical standards. This approach offers a temporary yet dependable solution for generating robust IDP statistics, delivering essential insights to inform policymaking and programming. Importantly, the process should be structured to facilitate a gradual transition to national counterparts, ultimately supporting integration into a fully operational national statistical system for producing official IDP statistics.

b. Expected outcomes

This report has explored the primary considerations related to JAF outcomes by presenting available options alongside their underlying rationales, drawing on global guidelines and insights from Key Informants (KIs). To facilitate progress and inform the strategic alignment phase, the recommendations below highlight the most viable options for partners to align with. These options have been selected based on their relevance to the Ukrainian context, their ability to ensure data quality, their feasibility within the current coordination framework, and the level of consensus they reflect among KIs.

Outcome 1 – Adoption of a common terminology on internal displacement: To comprehensively account for forced displacement in Ukraine, it is recommended that a statistical distinction be made between ‘registered’ and ‘de facto’ IDPs. In this approach, the primary criteria for categorising individuals as de

facto IDPs will be based on compliance with the definition elements of spatiality, temporality, and nature of displacement, regardless of their registration status. Returnees and Returning Refugees should be included in the JAF and their progress towards durable solutions monitored. Returnees should be recognised as a specific displacement category (‘IDPs in the location of return’) while Returning Refugees should be classified as a sub-group. Definition elements of spatiality, temporality and nature of displacement should be consistent across displacement categories and selected based on their compatibility with programmatic practices, clarity, and broad consensus. Accordingly, it is suggested that the spatial unit be defined at the settlement level, no time threshold be set to qualify as an IDP, pre-2022 IDPs be classified as 'non-displaced' with a history of displacement, and indirect self-reporting be employed to determine the nature of displacement.

Outcome 2 – Establish a durable solutions analytical framework and adoption of a common set of indicators: It is recommended that the JAF comprise three analytical components—durable solutions criteria, movement intentions, and demographic characteristics—built around population-level indicators that are aligned, wherever feasible, with the UNSDCF and existing nationwide assessments, such as the SESHS, GPS, and MSNA. The present report outlines a comprehensive breakdown of context-specific criteria and sub-criteria (Component I) that should guide the organisation of analyses and the compilation of indicators. Similarly, it is recommended that movement intentions indicators (Component II) be designed to align with the definition elements of spatiality and temporality used for identifying IDPs, enabling the evaluation of projected stocks in relation to current ones. Lastly, demographic characteristics indicators (Component III) should be set to align with existing and emerging measures and vulnerability categories utilised by relevant stakeholders.

Outcome 3 – Adoption of a joint progress monitoring method: The JPMM implemented in Ukraine should measure the achievement of durable solutions by IDPs and Returnees, equivalent to their statistical exit from IDP stocks. Additionally, it should capture progress within the stock, tracking shifts from acute needs (i.e., requiring lifesaving assistance) to integration needs (i.e., requiring long-term integration support) before durable solutions are fully achieved. This dual focus addresses the limitations of relying solely on exit measurement while supporting Ukraine's transition efforts by identifying clear, well-defined ‘transition points’ that reflect evolving assistance needs on the path towards durable solutions. These transition points enable relevant actors to target beneficiaries accurately, ensuring continued support for vulnerable individuals. The proposed JPMM presented in this report is in a 'blueprint' format and should be operationalised into a functional tool following the stakeholder alignment with the JAF.

1. TOWARDS A JOINT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

The first section of this report introduces the ‘JAF Process,’ representing the long-term, collaborative effort to design, implement, and achieve the JAF’s intended outcomes and impacts in Ukraine (see Figure 1). It opens with an outline of these outcomes and impacts (Section 1.1), proceeds with an overview of the progress achieved in the consultative process led jointly by IOM and REACH in developing the framework (Section 1.2), and concludes with the way forward to prepare JAF implementation in Ukraine (Section 1.3).

1.1 OUTCOMES AND IMPACT OF A JOINT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

1.1.1

OUTCOMES

The expected outcomes of JAF implementation in Ukraine are the following:

Outcome 1: Adoption of a common terminology on internal displacement, including displacement categories definitions and related displacement concepts.

Outcome 2: Delineation of context-relevant durable solutions criteria and adoption of a common set of indicators to assess durable solutions.

Outcome 3: Adoption of a joint progress monitoring method to track caseload progression and measure durable solutions achievement.

1.1.2 IMPACT

JAF outcomes aim to drive the following impact, aligning with recent global guidelines and recommendations:

Impact 1: Fostering the development of an evidence-based environment around internal displacement and durable solutions by supporting the generation of context-relevant and reliable data, interoperable to the fullest extent possible.

Impact 2: Strengthening national ownership of solutions by supporting data management systems and coordination structure led by national authorities.

Impact 3: Supporting the identification of ‘transition points’ between humanitarian and non-humanitarian actors, linked to shift in required assistance.

Process for est ablishing a Joint Analytical Framework

Pre-Implement ation St age

Development of JAF (IOM, REACH)

Desk Research Phase Consult ation Phase Strategic Alignment Phase Inception Report (J uly 2024) Synthesis Report (Dec 2024)

Recommendat ions for a pat hway t o producing official IDP statistics

Recommendat ions of definition elements for ident ifying displacement cat egories

Delineat ion of durable solutions criteria and recommendat ion of a common set of indicators

Proposal of a joint progress monitoring method t o measure st ock ex it and caseload movement s

Adopt ion of a roadmap t owards t he product ion of official IDP statistics

C on rmat ion of definition elements for ident ifying displacement cat egories

Adopt ion of a common set of indicators t o assess durable solut ions

C on rmat ion of t he joint progress monitoring method

Implement ation St age

Of ficial IDP St atistics

Product ion of official IDP statistics at nat ional and sub-nat ional levels by a recognised I DP st at ist ics producer. F lex ible int egrat ion of t he J AF as a guiding framework int o operat ional act ors ' data collection tools and analyses, aimed at informing programmat ic focus and priorit ies

Operational usage

1.2 DEVELOPING THE JOINT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

1.2.1 SCOPE

The consultative process to develop the JAF was a time-bound initiative running from May to November 2024, implemented by IOM and REACH initiative, resulting in the current report.

Implementation

Outcome 1

Outcome 2

The process focused on meeting the following four objectives, associated with JAF implementation and expected outcomes:

Inform discussions on the production of official IDP statistics in Ukraine and recommend a path forward. Section 2

Support the establishment of common terminology on internal displacement in Ukraine by recommending definition elements for identifying displacement categories, along with exploring other relevant displacement concepts. Section 3

Support a shared understanding of durable solutions in Ukraine by determining context-relevant criteria and recommending a common set of indicators. Section 4

Outcome 3

1.2.2 METHODOLOGY

a. Approaches

Support monitoring access to durable solutions in Ukraine by recommending a joint progress monitoring method (JPMM). Section 5

The development of the JAF adopts key methodological approaches aligned with global best practices in the design of context-specific, collaborative, and holistic frameworks:

• Context-specific: The definitions of displacement categories and related concepts, along with the durable solutions criteria and indicators presented in this report are tailored to reflect the unique challenges and complexities of internal displacement in Ukraine. At the same time, this context-specific approach seeks to balance with global standards, recognising that full alignment may not always be possible.

• Collaborative: This report results from a collaborative approach, involving engagement with beneficiaries and stakeholders—including ministries, National NonGovernmental Organisations (NNGOs), UN agencies, International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs), civil society, and academics—at various stages of the process. This approach seeks to harness diverse expertise, interests, and perspectives to pave the way towards a widely shared, comprehensive framework that addresses information needs and reflects a consensus on shared priorities.

• Holistic: In line with the UN Secretary General’s Action Agenda on Internal Displacement, the development of JAF

adopts a ‘whole-of-displacement’ approach. This approach encompasses all displacement-affected communities, including refugees and host communities, while also addressing the full ‘displacement continuum,’ from the emergency phase to protracted situations and durable solutions. It also follows a ‘whole-of-society’ approach, aiming to support locally owned actions and involving early recovery actors and the public sector, alongside more traditional humanitarian actors.

b. Phases

The consultative process was conducted in two phases: the desk review phase and the consultation phase. Each phase involved distinct activities and resulted in two separate outputs: the Inception Report and the Synthesis Report.

• Phase 1 – Desk Review: A comprehensive desk review of global and Ukraine-specific documentation was conducted as a first step. This included the latest global guidelines and expertise on displacement-related concepts, methods for producing IDPrelated statistics, and approaches for monitoring progress toward durable solutions. A review of Ukrainian literature focused on identifying context-specific definitions, examining past monitoring initiatives, assessing data availability, and exploring community perceptions of durable solutions through a dedicated IOM study

• Phase 2 – Consultations: Following the desk research phase, a consultative process gathered contextually relevant programmatic and analytical insights from key stakeholders. This process included 23 bilateral meetings with Ministries, UN agencies, international and national NGOs, and academia (see Figure 2)—referred to throughout this report as ‘Key

Informants’ (KIs)—and an Inter-Agency Workshop in Kyiv in October 2024. The workshop enabled joint discussions on JAF outcomes and feedback on findings from bilateral engagements. Insights from this process, along with global guidelines, underpin the elements and recommendations across this report.

1 Ministry of Social Policy (MoSP) Ministry

2 Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories (MRTOT) Ministry

3 United Nations United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) UN Agency

4 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) UN Agency

5 United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) UN Agency

6 UN Resident Coordinator's Office (RCO) Coordination

7 Community Planning, Durable Solutions and Recovery (CPDSR) Steering Committee Coordination

8 Protection Cluster Coordination

9 Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) Cluster Coordination

10 Data for Solutions to Internal Displacement (D4SR) Working Group Data & Analysis

11 Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS) Data & Analysis

12 International Organization for Migration (IOM) DTM Iraq Data & Analysis

c.

Limitations

Despite recognition by key international and national stakeholders during the 2023 Symposium of the need to develop the JAF in Ukraine, the fragmented response around durable solutions (see Section 2.2.2) limits the JAF Project’s ability to operate within the framework of an

1.3 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT PHASE

As outlined above, the development of the JAF prioritises offering recommendations rather than providing strategic directions for the JAF in Ukraine. Consequently, following the project’s conclusion, seeking further alignment with these recommendations from

Implementation

Outcome 1

Outcome 2

Outcome 3

Ptoukha Institute of Demography

20 Cedos

21 Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights

22 Governance and Local Accountability (HOVERLA) Activity

Perekhid Initiative

established durable solutions strategy for the international community or a specific government policy. As a result, this report is restricted to providing provisional recommendations on how to shape the JAF in Ukraine.

national and international stakeholders within the durable solutions coordination architecture is essential. Key strategic considerations for ‘endorsement’ are summarised below, with available options and rationales detailed throughout the report.

• Which actor should be responsible for producing official IDP statistics in Ukraine?

• Which existing policy frameworks should the JAF implementation align with?

• Should a statistical distinction be made between ‘registered’ and ‘de facto’ IDPs?

• What are the definition elements for identifying displacement categories?

• What are the JAF durable solutions criteria and sub-criteria?

• Which framework(s) should the JAF indicators align with?

• Should the JPMM adopt a comparative approach for measuring exit?

• Should the JPMM aim to track caseload movements inside the IDP stock?

Once alignment has progressed during the strategic alignment phase, it is recommended that relevant partners convene within the most suitable decision-making framework to coordinate efforts in further operationalising the JAF and translating it into:

• An indicator bank: The recommended JAF indicators outlined in this report should be consolidated into a comprehensive bank along with their associated questions. This bank should feature an 'identification module,' comprising a set of questions based on the JAF's recommended definition elements to classify displacement categories and sub-

2. JAF IMPLEMENTATION

After alignment on JAF recommendations, the framework will be progressively integrated into two distinct data architecture systems, each reflecting a different application of the JAF:

• Production of official IDP statistics: The JAF is partially designed to guide the production of official IDP statistics in Ukraine. These statistical estimates should, in turn, support monitoring, budget planning, and accountability processes of durable solutions policy and programmes.

• Production of IDP-related data by operational actors: The JAF is also conceived for use by operational stakeholders who produce or rely on IDP-related data to conduct their activities (e.g., Ministries, NNGOs, UN agencies, INGOs, and civil society organisations). They should be encouraged to use the JAF as a set of references for assessing

2.1 GLOBAL RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1.1

COORDINATION OF IDP STATISTICS

The International Recommendations on Internally Displaced Persons Statistics (IRIS) indicate that official statistics should be produced within a ‘National Statistical System’ (NSS), comprising various government bodies and agencies. In most countries, this system includes a ‘National Statistical Office’ (NSO), which has the statutory role of coordinating the production of official statistics across different areas of responsibility within ministries and agencies and overseeing statistical standards.

In cases of internal displacement, the IRIS framework supports establishing national coordination mechanisms for IDP statistics, led by the NSS. One or multiple entities or agencies within the NSS should be given responsibilities for coordinating the development, production, and dissemination of official IDP statistics at national and sub-national levels and liaising with international organisations. It also involves developing methodologies, establishing IDP classifications and definitions, and ensuring alignment with official statistical concepts and classifications. Once produced, the official IDP statistics should inform policy development and evaluation, budget allocation, and response implementation.

categories. Additionally, it should include questions aligned with the proposed JAF durable solutions indicators and criteria, as well as questions aimed at capturing movement intentions and demographic characteristics.

• A JPMM final tool: The proposed JPMM outlined in this report is presented in a 'blueprint' format and should be operationalised into a functional tool following stakeholder alignment on the JAF recommendations. Furthermore, the strategic alignment phase should prioritise establishing the thresholds needed to track caseload movements.

progress towards solutions for their IDP beneficiaries, tailored to their specific programmatic focus and priorities.

For the latter application of the JAF, specifically its use by operational actors, this report—along with its definitions, concepts, criteria, and discussions on their application—serves as a reference framework for assessing durable solutions, adaptable to specific programmatic priorities and focus areas. Due to the flexible nature of this JAF application, establishing a definitive implementation roadmap is unnecessary. Conversely, exploring considerations associated with producing official IDP statistics is pertinent at this stage of the JAF Process and serves as the focus of this section. It is structured into two parts: global recommendations for establishing national coordination mechanisms for IDP statistics (Section 2.1) and an overview of key considerations for setting up similar mechanisms in Ukraine, accounting for the current strategic landscape, data availability, and existing initiatives (Section 2.2).

Key points to consider:

• The role of the NSO as the key IDP statistics producer is not automatic: While the NSO should generally set standards for IDP statistics, using existing statistical coordination mechanisms wherever possible, in some contexts, other government agencies within the NSS may be better suited to compile and produce IDP statistics under new series and establish dedicated IDP coordination mechanisms.

• Use of operational data: Operational data collected by humanitarian actors may inform the development of official IDP statistics, provided they are integrated through a coherent approach and subject to a quality assurance plan.

• Capacity building: Enhancing the human resources, business processes, and technological capacity of statistical units responsible for producing IDP statistics within NSOs and other agencies in the NSS may be essential.

2.1.2 DATA SOURCES

The IRIS framework presents two main data sources as the basis for official IDP statistics:

• Sample Household Survey: National household sample surveys, widely used by NSSs, offer a powerful tool for collecting detailed data on people, households, and communities. For IDP statistics, these surveys enable in-depth questions on displacement patterns and IDP situations, potentially capturing both inflows and outflows and allowing comparisons between IDPs and the general population. Two approaches are possible: (1) integrating identification modules and IDPfocused indicators into existing national multi-topic surveys, benefiting from established regularity and comparability, or (2) designing specialised surveys focused solely on the IDP population, allowing for more comprehensive insights into displacement-related vulnerabilities. However, these surveys have limitations, including coverage, the challenge of creating a representative IDP sample, sampling errors, and the difficulty of identifying eligible respondents. Additionally, sample surveys can be costly, and time-intensive, which may complicate comparisons with the general population.

• Administrative data: Administrative data is information collected for administrative purposes by national authorities or support agencies on individuals as part of their service delivery. In countries where IDP tracking is prioritised, dedicated IDP-specific registers or comprehensive databases have been established, linking registered IDPs to government services and enabling them to access targeted benefits. However, these registers face certain limitations. Primarily, administrative data is available only for registered IDPs, which introduces risks of self-exclusion and misclassification (see Section 3.2.1). Additionally, identifying IDPs within this data can be challenging, as details on movement and changes in residence are often not recorded. To strengthen administrative IDP data, the number of databases where IDPs can be identified is recommended to be maximised. Ideally, each IDP should be assigned a personal identification number to avoid duplication and enable seamless data exchange. Synchronising updates across these databases can improve consistency. Further, establishing common terminology, classifications, and naming conventions is crucial to facilitate data interoperability among the various national and international actors involved. Additionally, formal data-sharing arrangements, respecting legal constraints and data confidentiality, should govern the exchange of IDP data between agencies and statistical bodies.

2.2 IMPLEMENTING THE JOINT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

2.2.1

IDP STATISTICS PRODUCER

In Ukraine, Law #2524 On Official Statistics and Resolution #481 On Approval of the Regulation on the State Statistics Service of Ukraine designate the State Statistical Service of Ukraine (SSSU) as the NSO, responsible for setting standards and generating official statistics, suggesting it would be designated as the IDP statistics producer. However, various KIs have raised concerns about the role the SSSU can realistically play within a national coordination mechanism for IDP statistics. They highlighted potential limitations in the agency’s capacity—specifically staff, expertise and funding—needed to oversee or conduct data collection, processing, and analysis amid the current

2.2.2

COORDINATION OF IDP STATISTICS IN UKRAINE

a. Fragmentation of efforts in the response to internal displacement

Discussions with KIs on establishing coordination mechanisms for producing IDP statistics in Ukraine often reflected broader concerns about the fragmentation of efforts in the overall response to internal displacement—both within the GoU and the international community in Ukraine.

• GoU level: Several KIs highlighted a lack of coherent alignment and clear leadership on durable solutions and early recovery policies at the government level, primarily due to the systemic absence of collaboration between key entities. Ministries such as the Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories (MRTOT)1 and the Ministry of Social Policies (MoSP) were often said to be operating in silos, driven by a lack of delineation between their competing agendas. One KI [INGO] noted that the MRTOT and MoSP navigate this space with distinct strengths and approaches, yet without clearly merging

challenges posed by the full-scale invasion. Meanwhile, one KI argued that the SSSU is willing to adopt established data frameworks and methodologies from international partners. . The extent of the SSSU’s ability to collect and process IDP-related data and ultimately produce official IDP statistics is critical, as it reflects its potential to serve as the recognised producer of IDP statistics in Ukraine, at least in the short to medium term. In this context, the capabilities of national research institutions, such as the Ptoukha Institute of Demography, as well as UN agencies, to support the SSSU through capacity building and the establishment of statistical standards, warrant careful consideration.

their efforts. The MRTOT appeared inclined to take on a more coordination-focused role to tackle internal displacement and the humanitarian response, assuming leadership in temporary structures such as IDP coordination hubs and local IDP councils. In contrast, the MoSP manages a significantly larger budget, oversees IDP allowance payments, and operates through an established network of social and administrative centres.

• International Community level: One KI [UN agency] observed that the coordination structure for durable solutions within the international community requires reassessment, as no specific body has been responsible for outlining a clear strategic direction or offering an inter-agency entry point for joint discussions with the Government of Ukraine. Engagement instead frequently occurs through bilateral or cluster-specific channels. Additional challenges stem from the need to delineate mandates between humanitarian and early recovery actors amid the scale-down of humanitarian activities.

1 The Ministry has been dismissed after the drafting of this report and its responsibilities transferred to the Ministry of Restoration.

b. Lack of unified IDP-related data system

A key limitation regarding generating official IDP statistics is the absence of a fully interoperable data ecosystem of public registries in Ukraine. KIs partly attribute this issue to current legislation on personal data protection and martial law, which restricts datasharing among ministries and hinders a comprehensive view of specific population groups.2 In the meantime, one KI [UN agency] observed that the GoU lacks a clear roadmap for a unified system, including technical aspects or security requirements, and instead focuses on addressing gaps in its existing fragmented systems. In this context, the Ministry of Digital Transformation’s role in integration appears limited, focusing primarily on specific services like Diia, which other ministries connect to.

Notably, the MoSP manages the only public record of registered IDPs, the Unified Information Database (UID) on IDPs. Its primary advantage is that it collects data on various characteristics during registration, including IDP needs and socio-economic situations. However, it has several limitations: Besides covering only registered IDPs, it lacks regular data updates and is not linked to other public registries.

c. Existing frameworks or initiatives

Considering JAF implementation involves examining existing policy frameworks or initiatives for accessing or periodically collecting interlinked statistics that have the potential to align with JAF objectives. Importantly, when examining linkages between these frameworks or initiatives and the production of official IDP statistics, certain strategic factors should be considered, including their potential for generating IDP-specific data, viability, and the capacities required for alignment.

• Framework 1 – State Strategy on Internal Displacement: The GoU, through the State Strategy on Internal Displacement (2023–2025), has mandated local authorities to conduct sample-based integration monitoring of their IDPs, providing both a questionnaire and methodological recommendations for this purpose. While this initiative holds considerable potential for generating official IDP statistics, it faces several challenges. First, various KIs have pointed out that it is impeded by the fragmented nature of government action on internal displacement, resulting in limited political will and funding for effective implementation. One KI [UN agency] observed that the Strategy remains an isolated initiative of the MRTOT, though it includes valuable contributions from civil society and national NGOs, particularly in the questionnaire design. Second, although the Ministry asserts that findings from these assessments will inform local policies on internal displacement and support advocacy for additional resources, one workshop participant noted that the questionnaire is not fully aligned with local departmental practices. In addition, local authorities would reportedly see little incentive to adopt this tool, as it is unlikely to secure funding from the central government.

• Initiative 1 – Unified Information System of the Social Sphere: The Ministry of Social Policy (MoSP) is currently working, notably with digital support from UNICEF,

to centralise several of its social service registries into a unified system known as the ‘Unified Information System of the Social Sphere’ (UISSS). According to the Ministry, this system interlinks various registries, including the Unified Information Database (UID) on IDPs, enabling data analysis and crossverification to create ‘digital profiles’ of all beneficiaries in a single platform. This system helps direct beneficiaries to appropriate assistance, maintains a history of received support and builds profiles based on existing data. For IDPs, this includes information such as payment history, place of residence, and disability status. During the consultation phase, the MoSP expressed willingness to make this system’s data accessible to partners and showed interest in interconnecting the UISSS with external systems. However, they noted that this process would require a clear, established methodology, and cautioned that adding additional data—such as information on IDP integration—could be counterproductive without coherent integration and analysis. Overall, this initiative presents promising potential for generating official IDP statistics, with some important considerations: only registered IDPs can be identified within this system, and the data is currently limited to social service information compiled under the UISSS, pending further expansion to other public registries.

• Framework 2 – Draft Law ‘On Municipal Statistics’: A Draft Law ‘On Municipal Statistics’ has been formulated at the initiative of the Ministry of Restoration to address significant discrepancies in data practices and quality between local administrations and statistical units in Ukraine. This draft law is founded on a standardised data management system developed with support from the HOVERLA (Governance and Local Accountability) Activity, following a comprehensive assessment of local data management systems and extensive consultations. Standardising practices and data quality at the local level serve two overarching objectives. Firstly, it supports Ukraine’s broader recovery planning agenda by enhancing local-level visibility and trend analysis. Secondly, it is essential for EU integration and unlocking access to long-term regional development funding opportunities. If an IDP identification component is fully incorporated into the new data management system, it could provide a strong pilar for generating IDP statistics based on standardised data.

However, certain limitations should be considered. Generating data at the local level entails complex challenges around assigning responsibilities, which require sufficient resources and capacity. KIs stressed considerable staffing, expertise, and funding disparities across communities, complicating standardisation without proper support. Similarly, one KI [INGO] argued that local authorities’ commitment to addressing internal displacement and generating IDP-specific data often depends on their capacity and motivation to leverage associated funding. Additionally, local authorities may view the presence of IDPs differently: some see it as an opportunity to strengthen the workforce and drive economic recovery, while others show limited interest without clear political or electoral incentives. Lastly, it should be noted that alignment between this new data management system and SSSU practices and standards is not assured, and political instability related to restructuring within the Ministry could further impede the law’s progress.

2 The Government of Ukraine has indicated that a draft law is in progress to amend data usage regulations during martial law, with adoption anticipated by the end of 2024. This law would, among other provisions, enable the generation of unique identifiers for individuals across various public registries, thereby enhancing data interlinkages.

3. DISPLACEMENT CATEGORIES

This section addresses JAF Outcome 1: establishing a common terminology on internal displacement, focusing on defining displacement categories and related concepts. It begins with an overview of global recommendations

3.1. GLOBAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The global recommendations in this section are primarily based on the International Recommendations on IDP Statistics (IRIS), which operationalise the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement into approaches for statistical measurement by NSOs.

3.1.1. UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES IDP DEFINITION

The UN Guiding Principles broadly define IDP as follows: “Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalised violence, violations of human rights, or natural or humanmade disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognised state border”.

The definition of the UN Guiding Principles does not confer any legal status or is legally binding under international law. It relies

TEMPORALITY OF DISPLACEMENT

that outline definition elements for IDPs, Returnees, and Returning Refugees (Section 3.1). It subsequently applies these definition elements to the Ukrainian context, incorporating insights from the consultation process (Section 3.2).

on incorporation into domestic legal or administrative frameworks for practical application. According to the UN Guiding Principles, national laws or policies are acceptable if they broaden the scope of the definition, but not if they narrow it, as they risk excluding or discriminating against certain individuals from protection and benefits.

3.1.2. IDP DEFINITION ELEMENTS

The IRIS framework offers guidance on operationalising the definition of the UN Guiding Principles, which can be broken down into various IDP definition elements related to temporality, spatiality, and the nature of displacement. However, the IRIS framework does not fully elaborate on certain issues, which must be determined more specifically according to context.

Duration of displacement (Established): The Guiding Principles contain no limitations related to the length of time a person must be displaced to meet IDP criteria. It must be defined based on context, with the key prerequisite that displacement generates specific needs or human rights concerns. In this logic, even a brief displacement could qualify.

Time frame of displacement (Unspecified): The UN Guiding Principles do not specify linking displacement to a specific timeframe associated with the crisis behind the causing event. However, IRIS acknowledges that, in some cases, national frameworks restrict the IDP definition by specifying a timeframe within which displacement must occur.

SPATIALITY OF DISPLACEMENT

Remaining within the country borders (Established): The UN Guiding Principles explicitly state that individuals must remain within internationally recognised borders to be classified as IDPs. Notably, non-nationals and stateless persons can also become IDPs within the country where the displacement occurs.

Notion of habitual place of residence (Established): The habitual place of residence is understood as the location where the individual “usually resided at the time the causing event occurred.” Although the notion of ‘habituality’ may have subjective elements, in practice, the individual should not have been absent from this location for more than one year before the causing event.

Unit of measurement of place of residence (Unspecified): Experiencing harm or property loss alone does not qualify someone as displaced; they must also be forcibly displaced ‘from home or habitual place of residence’. However, there is no clear indication on the distance or administrative boundary one must cross to be considered an IDP. IRIS acknowledges the complexities of recognising and qualifying as ‘displacement’ a movement away from home while remaining within the same settlement (which may still be seen as the ‘habitual place of residence’) but does not exclude such cases.

NATURE OF DISPLACEMENT

Lack of voluntariness (Established): It is understood that forced displacement results from a lack of voluntariness. It includes ‘lawful’ displacement (i.e., government evacuations, and planned relocation) and ‘unlawful’ displacement (e.g., forced displacement by parties to a conflict, persecution or discrimination).

Pre-emptive displacement (Established): It is acknowledged that individuals can become IDP not only following but also in anticipation of circumstances compelling them to move.

Obstructed return (Established): It is understood that venturing to another part of one’s country voluntarily and then finding oneself unable to return home because of events that make a return impossible or unreasonable also qualifies for being an IDP.

Notion of displacement-causing event (Unspecified): The causes outlined in the UN Guiding Principles (e.g., armed conflict, human rights violations) are not considered exhaustive. Even if they were, their broad scope presents challenges for practical implementation. While it is recognised that IDP-related movement should not be confused with voluntary migration driven by economic, educational, or employment opportunities, these two types of movement often coexist within a crisis context, making it difficult to clearly distinguish between them. This is especially true in cases of ‘indirect displacement’—a delayed or gradual response to the wider impacts of a crisis on living conditions, access to basic service, or livelihoods, where there is no immediate threat.

3.1.3 RETURNEES, RETURNING REFUGEES, AND IDP CHILDREN

a. Returnees

A ‘Returnee’ is understood here as an IDP who returned, permanently or not, to their place of habitual residence. According to IRIS, mere physical movement back does not indicate that displacement-related needs and vulnerabilities have been overcome. A Returnee is therefore understood as an ‘IDP in location of return’ as opposed to an ‘IDP in location of displacement’ (i.e., not in their habitual place of residence) and should be accounted within the IDP population as long as durable solutions have not been achieved.

b. Returning Refugees

Individuals forcibly crossing internationally recognised borders are classified as ‘Refugee and Refugeelike populations’ if they meet the criteria of the 1951 Refugee Convention,3 which extend to various legal statuses, including individuals under subsidiary protection and those without asylum applications.

Upon returning to their country of origin, these individuals should be recorded as ‘returning refugees’ and classified as ‘persons of concern’ due to their specific needs. According to IRIS, they should not be counted as IDPs upon return to their country of habitual residence, regardless of how long they were abroad, unless they are ‘displaced again by a new displacement-causing event’. This approach can lead to confusion when distinguishing in statistical terms between ‘returning refugees’, ‘and IDPs:

Confusion between returning refugees and IDPs: The IRIS framework separates ‘returning refugees’ from IDPs to avoid double counting individuals who may fit into both categories at different stages of displacement. However, this raises two issues:

1) Returning refugees category does not account for exact location: Unlike IDPs, ‘returning refugees’ are not differentiated between those ‘in location of displacement’ and ‘in location of return’ (i.e., their habitual residence), which overlooks key vulnerabilities, particularly in the location of return, where their needs can closely resemble those of IDPs.

2) Ambiguity regarding short-term movements abroad: There is no minimum time requirement for how long someone must be abroad to be classified as a refugee under IRIS. As a result, individuals may be classified as returning refugees even after a brief period abroad, which raises concerns about misclassification, as their profiles might closely resemble those of IDPs.

Confusion over the term ‘new displacement-causing event’: The IRIS framework states that returning refugees, should be counted as IDPs only in case of ‘new displacement-causing event’. However, it doesn’t specify whether this event must occur at their habitual residence, the return location, or elsewhere, leading to potential inconsistencies in classification.

c. IDP children born after displacement

The IRIS framework suggests that children born to IDP families after displacement should be included in statistical frameworks as an important IDP-related category, as they are affected by protection needs and vulnerabilities tied to their family’s displacement, though they should not be counted as IDPs themselves. Similarly, collecting data on non-displaced household members of IDPs in IDP-specific surveys can often be relevant for policy and programme planning, but they should not be counted as IDPs.

3 If they don’t, they are considered ‘forcibly displaced migrants’, including individuals who flee natural or human-made disasters but do not meet the Refugee Convention criteria, considered part of broader migration flows alongside voluntary movements.

3.2. DISPLACEMENT CATEGORIES IN UKRAINE

This section presents key findings and insights from desk research and the consultations phase on adapting displacement categories to the Ukrainian context and operationalising global recommendations.

3.2.1 OUTLOOK

a. Community Perception around the label of IDP

IOM’s study Community Perception of Displacement and Durable Solutions in Ukraine, conducted in preparation for the JAF, indicates that most IDPs and host communities generally understand the core elements of the term ‘IDP’ (i.e., involuntary movement within national borders) and commonly use it, along with the term ‘displaced’ (pereselentsi), as the most neutral way to describe IDPs. However, discussions with beneficiaries also reveal that more pejorative labels are sometimes used, reflecting social divides in certain areas, fueled by stereotypes or tensions related to access to assistance.

b. Ukrainian legal and administrative framework

In 2014, Ukraine incorporated into its legal framework Law #509 On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of IDPs, which defines IDPs in Ukraine by utilising the UN Guiding Principles definition and provides legal guarantees for the protection of their rights and freedoms. In practice, individuals are recognised as IDPs by the Government of Ukraine (GoU) only if they have registered as such. This registration forms the basis for compiling official data and is a prerequisite for receiving social protection and support. Resolution #509 On Registration of IDPs from the Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine establishes specific IDP definition elements that condition eligibility for IDP registration.

While Ukraine’s legal definition does not restrict the scope of the UN Guiding Principles, the implementation of the registration system can lead to exclusion or ‘misclassification’ of certain individuals from protection and benefits, distorting in turn statistical estimates:

• Exclusion of unregistered IDPs: KIs noted that a significant proportion of IDPs opt not to register, either because they do not require assistance or due to concerns that registration might become a burden, such as fears of conscription or the assumption that future contributions would be expected in return.

• Registered IDP ‘misclassification’: As highlighted in the 2020 Danish Refugee Council (DRC) Desk Research, the IDP registration system has long faced data quality issues, notably

record duplication. Additionally, representatives of the MoSP –responsible for distributing IDP monetary allowances – often express concerns about manipulation of the registration system, such as individuals not de-registering upon returning to their place of residence. In response, the Ministry has revised IDP allowance eligibility, focusing on specific vulnerability criteria to prevent resource depletion.

c. IDP Statistical Distinction

The challenges mentioned above raise the question of whether a distinction should be made between ‘registered’ and ‘de facto’ IDPs—those who meet the UN Guiding Principles definition and are assumed to need protection, regardless of holding an IDP certificate—so that statistical estimates and progress monitoring can also include the latter. Notably, the distinction referred to here would be purely statistical, it is not meant to infer the programmatic aspect of which categories of IDP organisations do or should be working with. KIs expressed different opinions regarding the relevance of statistically differentiating between these two groups. Their views can be summarised into the following two options, one of which must be selected:

Option 1 – There should be only one statistical category of IDPs: Three KIs [Coordination, UN agency, Research] cautioned against creating rules and criteria that operate independently of the government’s practices, legal framework, and registration requirements. Notably, they do not advocate for complete alignment with the GoU’s current approach, as they recognise the exclusion risks posed by the registration system. Instead, they encourage close collaboration with the government to find common ground on a joint categorisation. However, the programmatic implications of this alignment remain unclear.

Option 2 – There should be a distinction made between registered and de facto IDPs: Data for Solutions (D4S) Symposium participants, as well as 5 KIs [Research, INGOs, Data & Analysis, Other], emphasised the importance of creating a distinct statistical category that reflects the programmatic reality— i.e., most stakeholders, aside from ministries, assist all IDPs, regardless of registration status. They also noted that introducing this distinction would provide more accurate estimates of the proportion of IDPs that currently fall outside the scope of registration and, as a result, are deprived of displacement-related government assistance. One argued that ministries are eager to obtain data on unregistered IDPs to better understand the actual flows and dynamics of internal displacement. However, it should be noted that with this approach, some individuals may be registered as IDPs but not categorised as such—and vice versa—depending on the specific IDP definition elements selected.

While little can be done to address the self-exclusion of certain beneficiaries, the practice of restricting access to IDP benefits for registered IDPs in a shrinking resource environment raises concerns. This is particularly problematic when coupled with the belief that assistance should automatically cease for returnees or long-term IDPs, such as those displaced before 2022. In response, various partners, including the MoSP, advocate for a needs-based approach, where reductions in assistance are aligned with changes in needs. This highlights the importance of a standardised monitoring system, as discussed in section 5 of this report.

BOX 1: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ON DISPLACEMENT CATEGORISATION AND RELATED TERMINOLOGY IN THE UKRAINIAN CONTEXT

KIs raised potential caveats and risks in categorising individuals based on their displacement history.

Displacement-based categorisation: Two national NGOs and one UN agency highlighted that distinguishing individuals by displacement groups can be somewhat artificial, as needs and vulnerabilities are not always linked to displacement history. They questioned the logic of the JAF’s ‘magnifying lens’ on IDPs, suggesting it risks overlooking broader issues impacting entire communities. This debate— ‘status versus vulnerability’—is explored in the Independent Review of the Humanitarian Response to Internal Displacement (HPG, 2024), which argues that displacement should always be assumed to result in compounded vulnerabilities to ensure that IDPs’ specific needs and risks are promptly assessed and addressed.

Use of the term displacement ‘status’: One partner cautioned against the tendency in the Ukrainian context to conflate social status with legal status, as this can impose associated rights and responsibilities. They argued that such status should instead be viewed as a temporary condition linked to specific needs—a perspective also highlighted in the HPG report. This partner further contested the term ‘de facto’ IDPs, suggesting that they should simply be referred to as ‘IDPs,’ as the absence of a certificate does not diminish their entitlement to the assistance and protection warranted by their circumstances.

3.2.2 IDP DEFINITION ELEMENTS

Whether alignment with the government on a common statistical categorisation is achieved, or two categories are created for registered and de facto IDPs, using IDP definition elements (introduced in

a. Spatiality of displacement

Section 3.1.2) is necessary to operationalise this categorisation. This section explores key insights from the consultation phase regarding criteria related to spatiality, temporality, and the nature of displacement.

Remaining within the country border: All KIs agree that an IDP is an individual displaced by an event within Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders. Participants at the D4S Symposium also reached a consensus to include non-nationals and stateless persons affected by internal displacement, regardless of legal status, though Ukraine's legal definition includes stateless persons only if they were legally residing in the country at the time of displacement.

Habitual place of residence: The notion of ‘habituality’ is often interpreted differently in practice. International organisations such as IOM and REACH, through the GPS and MSNA, ask respondents to self-report their 'permanent place' (IOM) or 'habitual place' (REACH) of residence prior to the full-scale invasion. In contrast, official registration requires proof of residency in the administrative entity (hromada) where the causing event occurred. These varying terminologies and methods risk treating displacement inconsistently, depending on whether ‘habitual’ place of residence is understood in practical, legal, or even symbolic terms, and failing to account for the time spent at the location prior to displacement.

Unit of measurement of place of residence: Interpretations of the UN Guiding Principles on what movement constitutes ‘displacement’ vary widely among partners, creating the potential for significant discrepancies in statistical IDP population estimates. Importantly, these differences are rooted in varying programmatic approaches and understandings of internal displacement.

• Unit 1 – Home-level displacement: Individuals whose house has been assessed as ‘destroyed or uninhabitable’ through an act of inspection are entitled to formal IDP registration, regardless of whether they leave their settlement of habitual residence or not. The statistical inclusion in the IDP category of ‘intra-settlement displacements’ due to destroyed housing is supported by some KIs who argue for alignment with the government’s approach and view home loss as the primary vulnerability associated with IDPs. Other KIs however argue that displacement should imply a detachment from one’s community, livelihood sources, or basic services, and therefore for IDP to leave a minima the settlement of habitual residence.

• Unit 2 – Settlement-level displacement (city/village): This approach, favoured by D4S Symposium participants, is widely regarded as balanced and practical by KIs, and is frequently used in large household surveys, such as MSNA or GPS. However, its key limitation is its lack of alignment with Ukraine’s administrative system, where the hromada is the smallest recognised entity. Larger settlements, such as cities, may be considered a hromada, but smaller villages are not. As a result, this approach can classify individuals as IDPs inconsistently with cross-administrative border displacements.

• Unit 3 – Hromada-level displacement: This approach aligns with the Ukrainian regulatory framework, which requires individuals to cross a hromada boundary to be eligible for IDP registration. One KI [INGO] defended the programmatic rationale behind this, explaining that IDPs essentially sign a ‘social contract’ with their new local government, under whose jurisdiction they fall. This local government then becomes responsible for providing social and economic protection.

b. Temporality of Displacement

Duration of displacement: KIs did not suggest that a minimum duration of displacement should be a prerequisite for qualifying as an IDP. However, they emphasised the importance of distinguishing between ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ displacements to account for potential shifts in programmatic needs, though no specific duration thresholds have been established.

Time frame of displacement: A question remains on whether 2014 IDPs who were not displaced again after 2022 should continue to be statistically categorised as IDPs under the JAF. In practical terms, there are two approaches to addressing this, each with significant implications for the overall IDP statistical estimates in Ukraine.

• Option 1 – Classify and identify them as a sub-category of non-displaced with a pre-2022 displacement history. REACH approach.

• Option 2 – Classify and identify them as (a sub-category of) IDPs. MRTOT’s approach through its needs assessment under the State Strategy on Internal Displacement.

In both options, 2014 IDPs displaced again after the full-scale invasion would be classified and identified as IDPs with a pre-2022 displacement history.

c. Nature of Displacement

Pre-emptive displacement and obstructed return: KIs recognise that displacement can occur either in anticipation of causing event or because of inability to return to one’s habitual place of residence after initially moving voluntarily within the country.

Notion of displacement-causing event: KIs generally agree that qualifying as an IDP does not necessarily require fleeing directly from active or imminent hostilities. Indirect displacement should also be considered, although this must not be confused with internal migration. Three methods can be explored for distinguishing between causing events that should or should not qualify individuals as IDPs:

• Method 1 – Direct or indirect ‘self-reporting’: Some KIs encouraged asking individuals to self-identify as IDPs through direct screening questions or by inquiring whether they were displaced ‘forcibly’ or ‘due to the full-scale invasion’ (indirect self-reporting). The indirect self-reporting closely mirrors current practices in assessments conducted in Ukraine but can hardly be relied on with administrative data.

• Method 2 – Conflict-affected hromada list: Applying a uniform approach to all IDPs by basing their statistical categorisation on whether their habitual residence falls within the official list of conflict-affected hromadas offers the advantage of simplicity and alignment with Governmental practice. Conversely, this approach automatically excludes individuals whose habitual residence is not on the list, despite potentially experiencing various forms of indirect displacement.

• Method 3 – Categorical indicator: A third option involves using a categorical indicator, where various causes of displacement (e.g., destroyed infrastructure, lack of access to water) are presented to respondents in a select-multiple format and confidentially classified as ‘direct,’ ‘indirect,’ or ‘migration’ displacement. The categorisation of individuals as IDPs or internal migrants would depend on the responses selected from the list.

3.2.3 RETURNEES

a. Returnees

IOM’s Community Perception Study indicates that the term ‘Returnees’ is not used in practice by IDPs and host communities. Regarding KIs, they acknowledged the widespread confusion surrounding the term’s use in Ukraine, as it is sometimes applied to ‘IDPs in the location of return’ (as referred to by IRIS) and other times to individuals returning from abroad, regardless of whether they have returned to their habitual place of residence. However, among these two usages, the

former has gained broader consensus and is more commonly used in practice. Therefore, it is recommended that this term be applied solely to ‘IDPs in the location of return’ within the JAF. From this point onward, the term ‘Returnees’ is used in contrast to ‘de facto IDPs,’ referring to all IDPs in their location of displacement, regardless of registration status. When the term ‘IDP’ is used alone, it includes both sub-groups.

It is important to note that ‘Returnees’ are still considered IDPs, no less than ‘de facto IDPs,’ and, according to global recommendations, they remain IDPs until they achieve durable solutions (reintegration) and therefore should be included in progress monitoring.

b. Definition Elements

Returnees should be identified using definition elements of spatiality and temporality based on the same principles as de facto IDPs. Importantly, these two displacement categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., an individual cannot belong to both simultaneously)

Spatiality of displacement

and sequential (i.e., an individual must have met the criteria for being a de facto IDP before becoming a Returnee). Failure to align definition elements risks creating overlaps or gaps between the two groups.

Remaining within the country border and notion of habitual place of residence: It is widely understood that a Returnee remains within the borders of Ukraine, with their return defined by their arrival at the location they considered their ‘habitual’ place of residence before displacement.

Unit of measurement of place of residence: Reaching an agreement on what precisely defines a return in a ‘place’ of habitual residence is essential and remains under discussion. Importantly, aligning with de facto IDP definition elements is critical to avoid double counting (see Figure 3). Given this, using the settlement (Unit 2) or hromada (Unit 3) as spatial units for measurement appears to be the most effective way to prevent overlaps between IDPs and Returnees.

In this illustration, the return of individual 1 is defined by crossing into the settlement (settlement-level displacement), even though they have not returned to their home. In contrast, the internal displacement of individual 2 is defined by leaving their home (house-level displacement). As a result, both Returnees and de facto IDPs coexist within the same measurement unit (settlement-level), which creates a risk of confusion and doublecounting.

Figure 3. Illustration of double-counting due to spatiality overlap

Temporality of displacement

Duration of displacement pre-return: Major household surveys in Ukraine, such as MSNA or GPS, set a minimum time threshold of two weeks in displacement for an individual to be classified as a Returnee upon returning to their habitual residence. The rationale is to avoid overcounting Returnees after every short-term movement, even following valid displacement-causing events. However, this does not align with the sequential logic between IDPs and Returnees, as no time threshold is set for qualifying as an IDP.

There are three options: maintain the current practice, in which case a time threshold is set for qualifying as a Returnee, but not for IDPs, despite the issues this may cause with the sequential logic; or consider the following alternatives.

• Alternative 1 – Apply a time threshold to qualify as IDPs: Individuals displaced for less than a specified time threshold would not be categorised as IDPs but rather as non-displaced in cases of ‘snap displacement’. Once they surpass this threshold, they will be categorised as IDPs, and as Returnees once their return is confirmed. This approach maintains the sequential logic between IDPs and Returnees but has the disadvantage of potentially undercounting the proportion of IDPs, particularly when data is collected from a recently evacuated population. Furthermore, it relies on a statistical system capable of updating quickly enough for the undercounting of ‘snap displacement’ to be meaningful.

• Alternative 2 – Removing the time thresholds on return: Categorise individuals returning to the habitual place of residence, even after just one day of IDP displacement, as Returnees. While this approach preserves the sequential logic, it raises the risk of overcounting the proportion of Returnees in Ukraine, particularly if the JAF adopts a broad understanding of displacement-causing events.

Pendular movements: KIs highlighted the need to distinguish actual returns from ‘pendular movements,’ i.e., repeated or cyclical movement of individuals between their current and habitual place of residence. There are three ways to operate this distinction:

• Method 1 – Apply a time threshold on return duration: KIs suggested verifying the specific amount of time spent at the habitual place of residence after an individual’s return to avoid counting short-term pendular movements as a full return.

3.2.4 REFUGEES AND RETURNING REFUGEES

a. Return to Ukraine from forced displacement abroad

In practice, legal frameworks abroad have generally treated all individuals fleeing Ukraine as part of the ‘Refugee and Refugee-like populations,’ regardless of whether they meet the main criterion for refugee status—a well-founded fear of persecution. Both the EU and Russia, the main asylum providers to Ukrainians since the full-scale invasion, have established Temporary Protection Directives (EU) or have streamlined temporary asylum status obtention (Russia). The EU Temporary Protection Directive, activated in March 2022, grants immediate residence rights and associated benefits (such as access to the labour market, healthcare, social services, and education) to any Ukrainians residing in Ukraine before 24 February 2022, as well as to non-Ukrainians who cannot safely return to their country of origin (EUR-LEX, 2022). In this context, only a small proportion of Ukrainians displaced after 2022 have opted for regular asylum applications, which was the standard procedure before the full-scale invasion (Eurostat, 2023).

With the above in mind, the following recommendations are proposed within the JAF:

• Categorise all individuals forcibly displaced abroad as ‘Refugees (or Refugee-like)’: This category should be mutually exclusive with de facto IDPs and Returnees (i.e., an individual cannot belong to more than one category simultaneously) and should follow a sequential logic (i.e.,

b. Definition Elements

Identifying a Returning Refugee is spatially straightforward, as it stems from the Refugee’s return to Ukraine. However, this identification

Temporality of displacement

• Method 2 – Movement intentions: D4S Symposium participants argued that setting a specific number of days would be arbitrary, emphasising that the key is to capture the intention to remain (discussed in Section 4.2).

• Method 3 – Indirect self-reporting: When inquiring about the current place of residence, IOM’s GPS distinguishes between a “change of place of residence” and “short trips,” with the latter indicating no actual movement and, therefore, not classifying a household as a Returnee.

an individual must first meet the criteria for being a de facto IDP or a Refugee before transitioning to a Returnee). While ‘Refugees’ are not captured by the JAF, as they are located outside Ukraine, defining this category helps to accurately identify ‘Returning Refugees’.

• Include ‘Returning Refugees’ in the JAF and classify them as a sub-category of de facto IDPs and Returnees: All individuals returning from forced displacement abroad should be classified as ‘Returning Refugees’. However, as discussed in section 3.1.3 of this report, categorising them as a separate displacement category from IDPs presents inherent limitations. A simpler and clearer approach is to classify them as a sub-category of de facto IDPs or Returnees, depending on whether, at a given time, they are in a location of displacement or a location of return. The ‘Returning Refugee’ sub-category is therefore not mutually exclusive to being a de facto IDP or a Returnee. However, it follows a sequential logic (i.e., an individual must first meet the Refugee criteria before being a Returning Refugee).

Several KIs highlighted that, from a programmatic perspective, the legal status obtained abroad by ‘Returning Refugees’ should be captured within the JAF. This information is valuable for identifying vulnerable individuals, such as those who have demonstrated confirmed threats of persecution by obtaining formal refugee status.

can only occur after clearly defining the necessary temporality and nature of displacement elements for recognising a Refugee.

Duration of displacement abroad: How long must an individual be forcibly displaced abroad to be statistically classified as a Refugee? As highlighted earlier when discussing the sequential logic for IDPs and Returnees, aligning time thresholds is crucial whenever feasible.

Time frame of displacement abroad: Should pre-2022 forced displacements abroad statistically qualify an individual as a Refugee under the JAF? For consistency, this decision should align with the time frame used for IDP identification. It is important to note that including pre-2022 displacements could challenge the logic of automatically categorising individuals as Refugees or Refugee-like, as the framework is grounded in post-2022 legal provisions.

Nature of displacement

Displacement-causing event: To avoid confusing Refugees with international migration flows, the method used in the JAF to differentiate displacement-causing events for IDPs should be applied consistently to Refugees as well.

3.2.5 IDENTIFICATION MODULE

The JAF Indicator Bank (see Section 1.3) should include an 'identification module'—a set of questions based on the JAF's recommended definition elements to identify displacement categories and sub-categories. Figure 4 below provides a simplified example

of an identification module, using definition elements modelled on IOM's General Population Survey and reflected in REACH’s 2024 Multi-Sector Needs Assessment (MSNA).

Is the c city/village in which your household currently lives the habitual place of residence you had before the f full-scale war that began on February 24, 2022? Settlement-level Displacement

Was your household f forced to leave your habitual place of residence because of the fullscale war?

Is your household not coming back to your habitual place of residence to avoid negative consequences resulting from the full-scale war?

Was your household forced to permanently relocate to a d different dwelling in this city/village because of the full-scale war?

Was your household forced to leave this city/village at one point for 1 14 days or longer because of the full-scale war?

was your household forced to leave your habitual place of residence?

When did your household come back permanently to your habitual place of residence?

Did your household move a abroad for a minimum of t two weeks to a avoid

consequences resulting from the full-scale war? Did your household move a abroad for a minimum of t two weeks to a avoid negative consequences resulting from the full-scale war? Returning Refugees Time Threshold Indirect Self-Reporting

Did your household have to change your habitual place of residence b between 2014 and February 2022 to avoid negative consequences resulting from the war?

Is any member of your HH currently r registered as IDPs?

Did your household have to change your habitual place of residence b between 2014 and February 2022 to avoid negative consequences resulting from the war? Pre-2022 Displacement History Indirect Self-Reporting

Is any member of your HH currently registered as IDPs?

4. DURABLE SOLUTIONS ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS

This section addresses JAF Outcome 2: establishing a durable solutions analytical framework. It encompasses three population-level components— durable solutions criteria, (Section 4.1) movement intentions (Section 4.2), and demographic data (Section 4.3)—and one component at the community or national level, representing the wider context (Section 4.4). The following examines how to tailor these components within the JAF for the Ukrainian context, guided by global standards, insights from consultations, and the 2024 IOM community perception study.

4.1 COMPONENT I - DURABLE SOLUTIONS CRITERIA

4.1.1 IASC CRITERIA

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Framework on Durable Solutions, endorsed by the IASC Working Group in 2009, defines durable solutions as a state where “IDPs no longer have specific assistance and protection needs linked to their displacement” and establishes eight criteria to determine the extent to which durable solutions have been achieved.

1. Long-term security: IDPs enjoy physical safety and security, as well as freedom of movement, guaranteed by the protection of national and local authorities.

2. Adequate Standards of Living: IDPs have sustainable access to essential food and potable water (food security), basic shelter and housing, sanitation, and essential public services (education and healthcare).

3. Access to Livelihood and Employment: Employment and livelihood opportunities are available for IDPs to allow them to fulfil at least their core socio-economic needs.

4. Effective and Accessible Mechanisms to Restore Housing, Land and Property (HLP): IDPs have access to effective mechanisms for timely restitution or

4.1.2 JAF CRITERIA

This section provides a consolidated overview of JAF durable solutions criteria, sub-criteria and indicators.5 These are organised across three dimensions, drawing on the Joint IDP Profiling Services (JIPS) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) paper Monitoring Progress Towards Solutions to Internal Displacement: A Development-Oriented Indicator Framework (Sept 2024). However, the breakdown has been specifically tailored to align with the most relevant priorities in the Ukrainian context, incorporating the perspectives of beneficiaries as well as policy and programmatic stakeholders, while maintaining balance across equally weighted criteria and sub-criteria.

Following the strategic alignment phase, each component should be operationalised by selecting common indicators and their associated questions, forming an Indicator Bank, available for all stakeholders to use flexibly in producing data supporting their programmatic and strategic objectives (see Section 1.3). This section outlines key considerations for guiding the selection and prioritisation of these indicators within the final Indicator Bank.

compensation of/for their HLP, regardless of their durable solutions preference, and have access to shelter during the interim period.

5. Access to Personal and Other Documentation: IDPs have access to the personal and other documentation necessary to access public services, reclaim property and possessions, vote or pursue other purposes linked to durable solutions.

6. Family Reunification: Families separated by displacement are reunited as quickly as possible, particularly when children, older persons or other vulnerable persons are involved.

7. Participation in Public Affairs: IDPs exercise the right to participate in public affairs at all levels on the same basis as the resident population and without discrimination.

8. Access to Effective Remedies and Justice: IDPs who have been victims of violations of international human rights or humanitarian law – including arbitrary displacement – have full and non-discriminatory access to equal and effective transitional justice and adequate reparation for harm suffered.

Dimension 1: Socio-Economic (re-) Integration

Socio-economic (re-) integration of de facto IDPs and Returnees refers to their capacity to exercise social and economic rights. It can be broken down into three key JAF criteria: Livelihoods, Housing, and Access to Basic Services. The latest global guidelines recommend adopting a development perspective that broadens the focus beyond merely assisting in meeting primary subsistence considerations. It emphasises empowering IDPs to actively contribute to the economic life of their community while ensuring their access to social protection, sustainable housing, and services.

4 Goods and services should be (1) Available in sufficient quantity and quality, bearing in mind the local context; (2) Accessible, i.e., (2.a) granted without discrimination; (2.b) within safe and easy reach/can be physically and financially accessed by everyone, including vulnerable and marginalized groups; and (2.c) are known by the beneficiaries; (3) culturally appropriate to gender and age; (4) Adaptable, i.e., provided in ways flexible enough to adapt to the changing needs of IDPs.

5 The indicators listed in this section are not exhaustive and focus on the most pressing considerations for monitoring progress.

This approach also connects to broader poverty alleviation objectives, aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and links to local economic development. An overview of this dimension is provided in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Socio-Economic (re-) Integration (Dimension 1)

Sub-Criteria 1 1: Employment

Criterion 1: Livelihoods

Sub-Criteria 1 2: Economic Security

Dimension 1: SocioEconomic (re-) Integration Criterion 2: Housing

Criterion 3: Access to Basic Ser vices

Sub-Criteria 3 1: Education

Sub-Criteria 3 2: Healthcare

CRITERION 1 – LIVELIHOODS

Employment rate

Employment modalities

Income level (poverty thresholds)

Social protection coverage

Capacity to meet basic expenses

Capacity to meet integration expenses

Type of housing

Security of tenure

Housing adequacy

Education coverage

Education modalities

Healthcare coverage

Healthcare quality

Livelihoods is understood as the financial capacity of IDPs to meet their monetary-dependent needs. According to IOM’s Community Perception Study employment and economic security emerge as central requirements for IDPs, underpinning the fulfilment of other durable solutions criteria, particularly access to housing. Younger IDPs (18-40 y/o) emphasise securing employment to facilitate integration and re-establish a sense of normalcy. In contrast, older IDPs (40+) often view economic security as closely tied to their social protection coverage.

Strategically, supporting IDPs in transitioning from assistance to self-reliance through employment is a priority for most KIs, aligning with recovery efforts and responding to the challenges posed by shrinking budgets and declining humanitarian funding. MRTOT and MoSP have been developing IDP employment strategies and stress the need for reliable data, which remains limited due to the prevalence of the informal market and lack of state surveys. Some KIs [Research, Other] argue that programmatic objectives should focus not only on the employment rate but also on the modalities of employment (work conditions, social guarantees, disability-friendly infrastructure, etc.) as well as promoting sustainable, quality job opportunities and recognising IDP ‘intellectual capital’.

Economic security in Ukraine can be assessed in various ways, reflecting its diverse manifestations shaped by vulnerabilities, demographic profiles, and IDP perceptions. Some KIs suggested focusing primarily on income level (regardless of source) as an objective measurement, with one KI [UN agency] pointing out that this remains a ‘good enough’ proxy for identifying vulnerability. Notably, KIs noted that this metric may need to adjust to shifts in the cost of living across regions and over time. Another KI [NNGO] emphasised that measuring social protection coverage is essential to ensure that eligible IDPs retain access to the support required to maintain basic living standards, comparable to the assistance they would have received if they had not been displaced. Lastly, economic security can be assessed by evaluating IDPs’ ability to cover short-term basic needs and long-term integration expenses. This can be done by comparing income and expenses, or more subjectively, as suggested by some workshop participants, by gauging IDPs’ perceptions of their financial stability.

CRITERION 2 – HOUSING

Housing, according to IOM’s Community Perception Study stands out as a top priority for IDPs, closely tied to their sense of stability and predictability. Some explicitly state that access to housing would heavily influence their decision to stay in a displacement location, while others see homeownership as the definitive end of their displacement experience. KIs [INGO, Other] noted that this emphasis aligns with Ukraine’s post-socialist context and respective perception of housing, where ownership is seen as a right rather than a privilege and forms the backbone of the social system. With housing often inherited, guaranteed housing allows Ukrainians to manage on lower incomes. Various stakeholders prioritise access to sustainable housing, recognising it as a cornerstone for durable solutions in protracted displacement, where many IDPs deplete their savings on rent or reside in collective sites across Ukraine. The Housing Policy Reform aims to modernise the legal framework and expand social housing stocks, a priority according to most KIs.

KIs discussed several key parameters for measuring housing sustainability. The first is the type of housing. One KI [UN agency] argued for instance that durable solutions remain out of reach as long as IDPs continue to reside in temporary housing, such as collective sites, regardless of the quality of living conditions. This makes transitioning to more sustainable housing arrangements essential. The second parameter is the security of tenure to be captured across all housing types. However, KIs noted that in Ukraine, this security can be difficult to measure due to the prominence of the informal rental market. The third parameter is housing adequacy, or ‘living conditions’. Workshop participants emphasised the importance of capturing IDPs’ subjective perceptions of housing quality and the extent to which their housing needs are met. Finally, some KIs underscored the need to tailor housing assessments to specific displacement contexts, considering factors such as whether IDPs still have a home in their habitual place of residence, proximity to the frontline, and regional housing market conditions in the area of displacement, considerations that should be kept in mind when tailoring progress thresholds (see Section 5.2.1).

CRITERION 3 – ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES

Access to basic services such as education and healthcare often ranked second to housing and livelihoods but remains a critical criterion for IDPs, especially for the elderly (healthcare) and households with children (education), according to IOM’s Community Perception Study Ensuring access to basic services is a focus of key policies and programmes from various KIs [including Ministries] that address integration challenges.

The achievement of this criterion can be evaluated using various methods, including focusing on measuring coverage rates. These include education coverage for school-age children and individuals categorised as Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEETs), as well as healthcare coverage, assessed by the proportion of IDPs reporting no barriers to accessing medical services within a specified period. Access to more sustainable education and healthcare can also be evaluated by examining specific aspects, such as education modalities (e.g., online or offline learning), which are a key policy focus for integrating children, or the quality of healthcare, including respect for standards of care.

Dimension 2: Security and Access to Justice

Security and Access to Justice can be broken down into two JAF criteria: Security and Protection, and Legal Rights and Documentation. Lack of security and equitable access to justice are key drivers of internal displacement and major barriers to progress in other dimensions. Addressing these issues requires reforms in the justice and security sectors while empowering affected populations to reclaim their rights. It is important to note

that the ‘Justice’ component of the JAF does not directly address transitional justice or other mechanisms for remedying violations of international human rights or humanitarian law (IASC Criterion 8). Some KIs, including UN agencies, suggested that these longterm issues lie beyond the scope of the JAF. An overview of this dimension is provided in Figure 6.

6 – Security and Access to Justice (Dimension 2)

Dimension 2: Security and Access to Jus tice

Criterion 4: Security and Protec tion

Criterion 5: Legal Rights and Documentation

Sub-Criteria 4 1: Security

Sub-Criteria 4.2: Protec tion

Sense of security

Security Incidents

MHPSS assistance coverage

Social assistance coverage

Access to legal information

Sub-Criteria 5 1: Legal Services

Sub-Criteria 5 2: Admin Services

CRITERION 4 – SECURITY AND PROTECTION

Legal issues resolution rate

Family reunification

Personal Documentation Possession

Access to HLP compensation scheme

According to IOM’s Community Perception Study, many IDPs see physical security and the end of the invasion in Ukraine as a critical prerequisite for achieving durable solutions, especially those who view returning to their habitual place of residence as a preferred pathway (Section 3.2). A key aspect of this criterion is therefore to assess IDPs’ perceived sense of security, as well as their actual exposure to security incidents (including gender-based violence), which can constrain settlement options and threaten the sustainability of local integration or return. KIs importantly acknowledged that those issues given their nature may require qualitative data collection notably to avoid underreporting.

KIs also highlighted the importance of the JAF fully capturing and monitoring protection coverage when needed by IDPs. This includes critical areas such as mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) and social assistance services like home care, child assistance, and family counselling. Some informants [INGO, NNGO] highlighted that fair and equitable access to social services is essential for fostering integration and social cohesion, often creating positive ripple effects in other sectors such as livelihoods and housing. However, they noted that these services are frequently underfunded.

CRITERION 5 – LEGAL RIGHTS AND DOCUMENTATION

Various KIs highlighted the importance of assessing IDPs’ access to legal and administrative services when these aspects were integral to their programming. Access to legal services can be measured through indicators such as access to legal information, the resolution rate of legal issues, or the number of pieces of legal support provided. Family reunification (IASC Criterion 6) may also be considered within the scope of legal services.

Access to administrative services should be assessed through two key indicators initially outlined as standalone criteria in the IASC Framework: possession of personal documentation (IASC Criterion 5) and access to HLP compensation schemes (IASC Criterion 4). Possession of personal documentation is essential for enabling IDPs to access public services, reclaim property, vote, and engage in activities that support durable solutions. The HLP compensation scheme represents a key policy initiative aimed at restoring housing access. However, various KIs noted challenges in its implementation, including funding limitations and sustainability concerns, making it less cost-effective and viable compared to social housing initiatives. Additionally, the scheme does not guarantee continuity in housing access and does not address the financial losses caused by the ongoing lack of stable living arrangements.

Dimension 3: Community Integration and Engagement

Community Integration and Engagement can be divided into two key JAF criteria: Social Cohesion and Community Engagement. Addressing these aspects is critical from both prevention and solutions perspectives, as they play a vital role in reducing

Figure 7 – Community Integration and Engagement (Dimension 3)

Dimension 3: Community Integration and Engagement

Criterion 6: Social Cohesion

Criterion 7: Community Engagement

CRITERION 6 – SOCIAL COHESION

inequalities within communities affected by displacement and represent a necessary long-term process to support the full (re-) integration of IDPs. An overview of this dimension is provided in Figure 7.

Sense of belonging

Level of trust in institutions

Discrimination

Participation in public affairs

Participation in social activities

Social relations between IDPs and their host communities can become strained, and inequalities may intensify in protracted displacement situations, particularly where increased pressure and competition over resources and livelihood opportunities arise. To measure and address those issues require assessing the perceived sense of belonging of IDPs in their settlement (horizontal social cohesion) and their level of trust in institutions (vertical social cohesion). Key informants emphasised the importance of the JAF adopting a non-discrimination lens, a challenging aspect to capture given its cross-cutting nature across multiple criteria (e.g., access to housing, basic services) and the potential need for qualitative data collection.

CRITERION 7 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

One KI [Other] highlighted that community engagement, particularly through the inclusion of IDPs in decision-making processes, is increasingly understood as a priority by local authorities, who recognise that, when strategically engaged, IDPs can be actioned as a positive resource to local recovery efforts (corresponding to IASC criterion 7). Another KI [NNGO], noted that participation in the IDP council network serves as a key measure of engagement in public affairs, providing a valuable forum for policy input, mitigating resource-related conflicts, and fostering both prevention and inclusion.

Workshop participants highlighted that community engagement should be assessed not only through participation in public affairs but also through participation in social activities, including civic, cultural, or sporting events. These aspects can provide insights into the ‘social capital’ of IDPs, such as the frequency of interactions or friendships, and, in turn, contribute to understanding the sense of belonging addressed in the social cohesion criterion.

4.1.3 INDICATORS SELECTION AND PRIORITISATION

When selecting and designing indicators for a contextspecific analytical framework, the IRIS framework advises that they not only capture the priorities of both beneficiaries and stakeholders but also that they align, as closely as possible, with (1) national development plans and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) indicators, and (2) existing standardised and tested indicators. The rationale is that using

indicators already in place for other purposes can facilitate group comparisons, allow IDP-related data to be integrated into broader data collection efforts, and ensure that indicators have been tested and meet quality standards.

While section 4.1.2 proposes a common set of indicators, this section highlights the various policy frameworks and existing

assessments with which the JAF could aim to fully or partially align its indicators. This includes adopting similar questions, calculation methods, answers, or thresholds. Importantly, this process should also account for strategic factors, such as these frameworks' viability and relevance to JAF implementation, as already examined in section 2 of this report.

• Framework 1 – State Strategy on Internal Displacement: The Government of Ukraine, in its State Strategy on Internal Displacement (2023-2025), has identified the need for mechanisms to periodically assess IDP needs (Task n°3) and monitor their integration into host communities (Task n°20). This has resulted in the development of a questionnaire and associated indicators, piloted by local authorities and civil society in Kryvyi Rih. Group of Influence, one of the partners involved in the research design and implementation of this needs monitoring, indicated during the workshop to have designed the questionnaire following global guidance notably from the Council of Europe – which has issued numerous papers focused on assessing the level of integration and social cohesion in refugee and migration contexts. In early October, the MRTOT issued Order n° 288, which approves a standardised needs assessment methodology based on the pilot and encourages local authorities to scale up the initiative.

• Framework 2 – United Nations in Ukraine Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF) 2025-2029: The UNSDCF, negotiated between the United Country Team and the Government of Ukraine, provides a roadmap to support Ukraine’s recovery and development priorities, alongside EU accession. It is specifically tailored to address the priority needs of communities hosting IDPs, recovering from occupation, or located in frontline areas. This framework establishes outcome indicators aligned with the national SDG indicator framework. According to a representative from the Resident Coordinator Office (RCO), technical discussions have been initiated since 2023 between UN agencies and the Directorate of Strategic Planning of the Cabinet of Ministers to update SDG indicators along with their baselines and targets. Notably, the RCO representative emphasised that for the UNSDCF and the UN Annual Work Plan to effectively address and measure internal displacement priorities, displacementfocused indicators should be selected in cohesion with the JAF strategic alignment phase.

• Framework 3 – Danish Refugee Council State Monitoring Concept Paper: In 2021, with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), DRC developed a Concept Paper to support operationalising the integration criteria for the ‘IDP Integration State Monitoring’ set out by the pre-2022

State Strategy on Internal Displacement. Although ultimately not implemented, this State Monitoring initiative—and the associated list of context-relevant indicators developed in close coordination with MRTOT and JIPS— was specifically designed to measure progress toward durable solutions in Ukraine, while aligning with global recommendations.

• Assessment 1 – Socio-Economic Status of Household Survey (SESHS): Following the imposition of martial law in 2022, the State Statistical Service of Ukraine (SSSU) has not been authorised to carry out its regular Household Living Conditions Survey. In response, the Institute of Demography, in collaboration with SSSU, UNICEF and the MoSP conducted the SESHS, a one-off survey in early 2024, gathering data from nearly 8,000 households using computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI), with population-level indicators. Importantly, this study incorporates an IDP identification module that enables the exploration of socio-economic disparities between IDPs and the general population. During the workshop presentation, the Institute of Demography highlighted that, while incorporating new specifics such as access to social services and child deprivation, the indicators remain aligned with pre-2022 measurement standards used by the SSSU and MoSP, particularly in terms of the Minimum Living Standard baseline, poverty lines, and social programme income thresholds. This alignment ensures consistency with government programming and provides a basis for comparing pre-2022 benchmarks. One KI noted that these indicators could integrate well into the broader agenda of aligning with the EU Statistical System, which emphasises the standardisation of social statistics to support policies to reduce disparities and promote social inclusion.

• Assessments 2 & 3 – IOM General Population Survey (GPS) and REACH Multi-Sectoral Needs Assessment (MSNA): The GPS, implemented quarterly by IOM, monitors population figures, mobility trends, and evolving needs of IDPs and Returnees. The MSNA, conducted annually by REACH, supports multi-sectoral strategic decisionmaking by informing People in Need (PiN) and Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan (HNRP) calculations. These are the two largest assessments regularly conducted to capture IDPs’ humanitarian and recovery needs, enabling comparisons over time and with non-displaced populations. Many indicators are compatible with durable solutions analyses or specifically designed to capture (re-)integration. Importantly, indicators align with stakeholders’ programmatic priorities and are standardised across responses, allowing cross-context comparison figures. However, those assessments are not designed in consultation with the government or in dialogue with the SDIs.

4.2 COMPONENT II – MOVEMENT INTENTIONS

4.2.1 KEY CONCEPTS

IASC Durable Solutions Framework emphasise respecting IDPs’ rights to make informed decisions about their preferred pathway to durable solutions —whether (1) Local integration in the current location, (2) Reintegration, or (3) Local Integration elsewhere in the country, i.e., Resettlement (see Figure 5)—and understanding the factors influencing these choices. Importantly, an IDP’s preferred pathway should not be viewed as static and is subject to change. It should also be recognised that these pathways may not always be immediately feasible, raising the need to identify interim solutions.

Contrary to pathways, movement intentions pertain to IDPs’ practical short- to medium-term plans over various ‘time horizons’ (e.g., 2 weeks, 3 months 1 year), recognising these are subject to change due to contextual and individual factors. IDPs typically have four movement intentions: (1) remain in their current location, (2) return to their habitual place of residence (if in displacement), (3) move within Ukraine, or (4) move abroad (see Figure 8). Capturing movement intentions is important programmatically as it enables estimations of future population movements, but also statistically as it informs the outflow of IDPs leaving Ukraine, and projected flows between the two sub-stocks of IDPs: ‘de facto IDPs’ and ‘Returnees’.

The concept of Usual Place of Residence is defined by IRIS as the location where an IDP ‘has lived or intends to live for at least 12 months.’ While the statistical categorisation of IDPs and Returnees is based on shorter duration criteria (depending on ‘duration of displacement’ and ‘duration since return’—see Section 3.1.2),

operationalising the concept of ‘usual place of residence’ within the JAF—through a combination of duration criteria and movement intentions—enables differentiation between IDPs and Returnees who show a practical or hypothetical intention to (re)integrate where they live and those who do not.

4.2.2 IDP’S PREFERRED PATHWAYS (COMMUNITY PERCEPTION STUDY)

IOM’s Community Perception Study explored de facto IDPs’ preferred pathways towards durable solutions and the factors influencing their preferences.

A central insight from this study is the generational divide: older generations (40+ years) often carry a mix of hope and nostalgia, struggling to envision a future beyond their pre-displacement life. In contrast, younger IDPs (18-40 years) exhibit greater pragmatism and adaptability, showing a readiness to consider alternative options that prioritise livelihood opportunities and the well-being of their children. This general divide should be considered when assessing IDPs’ movement intentions with the JAF, as household-level indicators may potentially obscure intra-household discrepancies.

Below are the main takeaways associated with IDP’s preferred pathway in the Ukrainian context:

• Return to habitual place of residence: IDPs generally recognise the complexity of this pathway, understanding that mere physical return is not the end goal but rather the beginning of a substantial effort to rebuild their lives. As previously noted, older generations express a strong desire to restore a sense of familiarity and thus often prioritise this route. When interrogating host communities living in areas heavily impacted by conflict, they reported that they would interpret the return of IDPs as signalling the end of hostilities and hardship for their communities.

• Integration in current location: A dual dynamic emerges among those favouring this option, with some feeling they have no other viable alternatives and others finding sufficient contentment in their current location to consider it a long-term solution. For many—especially younger IDPs— this pathway represents a practical compromise, assuming the security context remains the same, particularly when secured access to housing and work opportunities provides an accompanying sense of belonging and stability in daily life. Host

4.2.3 INDICATORS SELECTION

Organisations use a variety of indicators to measure IDPs’ preferred pathways and movement intentions. selecting JAF indicators to assess movement intentions, attention should be paid to ensuring general cohesion with definition elements of temporality and spatiality discussed in section 3.2.2 of this report.

• Spatiality: The unit of measurement (e.g., settlement level) used to assess an individual’s intention to ‘remain’ or ‘leave’ in their current location should align with that used for tracking IDP and Returnee displacement.

community’s attitude toward local integration varies, with a prevailing expectation in some areas for IDPs to take active steps toward self-reliance and adopt local customs.

• Resettlement in a third location: This option was rarely mentioned by IDPs, except when prompted by triggers such as immediate safety concerns, reductions in assistance, job or affordable housing opportunities elsewhere, or a lack of connection to their current location.

• Temporality: Some ‘time horizons’ (e.g., 2 weeks, 3 months, 1 year) used to assess IDPs’ movement intentions should align with time thresholds (if any) set for displacement categories identification, as well as ensuring the identification of IDPs ‘usual place of residence’.

Notably, the GPS framework includes indicators specifically designed to identify the impact of certain mobility triggers (e.g., intensified attacks, disruptions in electricity, water, or gas supply) on IDPs’ movement intentions. If deemed relevant to stakeholders’ programmatic needs, these indicators can be incorporated into the JAF.

4.3 COMPONENT III – DEMOGRAPHICS AND VULNERABILITIES

The JAF should allow the establishment of a common set of indicators to capture demographic (e.g., gender, age, HH member composition, language) or physical (e.g., disability, chronic illness) characteristics. Those indicators have two main usages:

• Produce IDP population demographic profile(s): Profiling IDP populations with a consistent set of unique characteristics at national and sub-national levels supports coherent resource allocation, programme design, and demographic-focused analyses.

• Allocate individuals in vulnerability categories: Collecting demographic and physical characteristics, along with indicators like socioeconomic status (e.g., income levels) or geographic considerations (distance from frontline), enables the allocation of IDPs into vulnerability categories that can be used to disaggregate data and to tailor achievement thresholds (Section 5.2.1).

Setting demographic characteristic indicators and vulnerability categories during the JAF strategic alignment phase should ensure coherent alignment with existing measures and vulnerability

4.4 COMPONENT IV – WIDER CONTEXT

categories already used to guide analyses and inform programming from ministries as well as the following frameworks from the international community:

• Framework 1 – Joint Inter-Agency Framework (JIAF) 2.0: The JIAF 2.0 serves as a guide for developing the 2025 humanitarian response. Its current Analysis Plan outlines a non-exhaustive list of vulnerable groups based on demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and disability. It also defines a socio-economic vulnerability profile, calculated primarily on the ability to meet basic needs and the nature of income sources.

• Framework 2 – UN Common Country Analysis (CCA) 2021 & 2023: CCAs are designed to present the UN’s integrated, evidence-based joint analysis of the multidimensional impacts of the invasion since 2014. The 2021 CCA, supplemented by the 2023 CCA following the full-scale invasion, provides an overview of vulnerable groups within the Ukrainian context, recognising their intersectional, multi-layered, and cross-cutting nature. The list includes over 30 vulnerable categories, notably people with disabilities, orphans and children without parental care, older individuals in rural communities, and communities along the contact line.

Analyses of the legal and policy environment, coordination mechanisms, root causes of displacement, labour market, and social cohesion dynamics at national or sub-national levels are needed alongside individual-level outcome indicators to identify opportunities and barriers to durable solutions within a given context. While the JAF in Ukraine focuses exclusively on establishing a set of individual-level indicators, organisations are encouraged to complement their use of the JAF with contextual analyses, especially when conducted at regional and local levels.

To support this effort, it is encouraged to refer to the JIPS and UNDP paper referred to above Monitoring Progress Towards

Solutions to Internal Displacement: A Development-Oriented Indicator Framework (Sept 2024). This framework provides a comprehensive, unified approach for assessing and monitoring at the policy level whether conditions for achieving durable solutions are present in a given context and helps identify the investments needed to establish and sustain these conditions. While primarily designed for national-level analyses, the framework offers valuable guidance for subnational efforts. This framework provides for each durable solutions criterion:

• Commitment Indicators: Measure the structural environment and adoption of legal, institutional and policy frameworks (laws, policies, strategies, action plans).

• Implementation Indicators: Measure the effort put in place to implement policies and programmes of action, including governance capacities, development interventions and area-based approaches.

The present report captures many commitment indicators related to Ukraine’s national legal, institutional, and policy frameworks, specifically addressing the internal displacement legal and policy framework (Section 3.2.1), internal displacement strategies (Sections 4.1.3), sectoral policies (Section 4.1.2), coordination architecture and data availability (Section 2.2.2). Additionally, while the JIPS and UNDP framework is designed to measure policy and programming as a basis for comparison with individual-level outcome indicators, a broader context analysis could also address systemic factors—such as social cohesion dynamics, discrimination issues or structural challenges in the labour market—that extend beyond programme and policy interventions.

5. JOINT PROGRESS MONITORING METHOD

Section 5 aims to support the achievement of JAF outcome 3 adopting a Joint Progress Monitoring Method (JPMM) to track the progress and achievement of durable solutions for IDPs in Ukraine within an agreed framework. This method requires substantial methodological rigour and has strategic implications, including the potential to statistically remove IDPs from the stock once

5.1 GLOBAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite clear guidance from IRIS, a global-level standardised methodology for progress monitoring (Section 5.1.1) is not yet fully developed, and fewer guidelines are established for assessing exit measurement (Section 5.1.2), and caseload identification (Section 5.1.3). Organisations like the Expert Group on Refugee, IDP and Statelessness Statistics (EGRISS) have issued recommendations to address these gaps, and various approaches have been piloted worldwide.

5.1.1 PROGRESS MONITORING

a. Preliminary considerations

• No linear process: Progress towards durable solutions is not linear and should be understood as a process with occasional improvements and setbacks. It is therefore recommended to conduct progress monitoring over an extended period, rather than looking at a single point in time.

• Data type: Data used for progress monitoring is expected to be quantitative and based on ‘objective’ indicators. Conversely, qualitative data and perception-based indicators should be favoured for in-depth complementary analyses.

• Aggregated results: Progress monitoring should produce aggregated findings rather than directly tracking the progress of individual households or persons for programming purposes.

displacement-related vulnerabilities are overcome. Consequently, the use of the JPMM may need to be confined to a specific group of actors in Ukraine, potentially limited to the designated producer of IDP official statistics. This section is organised into global recommendations for designing such a method (Section 5.1) and recommendations on implementing a similar approach in Ukraine (Section 5.2).

• Indicator level: Progress monitoring should allow for the operation of household and individual-level indicators –particularly for criteria such as employment or education.

• Disaggregation: Findings from progress monitoring can be broken down by demographic characteristics, vulnerable groups, geographic areas, or even movement intentions.

b. How to conduct progress monitoring

According to IRIS, progress monitoring should be implemented using a layered methodology, whereby equally weighted indicator values are combined to calculate a score for each criterion. The process is done in three steps using a sample dataset of IDPs (see Figure 9):

1. Pass/no pass at the indicator level: Each household either passes (✓) or does not pass (X) selected indicators based on whether they meet the set benchmark. The benchmark criteria vary by indicator type, whether categorical (distinct, unordered categories), binary (two distinct categories), or continuous (any value within a range). This process may also result in a ‘missing data’ (?) mark if the data is absent due to non-response or lack of data collection, or a ‘not applicable’ (N/A) mark if data was not collected by design (skip pattern logic or non-applicability).

2. Criteria aggregated score: If all indicators within a criterion receive a ‘pass’ (or a ‘not applicable’) mark, the criterion is considered achieved for the household.

3. Population aggregated score: Household results are then aggregated or extrapolated to produce population-level results.

Indicator 1 1 – Employment

Indicator type: Binary B Benchmark: At least one working-age adult employed

Indicator 1 2 – Income level per capita

Indicator type: Continuous B Benchmark: Income per capita >

Criterion 1 – Livelihoods

Indicator 2 1 – Education

Indicator type: Binary B Benchmark: All children are enrolled

Indicator 2 2 – Healthcare Indicator type: Binary B Benchmark: HH faces no barriers accessing healthcare

Criterion 2 – Basic Ser vices

Some specificities in the progress monitoring method should be noted:

• Addressing missing data points: EGRISS suggests interpreting data missing ‘by design’ (N/A) as an absence of vulnerability for the specific indicator. Conversely, the absence of data—whether due to its unavailability or the respondent's refusal to answer—should, by default, be interpreted as an indication of vulnerability

• Aggregation of individual-level indicators to household level: When using individual-level indicators, global recommendations provide two methods for aggregating data at the household level: ‘All individuals must pass’ (e.g., Indicator 2.1 above) or ‘At least one individual must pass’ (e.g., Indicator 1.1 above). The appropriate aggregation method should depend on what makes the most logical sense for the indicator. However, EGRISS highlights that ‘at least one individual must pass’ often results in more practical and realistic measures.

5.1.2 EXIT MEASUREMENT

Exit measurement refers to identifying the proportion of IDPs who achieve full durable solutions and should therefore be statistically removed from the IDP stock. This process is one of only three ways to account for IDP outflow, alongside displacement outside the country, or

death. Various exit measurement methods have been tested in different displacement contexts, but no definitive guidance has been established, mainly due to the practical challenges of applying a comparative approach to account for the achievement of durable solutions.

Achieving durable solutions does not imply that IDPs no longer require assistance, but that their needs are no longer ‘displacement-specific’, i.e., needs and human rights concerns arising from the displacement itself, absence of home, or broader issues disproportionately affecting IDPs in their location, such as discriminatory practices. This suggests that individuals who have achieved durable solutions may still require various forms of assistance, particularly to address ongoing life cycle needs, such as pension benefits.

a. Comparative nature of durable solutions analyses

Following this approach, assessing IDPs’ access to durable solutions should involve a comparative lens to determine the extent to which the challenges IDPs face are unique to their situation. The IRIS framework isolates two ways to do it:

1. Current vs pre-displacement situations: Theoretically, to determine if a specific vulnerability is displacement-related, the current situation of IDPs should be compared with their situation before forced displacement. However, in many cases, this will be very difficult or even impossible notably because of the limited availability of data.

2. Comparison with the general population or ‘host communities’: On paper, comparing IDPs with other population groups helps distinguish between needs specifically related to displacement and broader concerns affecting the entire population (‘structural issues’). This can be achieved by comparing IDPs with the general population using official statistics, or with their ‘host populations’ to enable more granular analyses and support durable solutions at subnational levels.

The second option is favoured by global recommendations and considered a standard for durable solutions analyses and exit measurements. However, it raises numerous challenges.

b. Challenges associated with a comparative lens

Challenge n°1: Benchmarking against comparator population

The main challenge with the comparative approach lies in its practical application for exit measurement. Initially, IRIS envisioned the comparative lens to play out at the indicator level using the pass/no-pass logic, where IDPs would only pass indicators if their scores matched or exceeded those of the general population. By passing all indicators, IDPs would then meet all criteria and be considered to have achieved durable solutions. However, the issue arises with categorical and binary indicators, which cannot adequately reflect uniform results for the general population. For example, a binary ‘yes/no’ indicator

cannot capture the general population’s distribution, as responses are likely to be split across both options. In this context, the pass/ no-pass logic is in practice determined by setting standardbased benchmarks and does not account for the comparative approach.

Based on this acknowledgement, EGRISS issued the methodological note: Towards a harmonized statistical measure for exits from the stock of IDPs, analysing and comparing six alternative approaches using existing durable solutions datasets (e.g., Sudan, Columbia, Nigeria) to address the challenges of benchmarking against comparator populations. Each of the six approaches has inherent limitations and challenges, showing different levels of effectiveness in exit measurement. It is important to note that these methods ease exit measurement from a purely standard-based approach, where every indicator must be passed. Yet, in practice, they often remain too strict to observe substantial IDP outflows as they require IDPs to significantly outperform the median host if they are to exit the IDP stock.

Composite Metric at Criterion or Level: One approach, the Composite Metric at Criterion Level, has been applied by IOM DTM in durable solutions monitoring in Iraq and is considered

one of the most feasible options moving forward. This method involves establishing a composite score at the criterion level for each household, calculated as the average of equally weighted indicators. The household’s composite score is then compared to the average distribution of the same index within the comparator population, as shown in Figure 10 below. A household is considered to have overcome displacement-related vulnerabilities if its score for all criteria meets or exceeds the population average for every criterion. It is recommended to have at least 2 indicators per criterion to avoid resulting in cruder measures. Lastly, this approach can be applied at the sub-criterion level, requiring households to surpass the average distribution at the sub-criterion level rather than the criterion level, thereby introducing a stricter standard for exit measurement.

Other challenges are the following:

• Challenge n°2: Addressing statistical uncertainty in benchmark values: Each comparator value for the host community or national average includes a margin of statistical uncertainty, represented by a confidence interval around the point estimate, which varies based on data quality and availability. Accounting for this statistical uncertainty is essential not only to more accurately assess the true scale of IDP outflows but also as an indicator of the quality of the statistics produced. Based on available capacities, it may be beneficial to use the lower and upper bounds of the confidence interval around the benchmark—specifically, the criteria composite score in the approach outlined above—to provide not only a ‘best estimate’ of IDP exits but also a ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ estimate.

5.1.3 CASELOAD IDENTIFICATION

As discussed above, exiting the IDP stock represents a distant reality for most IDP profiles. It is statistically highly restrictive, requiring IDPs to pass all criteria and generally outperform the median host population. Programmatically, the binary classification of IDPs as either in stock or out of stock offers limited insight, as it fails to capture the granular progress towards solutions, shifts in programmatic needs, and the achievement of interim solutions. Recognising this, the Data for Solutions to Internal Displacement Taskforce issued a Proposal for Improving Data for Solutions to Internal Displacement, recommending that the stock of IDPs who have not yet overcome displacement-related vulnerabilities be divided into two sub-stocks, resulting in the following breakdown.

• Challenge n°3: Defining the comparator population (general population and ‘host community’): While recognising the limited methodological work comparing these two approaches in practice, EGRISS advises using the general population as the comparative group rather than the ‘host community.’ This preference is based on several factors. First, defining a ‘host community’ presents various challenges, with no established guidelines and differing approaches in practice. Second, host populations can fluctuate in dynamic displacement situations. Third, data on the general population is typically more accessible, simplifying analysis. However, it could be argued that if exit measurements are conducted at sub-national levels, using national-level benchmark values from the general population may offer limited analytical value in countries with significant regional diversity.

• Challenge n°4: Addressing changing benchmark values over time: Over time, benchmark values may fluctuate, making them moving targets. In practical terms, this means that IDPs may exit the stock without any improvement in their situation if benchmarks decrease, while others who previously exited may re-enter if benchmarks rise.

• Challenge n°5: Choice of Indicators to account for comparator population realities: Notably, the comparative nature of exit measurement implies that indicators used to assess IDPs’ progress towards durable solutions should also be (or may already have been) collected within the comparator population. This requirement can limit the ability to tailor indicators specifically to displacementrelated issues.

• Caseload 1 – Acute Needs: IDPs requiring assistance traditionally classified as ‘humanitarian,’ aimed at addressing emergency and ‘life-saving’ needs.

• Caseload 2 – Integration Needs: IDPs who have reached interim solutions but have not yet achieved full (re-) integration and still require assistance to do so.

• Caseload 3 – Full solutions: IDPs who have achieved durable solutions and can statistically be removed from the IDP stock.

5.2 JAF JOINT PROGRESS MONITORING METHOD (JPMM)

This section is intended to support relevant stakeholders in establishing a Joint Progress Monitoring Method (JPMM) within the JAF process, to track indicator and criteria achievement, measure exit (IDP outflow), and identify caseloads. Importantly, these discussions focus on the method in its ‘blueprint’ format; once approved in the strategic alignment phase, it should be operationalised into a functional tool. The insights provided

here draw on global recommendations, alongside inputs from the consultation phase, to design a method that reflects Ukraine’s specific programmatic priorities, internal displacement particularities, and transition efforts. It is important to keep in mind that decisions regarding the JPMM will partly be guided by practical implementation considerations (Section 2), as well as by choices on IDP definition elements (Section 3) and the selection of indicators (Section 4).

5.2.1 JPMM PROGRESS MONITORING STANDARD FEATURES

First, the JPMM should build upon features firmly established by global guidelines essential for progress monitoring:

• Selection of ‘key indicators’: A specific set of indicators, referred to as ‘key indicators,’ should be selected from the JAF Indicator Bank as not all indicators are useful or appropriate for this purpose. The selection of these key indicators should result from careful deliberation and reflect relevant programmatic priorities, as they form the core measurement unit of the JPMM.

• Data type: The JPMM is designed to work with quantitative data to ensure a clear, standardised pass/no-pass logic at the indicator level. However, this does not preclude the inclusion of quantitative perception-based indicators (i.e., indicators that quantify subjective views), which various participants advocated for during the JAF workshop. Ultimately, the use of these indicators should be limited if the JPMM adopts a comparative approach (Section 5.2.2).

• Indicator level and aggregation logic: The JPMM should enable the use of both household- and individual-level indicators based on programmatic relevance, allowing for either an ‘All individuals must pass’ or an ‘At least one individual must pass’ approach in individual-to-household aggregation. However, the ability to use individual-level data within the JPMM may depend on the capacity to collect individual-level data during JAF implementation (Section 2).

• Addressing missing data points: Aligned with global recommendations, it is advised that the JPMM interpret data marked as ‘missing by design’ (N/A) (e.g., no data on employment for a non-working-age individual) as an absence of vulnerability, while treating the absence of data (?) as an indication of vulnerability

• Disaggregation: The JPMM should allow progress monitoring results to be disaggregated by relevant categories, including—but not limited to—demographic characteristics, vulnerable groups, geographic areas, or movement intentions.

5.2.2 JPMM EXIT MEASUREMENT (COMPARATIVE APPROACH)

An important consideration is whether the JPMM will measure IDP outflow using a comparative approach with a reference population (e.g., general population or host community). Beyond deciding whether this approach is relevant, it is also necessary to determine whether it is feasible

a. Feasibility

Feasibility of the comparative approach hinges notably on the capacities of the official IDP statistic producer to implement it (Section 2.2.1), the choice of indicators (Section 4.1.3), and may differ depending on the choice of the comparative method and comparator group (Section 5.1.2):

• Capacities: Adopting a comparative approach primarily depends on the capacities of the official IDP statistics producer to implement it. This requires the ability to collect—or access, in the case of administrative secondary data—data on all key indicators for both IDPs and the comparator group, along with the capability to process and analyse this data in alignment with the chosen comparison method.

• Indicator choice: In a comparative approach, key indicators in the JPMM should be neutral—i.e., suitable for reflecting the experiences of both displaced and non-displaced populations. This alignment is more feasible if the JAF prioritises indicators from the SESHS (Framework 2) or UNSDCF (Framework 3) but may be challenging with integration-specific indicators, like those in the State Strategy Monitoring Tool (Framework 1). Additionally, the JPMM should avoid perception-based indicators, as practice shows that individuals in Ukraine tend to assess their situation differently depending on their displacement history.

• Methodological considerations: Opting for a comparative approach requires careful consideration of key

methodological aspects. The first step involves selecting an appropriate method. Among the available options, the ‘Composite Metric’ method emerges as the most technically accessible and practical choice. It can be applied at either the criterion or sub-criterion level, depending on the number of indicators available and the level of measurement strictness required. The next step involves identifying a suitable comparator group—either the general population or the ‘host community’. For subnational monitoring, the ‘host community’ approach is recommended, as it effectively captures significant local disparities within the Ukrainian context. However, this approach may require additional resources for implementation.

b. Relevance

Collecting data from a comparator group is always valuable and should remain a core element of durable solutions analyses conducted with the JAF. However, the critical consideration here is whether this data should be utilised for measuring IDP stock exit:

• The need for a comparative approach to measuring exit: The rationale lies in the foundational principle of durable solutions analyses, i.e., achieving durable solutions means IDPs’ needs are no longer specific to their displacement. In this logic, measuring progress solely against standard-based thresholds provides no insight into how IDPs’ situations compare to those of their non-displaced counterparts or how they fare regarding broader social and economic conditions, potentially directing assistance towards addressing needs rooted in structural issues unrelated to displacement.

• Against the need for a comparative approach to measuring exit: As outlined in section 5.1.2, stock exit remains a rare occurrence in practice, regardless of whether a comparative approach is adopted, due to the requirement set by IRIS to meet all durable solutions criteria. In the meantime, it is important to note that adopting a comparative approach

conversely tends to (moderately) reduce the strictness of the model. In other words, comparing IDPs to a general population that may perform poorly on key indicators could lead to a portion of IDPs exiting the stock despite not meeting expectations for self-reliance, potentially resulting in the removal of their status and assistance—an outcome that,

5.2.3 JPMM CASELOAD APPROACH

Drawing from discussions with KIs during the JAF consultation and the D4S Symposium—and recognising the design and logic limitations of exit measurement, such as the strictness of achieving all criteria and challenges in comparative application—it is proposed that the JPMM be designed with an inherent emphasis on tracking caseload movements. This approach aims to track IDP progress not only outside the stock (exit measurement) but also within it, focusing on targeting IDP assistance rather than excluding them from receiving it. Importantly, this approach can be implemented irrespective of whether a comparative method is used for measuring stock exit. The logic is visualised in Figure 11.

a. Proposed Caseloads Features

The proposed features of the caseload approach are as follows:

• Interim thresholds: The first proposal is introducing ‘interim thresholds’ to differentiate IDPs in the Acute Phase (Caseload 1) from those in the Integration Phase (Caseload 2), thereby operationalising DSID recommendations to subdivide the pre-solution IDP stock. They differ from ‘achievement thresholds’, which lead to stock exit (Caseload 3). Each key indicator can be assigned an interim and/or achievement threshold, depending on programmatic objectives and the indicator's capacity to support dual thresholds. In Figure 11 the interim threshold for education coverage could be ‘all schoolage children are enrolled’ and the achievement threshold for education modalities be ‘all school-age children study offline’

• Threshold Flexibility: The second proposal is to allow certain thresholds to be designated as flexible (i.e., not all must be met to advance caseloads), offering a way to address IRIS’s initial strictness while preserving necessary rigidity where needed. If a comparative approach is adopted, only interim thresholds may be designated as flexible. In Figure 11, three interim thresholds are designated as mandatory, meaning they must all be passed. Meanwhile, four interim thresholds are designated as flexible, requiring only a specified number—such as three—to be met for the household to advance to Caseload 2.

according to consultations, is a concern shared by many KIs. For this reason, it could be argued that adopting a comparative approach may prove counterproductive in practice and that exit measurement should instead be guided by clearly defined, standard-based thresholds that align with programmatic realities and assistance needs.

• Caseload indicators: The third proposal is that movements between caseloads be conditioned not only on achieving classic durable solutions indicators but also on indicators derived from definition elements (Section 2) or movement intentions (Section 3.2). This approach seeks to unify each caseload with essential, programmatically justified elements to ensure a foundational level of consistency within IDP ‘general profiles’ across caseloads. For example, some KIs proposed that IDP households should remain in the Acute Phase (Caseload 1) if their displacement duration falls within a specified timeframe (e.g., up to 2 months), or if their displacement results from forced evacuation. Similarly, others proposed that households could not be considered fully integrated (Caseload 3) if they lack a durable intention to remain. Notably, this latter proposal raises the challenge of assigning caseloads based on a dynamic, perception-based dimension

• Threshold tailoring: A fourth proposal is to allow the JPMM to apply different thresholds to households (or individuals, depending on the indicator level) belonging to vulnerable categories based on age, family composition, disability and chronic illness (Section 3.3). For instance, households consisting only of elderly adults would have different thresholds for indicators like employment or income sources than those with working-age adults. This approach, highlighted in discussions with several KIs [Coordination, UN agency], recognises that there is no one-size-fits-all pathway to durable solutions in Ukraine and that the JAF must account for profiles at risk of remaining stuck in humanitarian assistance due to limited self-reliance. Importantly, discussions with the Age and Disability Advisor stressed that this approach should not imply that certain vulnerable groups (e.g., disabled) cannot achieve self-reliance but rather that they may require additional, tailored support to reach it. Threshold tailoring could also account for urban-rural settings or cost-of-living variations in income or expense thresholds.

The operational feature ‘threshold tailoring’ should not be confused with the use of caseload indicators. The former adjusts for households’ inherent characteristics to recognise diverse pathways toward durable solutions, while the latter captures dynamic circumstances that should determine entry into caseloads.

Figure 11. JPMM Caseload Approach Blueprint (criteria and key indicators are provided as examples)

IDP Stock IDP Sample

Se c u r t y / P r o t e c t o n J A F

C r i t e r i a Ke y

I n d i c a t o r s

S e c u r i t y I n c i d e n t s

A c c e s s t o B a s i c

S e r v i c e s

A c u t e

P h a s e ( 1 )

I n t e g r a t i o n

P h a s e ( 2 )

E d u c a t i o n C o v e r a g e

E d u c a t i o n M o d a l i t i e s

S o c i a l C o h e s i o n S e n s e o f B e l o n g i n g

E m p l o y m e n t R a t e

L i v e l i h o o d s

I n c o m e L e v e l H o u s i n g

T y p e o f H o u s i n g

S e c u r i t y o f T e n u r e

M o v e m e n t I n t e n t i o n

C a s e l o a d

I n d i c a t o r s

G e o g r a p h i c L o c a t i o n

D i s p l a c e m e n t D u r a t i o n I n t e r i m Th re s h o l d s

A c h i e ve m e n t Th re s h o l d s M a n d a t o r y T h r e s h o l d s F l e x i b l e T h r e s h o l d s

Fu l l

S o l u t i o n s ( 3 )

5.2.4

JPMM CASELOAD ALIGNMENT WITH POLICY AND PROGRAMMES

a. Transition context

The JPMM’s approach, centred on tracking caseload movement, aims to support Ukraine’s response information needs around transition efforts. The current context is marked by a contracting budget environment for humanitarian actors, necessitating a phasedown and partial handover of activities to early recovery and public actors. This shift necessitates improved beneficiary targeting and the identification of clear, well-defined ‘transition points’ to ensure vulnerable individuals continue receiving essential assistance. Facilitating this transition is a key objective of the HNRP 2025 calculations, ongoing Cluster discussions, and targeted initiatives like ‘Perekhid’ (see Box 2).

b. Caseloads delineation logics

Several KIs have emphasised that JAF caseload delineation should aim to reflect and, to some extent, inform transition discussions. It is acknowledged that differing perspectives on what this transition should entail coexist in Ukraine, and that no common strategic vision has yet been operationalised, particularly regarding internal displacement. One or several of the following logic should be adopted:

• Logic 1 – Need-based approach: The most understood vision of IDP caseload delineation shared by KIs aligns with the evolving displacement-related needs of IDPs. In this approach, IDPs in caseload 1 require immediate and potentially ‘lifesaving’ assistance, those in caseload 2 need support linked to longterm integration, and those in caseload 3 have addressed their displacement-related needs and therefore no longer qualify as IDPs. However, the distinction between ‘immediate’ and ‘long-term’ assistance is often presented without clear variable interconnectedness, lacking guidance on how this should be applied in terms of mandate delineation across each durable solutions criterion.

• Logic 2 – Mandate-based approach: For some KIs, caseload delineation should align with clear-cut programmatic handovers between various actors. In the case of Perekhid, which focuses on monetary transfer assistance, the transition

BOX 2: PEREKHID INITIATIVE

from caseload 1 to caseload 2 aligns directly with the shift from multi-purpose cash assistance (MCA) provided by humanitarian actors to enrolment in social security support managed by public partners. This clear alignment of caseloads with mandate delineation is well-suited for monetary assistance, where eligibility criteria are straightforward and donor incentives for delineation are strong. However, this approach may be more challenging in other sectors where programmes are more likely to overlap and coexist.

• Logic 3 – Prerequisite-based approach: Certain KIs [Coordination, INGO], have argued that caseload delineation should aim to distinguish between IDPs who have not met the prerequisite conditions for solutions (Caseload 1) and those who have met these prerequisites but have not yet achieved full solutions (Caseload 2). In this approach, prerequisites for integration (interim thresholds) are linked with criteria such as security, housing, and livelihoods, while other sectors—such as administrative, legal, social assistance, and social cohesion—are addressed at a later stage and should be assessed in Caseload 2. This approach is supported by practical assessment considerations: prerequisites are generally easier to measure, more tangible, and tied to immediate impacts, while achievement indicators relate to phenomena that are harder to capture due to their complex, long-term nature. These often require extensive research and are typically associated with slower feedback loops.

c. Individual vs community outcome indicators

The activities of various KIs [NNGO; UN agency] focus on community-based programming rather than providing individualised assistance. For these KIs, identifying ‘transition points’ using individual-level outcome indicators presents limitations, as it does not equally reflect community-wide trends or the broader need for interventions. To address this, the JPMM could seek to inform early recovery actors through one of two approaches, depending on JAF implementation modalities: (1) collecting – for instance through KI Interviews community-level outcome indicators; or (2) aggregating individual-level outcome indicators at sub-national levels to inform community-based programming.

The Perekhid Initiative is a collaborative effort involving international donors, United Nations agencies, civil society organisations, and the Government of Ukraine. Its primary goal is to transition humanitarian multipurpose cash assistance (MPCA) recipients into an inclusive, shock-responsive social protection system. The initiative seeks to establish a more harmonised and sustainable approach to distributing monetary aid. In practice, this involves maintaining beneficiaries under MPCA during the lead time before they transition into shockresponsive social assistance systems, after which monetary assistance would either be terminated or shifted to top-ups that complement existing social assistance programmes.

dtmukraine@iom.int

https://dtm.iom.int/ukraine

https://https://www.impact-initiatives.org