UKR_IOM_Displacement and Social Cohesion in Ukraine_February 2025

DISPLACEMENT AND SOCIAL COHESION IN UKRAINE:

DISCRIMINATION, INCLUSION AND LONG-TERM INTENTIONS

THEMATIC BRIEF

FEBRUARY 2025

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).

Since February 2022, numerous communities across Ukraine have witnessed the arrival of displaced persons from other parts of the country or returning from abroad. Continued, widespread displacement is likely to put an increasing strain on public services, infrastructure, housing and the labor market in hosting areas, carrying the potential for increasing tensions between different groups the longer displacement persists.

In this context, the following brief presents key findings related to social cohesion, participation in community decision-making, and trust

in local institutions. It also analyses these findings against information on movement intentions and durable solutions preferences, to understand whether low levels of social cohesion correlate with the intention by displaced populations to leave (in the short term) or not to integrate (in the medium term) in their current location. The analysis presented in this brief is primarily based on data collected as a part of Round 19 of the General Population Survey (December 2024). This information is complemented by data from Round 17 of the GPS (August 2024) and triangulated with findings from UNDP’s SCORE survey for Ukraine (2024) and IOM’s participatory study From Place to Place (2024).

The brief aims to inform programming and policy related to social cohesion in Ukraine, as well as to support broader evidence-based

KEY FINDINGS

COMMUNITY RELATIONS:

A majority of non-displaced (87%) and returnee (89%) populations view the arrival of people from other parts of Ukraine positively, reflecting some degree of social cohesion. This is consistent with findings from the SCORE survey.

Thirteen per cent of respondents reported social tensions between different groups in their community, with Lvivska, Ternopilska, and Ivano-Frankivska Oblasts recording higher tension levels (up to 23%). This may reflect the fact that the majority of IDPs in these areas are displaced from other oblasts, which results in lower homogeneity of the population.

As the displacement crisis becomes more protracted, relations between displaced and host communities are the primary sources of perceived social tension. Among IDPs who reported social tensions in their current location, discrimination or incidents against IDPs was the most commonly reported cause (43%).1 By contrast, 30 per cent those within the host community who reported tensions identified the inappropriate behaviour of IDPs as the cause.2

Access to humanitarian assistance, either cash or in-kind, was not a widely reported source of tensions within communities. Respondents in rural areas (16%), and those in Northern3 (15%) and Eastern4 (13%) Oblasts were the most likely to cite perceived inequality accessing humanitarian assistance as a source of social tensions.

DISCRIMINATION:

Nineteen per cent of IDPs and 13 per cent of returnees reported that they or someone in their household had experienced discrimination during displacement due to not being “local”. Among both IDPs and returnees, discrimination most commonly occurred in interactions with the local population (45% of respondents who reported discrimination) and while interacting with local authorities (22%).

Almost one in five IDPs who reported having experienced discrimination or unfair treatment (18%) mentioned that this happened when receiving humanitarian assistance. This was notably reported by over a quarter of all elderly individuals (60+) who had experienced unfair treatment (26%), making it the second most common setting for discrimination among this population group5 and possibly highlighting age-specific barriers to humanitarian assistance.

IDPs who reported experiencing discrimination reported higher needs and were more likely to live in households that engaged in crisis or emergencies coping strategies to meet basic needs.

1 E.g. discrimination or incidents against IDPs.

2 E.g. bad experiences of landlords renting to IDPs, due to damages to the dwelling or refusal/delays in rent payments.

3 Northern macro-region: Chernihivska, Kyivska, Sumska, Zhytomyrska Oblasts.

4 Eastern macro-region: Dnipropetrovska, Donetska, Kharkivska, Luhanska, Zaporizka Oblasts.

5 After interaction with the local population, reported by 45% of individuals aged 60+ whose household had experienced discrimination during the 12 months prior to data collection.

PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL DECISION-MAKING AND TRUST IN LOCAL ENTITIES:

Most respondents (65%) reported a low level of participation in local decision-making processes, with this proportion being particularly high in the case of IDPs (72% reported being very little or not at all engaged in any decision-making processes).

Additionally, the survey highlighted low levels of trust in local authorities (47%), local organisations6 (34%), and international organisations and NGOs (33%) across all population groups.

SOCIAL COHESION OUTCOMES AND DURABLE SOLUTIONS PREFERENCES:

IDPs who reported higher levels of trust in local authorities, organisations and people were significantly more likely to report the intention to remain in their current location and integrate (48%), compared with those that expressed little or no trust.

Among returnees, those with low levels of trust in both local organisations and others in their communities were far more likely to be considering re-displacement (12%, compared with 6% that trusted local entitles and people).

Both findings underscore the importance of social inclusion and public trust in establishing durable solutions to internal displacement.

1. COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND TRUST

1.1 ATTITUDES TOWARDS IDPs

A significant majority of the non-displaced (87%) and returnee (89%) population felt positively about the arrival and presence of people from other areas of Ukraine in their community due to the war. While this sentiment was shared by the majority of respondents across all oblasts, it appeared to be particularly strong among returnees in Dnipropetrovska and Odeska Oblasts, where almost all respondents (both 96%) felt positively about the arrival of IDPs.

Returnees who had been displaced for longer periods of time (more than one year) also showed a more positive attitude towards new arrivals in their community (94%) compared to those who had spent less time in displacement (88%). This may indicate that the experience of protracted displacement has an impact on the degree of solidarity towards those who are still unable to return to their homes due to the war.

These findings are coherent with data from UNDP’s SCORE survey, which show that IDPs are generally not perceived as a social threat by different groups. The SCORE report highlights that “strong perception of social threat from one or more groups can undermine social cohesion, especially on the local level, because it creates palpable anxieties that shape behaviour and perceptions, even if they are not objective security threats”. According to the SCORE survey, people from Eastern Ukraine, Russian-speaking Ukrainians, and IDPs in general were all groups not perceived to be threatening to the unity of the community. IDPs in particular were found to be widely accepted as part of local communities across Ukraine, with no notable variation compared to the previous iteration of the survey (2023).

In a public opinion survey conducted between September and October 2024, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) found that 58 per cent of respondents would be ready to accept IDPs as family members, friends, neighbours or work colleagues (tolerant attitude), while an additional 35 per cent would not like to see IDPs in their personal environment, but did not object to these people being citizens of Ukraine (social isolation attitude). Only 7 per cent of respondents reported xenophobic attitudes towards IDPs, either perceiving them only as guests of Ukraine or disagreeing with them being in the country at all. However, the proportion of respondents displaying xenophobic attitudes was found to be higher with regards to refugees currently abroad (13%), Ukrainians who found themselves in the occupied territories (15%), Russian-speaker citizens of Ukraine (17%) and especially citizens of Ukraine who are Russian by nationality (32%).

1.2 SOCIAL TENSIONS

Despite this positive indicator of social cohesion, 13 per cent of respondents reported having felt tensions between different population groups in their area or community during the year prior to the interview, with no major differences based on displacement status. Across all population groups, the perception of social tensions appeared to decrease with age, with respondents above 60 years old being the least likely to report such an issue (8%, compared for example to 21% of respondents aged 25 to 35). Additionally, veteran respondents were approximately twice as likely to report social tensions (24%) than non-veterans (13%).

Respondents in the Western macro-region7 more commonly reported having felt tensions (17%), especially if IDPs (20%) or returnees (31%). Across population groups, individuals living in large cities in this macro-region were significantly more likely to mention tensions (25%) compared to those in rural settlements (11%). Tensions were notably reported by almost a fourth (23%) of respondents in Lvivska Oblast and almost a fifth in Ternopilska (19%) and Ivano-Frankivska (18%) Oblasts. Consistently with these findings, in the SCORE survey, Ivano-Frankivska Oblast presented the lowest score for social tolerance in 2024, while Ternopilska Oblast scored below the national average in nearly all indicators. Important geographical variations underscore the importance of targeted area-level interventions to reinforce social cohesion.

The relatively high levels of tensions reported in Lvivska, Ternopilska and Ivano-Frankivska Oblasts may reflect the fact that the majority

of IDPs in these areas were displaced from other oblasts (only 2% or less of IDPs residing there were originally from these oblasts), which results in lower homogeneity of the population and may diminish the sense of empathy within the host community. By contrast, only 9 per cent of respondents in Kharvivska Oblast reported having felt any tensions between different population groups during the previous year, which may reflect the higher degree of population homogeneity in this area, as only a minority of IDPs currently residing there (16%) were displaced from other oblasts.

IOM’s From Place to Place study drew attention to the importance of cultural and linguistical integration (or lack thereof) as a factor influencing IDPs’ access to essential opportunities and their acceptance by the host population, as well as the impact of these dynamics on tensions in the community.

Notably, the study pointed out that areas with less homogenous communities, such as Lvivksa Oblast, may experience more social cohesion challenges. IDP Key Informants interviewed for the From Place to Place study in Lvivska Oblast mentioned that adherence to local values, traditions, and ways of life, including speaking Ukrainian, is deemed essential for acceptance by host community members.

“

It is hard to be an IDP. The relocation itself, new people, a new city. I haven’t adapted yet…there have not been any conflicts [with the host community] yet. But they don’t like us. Because we are Russian speaking, we were under occupation. I guess there is some distrust.” 8

in the last 12 months, by current oblast

7 The Western macro-region encompasses Chernivetska, Ivano-Frankivska, Khmelnytska, Lvivska, Rivnenska, Ternopilska, Volynska, Zakarpatska Oblasts. 8 KII IDP in

1.3 SOURCES OF SOCIAL TENSIONS

The most mentioned sources of tensions overall were language (e.g. use of Russian language by IDPs displaced from the East), indicated by 32 per cent of respondents who revealed having felt tensions, the reportedly inappropriate behaviour of IDPs towards host community members (25%), and the perceived political beliefs of different groups (26%). However, the identified causes of social tensions and their relative importance varied significantly across population groups. Among IDPs, the most common source of tensions was the reportedly inappropriate behaviour of the host community towards IDPs, indicated by 43 per cent of respondents who mentioned the existence of friction between different groups. By contrast, 30 per cent of the non-displaced population who indicated having felt tensions stated that the inappropriate behaviour of IDPs had been the cause. This suggests that, despite the overall positive attitudes towards IDPs, the coexistence of displaced and non-displaced

populations is straining relations to a certain degree, with each group tending to place the responsibility on the other.

Different political and personal beliefs may also contribute to increasing tensions between groups, as mentioned by 29 per cent of the nondisplaced respondents who reported tensions. Sensitivity towards different beliefs appeared to increase with age, as this was reported by 37 per cent of over-60 individuals who felt tensions, compared to 14 per cent of those aged 25 to 35 years and 20 per cent of those aged 36 to 45 years.

Approximately 18 per cent of respondents overall who had felt social friction during the previous year also highlighted tensions between IDPs, people who remained during the war, and returnees as a contributing factor. This notably represented the most reported source of tensions by returnees (18%).

In contrast, unequal access to assistance (cash or in-kind) and competition for jobs and housing were mentioned as causes of tensions by less than 10 per cent of those who reported friction between different groups. An exception was represented by rural areas, where unequal access to cash assistance specifically was reported as a source of tensions by 16 per cent (as opposed to 9 per cent in large cities). Additionally, among the respondents who indicated having felt tensions in their community, the perception that unequal access to cash assistance is a contributing

factor varied significantly across macro-regions - from 15 and 13 per cent of respondents in the Northern and Eastern macro-regions to 9 per cent in the Southern macro-region and less than 5 per cent in the rest of the country. Meanwhile, respondents from the Western macro-region who reported experiencing tensions were more likely to cite language (49%) and the perceived inappropriate behaviour of IDPs (33%) as contributing factors, suggesting a greater sensitivity to cultural differences in this region.

overall and access to cash assistance)9,10

In Round 14 (September 2023), a quarter of returnees (26%) and nearly one in five IDPs (18%) reported the presence of social tensions in their areas of return or displacement, between groups which received social assistance and those who did not receive such assistance. Although data on this indicator cannot be compared directly with information on social tensions and the sources thereof in Round 19 (December 2024) due to changes in the phrasing of the

9 With the exclusion of Kyiv city, as data are not representative.

10 Central macro-region: Cherkaska, Kirovohradska, Poltavska, Vinnytska Oblasts.

question,11 it should be noted that, among those who reported any tensions in December 2024, only a minority cited assistance as a reason for the friction. This may suggest that perceived inequalities in the distribution of cash and non-cash assistance now play a smaller role in driving social tensions, possibly due to the amendment of Resolution #332 and the subsequent reduction in the proportion of displaced individuals receiving financial support from the Government of Ukraine.

11 Round 14: “Did you feel a tension between different groups that have received social assistance from the government and those that have not in your area/community?”. Round 19: ” Did you feel a tension between different groups in your area/community in the last 12 months?”, followed by (for those who reported having felt tensions)” What are sources of tension between groups within your community between internally displaced persons, people who never left due to the war, and people who left due to the war and returned?”.

While across all population groups there was no significant disparity in the proportion of men and women reporting social tensions, these groups however differed in their perception of the causes of such friction. Notably, men appeared to be more sensitive to different political beliefs, as well as competition for jobs and housing, while women more commonly

reported that tensions derived from the inappropriate behaviour of the host community towards IDPs. A disproportionate share of female IDP respondents (46% of those who reported any social tensions) highlighted this issue, suggesting that displaced women may face gender-specific discrimination or violence in their interactions with the host population. These findings merit further qualitative investigation.12

TRUST IN OTHER PEOPLE

A significant proportion of respondents overall reported very low or no trust in other people in their neighbourhood (30% of IDPs and 25% of both returnees and the non-displaced). Trust appeared to be positively correlated with age, as older individuals more often reported trusting other people to a great extent (38%, compared to 22% of those aged 18 to 24 years). This reflects a general pattern of more negative social cohesion outcomes among young adults compared to their older counterparts.13

Among IDPs, trust in other people appeared to be lowest in Zaporizka Oblast and Kyiv City, where 40 and 39 per cent of respondents, respectively, mentioned having little or no trust in individuals living in their neighbourhood. Kyiv City also recorded the highest levels of

2.

mistrust among returnees (31%), together with Zhytomyrska Oblast (32%). The preferred language spoken by respondents appeared to be correlated with different levels of trust, as the proportion of IDPs expressing little or no trust in people living in their neighbourhood was considerably higher among those who conducted the interview in Russian (37%) compared to those who preferred Ukrainian (28%). This indicates a need to take into consideration the linguistic aspect in social cohesion interventions, to address any tensions it may engender.

Having experienced tensions in the community was also correlated with lower levels of trust in people, with 35 per cent of those who reported social tensions also mentioning having little or no trust in individuals living in their neighbourhood (as opposed to 24% of those who did not perceive any tensions).

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IDPs AND RETURNEES

2.1 PREVALENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

Approximately one out of five IDPs (19%) mentioned that they or their family members had been discriminated against during their displacement due to not being local, indicating that displacement status may be a driver of perceived discrimination or unfair treatment towards displaced populations.

This proportion was higher in large cities (21%) compared to rural areas (14%) and notably reached 29 per cent in large cities of the Western macro-region. At the oblast level, approximately one-third of IDPs in Zaporizka Oblast reported having experienced discrimination or unfair treatment (32%), followed by Lvivska Oblast (28%).

Displacement dynamics appeared to be correlated with different levels of reported discrimination:

Figure 4: % of IDPs reporting themselves or their family members to have encountered any discrimination or unfair treatment due to not being local since moving from their primary place of residence due to the war, by displacement characteristics

Displaced outside of oblast of origin

Displaced within the oblast of origin

Among returnees, 13 per cent reported themselves or their family to have experienced discrimination during their time in displacement. Returnees who were originally displaced from the Eastern macroregion (20%) and in particularly from Donetska Oblast (29%) were particularly likely to report having faced discrimination during displacement.

Among both IDPs and returnees, young adults (25+) appeared to be most affected, with the experience of discrimination being reported by 29 per cent of IDPs aged 35-45 years, compared to 11 per cent of those above 60 years old.14 This remarkably resulted in a high proportion of IDP and returnee families with children being affected, as a significant share of respondents living with children (24% of IDPs and 17% of returnees) and in single-parent households (27% of both groups) stated that they or someone in their household had experienced discrimination over the previous year.

Figure 5: % of IDPs and returnees reporting themselves or their family members to have encountered any discrimination or unfair treatment due to not being local since moving from their primary place of residence due to the war, by displacement status and age

2.2 CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO DISCRIMINATION

Among both IDPs and returnees, discrimination was reported to most commonly happen during relations with the local population (45% of respondents who reported discrimination) and while interacting with local authorities (22%). However, IDPs reported a wider range of situations where they or someone in their household had experienced discrimination, including when trying to access housing (23%) and in healthcare facilities (19%).

These findings reflect the comments of IDPs participating in Focus Group Discussions under IOM’s participatory study From Place to

6:

Place. The study highlighted that, while recognising the efforts of host communities towards integration, IDPs struggled to shake off the implications of their displacement status and reported facing barriers to accessing employment, feeling burdensome in health centres, and encountering difficulties securing housing.

It has an impact on employment. They don’t want to hire [us]. They say, “You’ll go back home in 2-3 months. Why should we invest in you? In training you?” 15

and returnees having encountered unfair treatment, % reporting when this was the case in the last 12 months, by displacement status (top 6 options)

Encountering unfair treatment during interactions with the local population was significantly more reported by IDPs and returnees in the West compared to the other macro-regions (61% of those who experienced discrimination).

14

discrimination.

Remarkably, almost one out of five IDPs who indicated that they or someone in their household had faced discrimination (18%) mentioned that this happened when receiving humanitarian assistance. This was notably reported by one quarter of all elderly individuals (60+) who had experienced unfair treatment (26%), making it the second most

common setting for discrimination among this population group16 and possibly highlighting age-specific barriers to humanitarian assistance.

Among both IDPs and returnees, gender appeared to be correlated with different experiences of discrimination. Female respondents were significantly more likely to report having encountered unfair treatment during the interaction with the local population (48% of women who

had experienced discrimination, compared to 39% of men), which reflects the findings above on sources of social tensions and, again, may point at gender-based discrimination or violence against women. By contrast, men more commonly mentioned being treated unfairly when dealing with local authorities (35%, as opposed to 17% of women) and at work (19%, compared to 7% of women), which might reflect the impact of compulsory enlistment, as well as men’s higher exposure to labour exploitation.17

Figure 7: Among IDPs / returnees having encountered unfair treatment, % reporting when this was the case in the last 12 months, by sex

People living in rural areas reported higher rates of discrimination when seeking healthcare - 23 per cent of those who experienced unfair treatment, compared to 6 per cent in small towns and 11 per cent in large cities. This disparity may be linked to the fact that, while overall healthcare access was lower in rural areas, the gap in access

TREND ANALYSIS

between urban and rural areas was significantly larger for displaced individuals. Specifically, the difference in access was - 41 per cent for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and - 65 per cent for returnees in rural areas, compared to only - 17 per cent for the non-displaced population.

The level of reported discrimination did not vary meaningfully compared to September 2023 (GPS Round 14), when 22 per cent of IDPs and 10 per cent of returnees reported that they or someone in their household had experienced unfair treatment due to the fact of not being local to the area of displacement. However, while in 2023, most respondents reported that discrimination took place during the interaction with the host population, in 2024, several situations were consistently mentioned by those who reported having faced unfair treatment.

Figure 8: Among IDPs having encountered unfair treatment, % reporting when this was the case in the last 12 months, by GPS round (top 5 options for IDPs)

September 2023

December 2024

2.3 DISCRIMINATION AND ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES AND GOODS

In general, IDPs who reported facing unfair treatment presented more widespread gaps in access to essential services and goods.

Figure 9: % of IDPs reporting experiencing a lack of the following to meet basic needs, by reported experience of discrimination by the respondent or someone else in their household during the 12 months prior to data collection

Additionally, IDPs who experienced discrimination were more likely to live in households that had used crisis or emergency strategies to be able to access basic needs during the month prior to the interview (74%, compared to 63% of IDPs with no experience of discrimination). Notably, approximately one third of IDPs who had experienced unfair treatment during the previous year reported that they or someone in their household had to

accept less qualified or paid jobs in order to support their needs (32%), compared to 18 per cent of those with no experience of discrimination. This may indicate that discrimination has an impact on the capacity of displaced households to build sustainable livelihoods, while at the same time suggesting that the inability to find a suitable job after displacement may contribute to the feeling of being treated unfairly by the host community.

3. PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

3.1 ENGAGEMENT IN DECISION-MAKING

Engagement in decision-making processes at the local level was considerably low across all population groups, with approximately two-thirds of respondents (65%) mentioning being very little or not at all engaged in any processes.18 This proportion was particularly high in the case of IDPs (72%). The level of reported participation varied geographically, with the highest negative values being recorded in the Eastern (70%) and Southern (71%) macro-regions, as well as in raions close to the frontline (71%).19

Notably, 89 per cent of respondents reported that they were little or not at all engaged in local decision-making about housing, while 81 per cent of households with children mentioned that they did not participate in decisions about education.

Additionally, 81 per cent mentioned not participating in decisions regarding humanitarian assistance. This was notably reported by 89 and 86 per cent of IDPs and returnees respectively, compared to 79 per cent of nondisplaced respondents. This proportion was particularly high in Donetska and Odeska Oblasts, where 95 and 93 per cent of respondents respectively

10: % of individuals reporting being little or not engaged in local community decision-making processes, by sphere

Sports, arts and culture

Housing and bomb shelters

Schooling and education

Communal services

Provision of humanitarian assistance

reported not being involved in decision-making about the provision of humanitarian assistance. Looking at IDPs specifically, the oblasts with the highest proportion of respondents reportedly not involved in decisions on humanitarian assistance (all above 90%) were Mykolaivska, Kyivska, Dnipropetrovska and Kharviska Oblasts, as well as Kyiv City.

19 The list of raions designated as front-line areas for the purposes of analyses is determined based on the Government of

Resolution on “Regulations

of the

the

Federation is (was) or temporarily occupied”, updated as of September 25, 2024. This list includes raions that are either bordering, adjacent to or in proximity to active conflict zones, where there is ongoing fighting, hostilities, or a high likelihood of such activities.

Veterans were significantly more likely to be greatly or at least somewhat engaged in decision-making processes at the local level (56%) compared to non-veterans (33%). As the graph below shows, this held true across all the spheres assessed.

Figure 11: % of individuals reporting being greatly or somewhat engaged in local community decision-making processes, by veteran status and sphere

3.2 DIFFICULTIES IN PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Data from the GPS Round 17 (August 2024) indicate that almost one-third of IDPs (32%) faced strong difficulties in participating in public affairs, compared to a still significant 19 per cent of returnees and 22 per cent of the nondisplaced population. Among both IDPs and returnees, the proportion of individuals struggling to participate in public affairs did not vary meaningfully based on length of displacement (IDPs) or time since return (returnees), indicating that physical presence in a location is not sufficient to create or restore civic participation.

Both lack of participation in decision-making processes and difficulties participating in public affairs appeared to be strongly correlated

4. TRUST IN LOCAL ENTITIES

Trust in private and public entities operating at local level was low across all population groups with one-third to half of respondents reporting having very little or no trust in local authorities (47%), local organisations, such as medical or financial ones (34%), and international or non-governmental organisations (33%). The prevalence of mistrust was roughly the same across different population groups, indicating that this phenomenon is likely society-wide rather than displacement-related. By contrast, the preferred language of the respondent was associated with different levels of trust in local entities, as those who conducted the interview in Russian more consistently reported having little to no trust in all the listed entities.

with old age and disability. Elderly individuals, particularly those living alone (76%), and people with disabilities (74%) were likely to report experiencing disengagement from local decision-making at rates significantly higher than the national average. On the other hand, based on data from Round 17 of the GPS (August 2024), disability was the demographic characteristic with the strongest correlation with difficulties participating in public affairs. Indeed, IDPs and returnees with self-reported disabilities were respectively 66 and 119 per cent more likely to report strong barriers than their counterparts without disabilities. Elderly IDPs (43%) also often reported a high level of difficulties in this sense, mostly driven by women aged 60+ (47%).

While, on average, 47 per cent of respondents did not have much or any trust in local authorities specifically, this proportion was particularly high in Khersonska (57%), Chernivetska (56%) and Odeska (54%) Oblasts, where more than half of respondents expressed mistrust. Trust in local authorities appeared to be correlated with both the respondents’ reported use of negative coping strategies, their reliance on irregular income and their experience of discrimination and social tensions, indicating that the incapacity to secure sustainable livelihoods and the perceived lack of social stability may both have an impact on the degree of trust in the authorities.

According to the SCORE survey, the degree to which Ukrainians feel that authorities are and can be held accountable was quite low in 2024 (3.1 out of 10). After a surge of confidence in institutions in the aftermath of the invasion, the indicator experienced a decline between 2023 and 2024, which could lead to “civic dissatisfaction, heightened grievances, and a weakening of legitimacy and the war efforts”. of IDPs/returnees who experienced discrimination

5. SOCIAL COHESION OUTCOMES AND DURABLE SOLUTIONS PREFERENCES

5.1 INTEGRATION PATHWAY

The experience of discrimination or social tensions did not appear to be correlated with significant variations in the proportion of IDPs intending to remain in their current location in the medium period20, indicating that mobility is not primarily influenced by social cohesion outcomes in the areas of displacement. However, social cohesion indicators showed a stronger correlation with the decision to integrate

or not: among IDPs intending to remain in their current location in the medium term, those expressing trust in local authorities, organisations and people were 50 per cent more likely to plan to settle and integrate in their current location (48%) compared to those with little or no trust (32%). This underscores that building social cohesion is a key pre-requisite for integration in locations of displacement.

Additionally, among IDP respondents below 50 years old and those living with children who expressed the intention to remain in their current location in the medium term, the experience of discrimination was correlated with a lower propensity to integrate (39% and 37%

5.2 RETURN PATHWAY

Among returnees, tensions with the local community in the location of displacement were rarely mentioned among the top three reasons for leaving it and returning to the area of origin (5% of returnees), indicating that social conflicts play a more limited role in influencing returns compared to lack of economic opportunities (31%) or access to affordable housing (28%) in the location of displacement (GPS R17). However, all indicators of social cohesion presented a significant correlation with the decision to remain or not in the current location. Remarkably, lack of trust in local authorities, organisations and people in the location of return was correlated with a twice as high probability of leaving it in the following three months, suggesting that social cohesion Notably, almost half of returnees who were considering leaving their

METHODOLOGY

Unless noted otherwise, data cited in this report were compiled from Round 19 of the General Population Survey, dated as of 19 December 2024. The data presented in this report was commissioned by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and collected by 64 enumerators employed by Multicultural Insights through screener phone-based interviews with 40,002 randomly selected respondents and follow-up interviews with 1,445 IDPs, 1,200 returnees, and 1,800 residents, using the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) method, and a random digit dial (RDD) approach, with an overall sample error of 0.49% [CL95%]. Round 19 of data collection was completed between 22 October and 19 December 2024. The survey included all of Ukraine, excluding the Crimean Peninsula and occupied areas of Donetska, Luhan ska, Khersonska, and Zaporizka

respectively) compared to individuals in the same sub-groups who did not experience discrimination (49% and 46%). This suggests that longterm decisions of young families may be particularly influenced by the perception of discrimination.

current location in the short term (45%) stated that they would move to another country.

Figure 14: % of returnees reporting considering leaving their current location (city/village) in the 3 months following data collection, by level of trust in local entities

Oblasts. All interviews were anonymous, and respondents were asked for consent before starting the interview.

Limitations: Those currently residing outside the territory of Ukraine were not interviewed, following active exclusion. Population estimates assume that minors (those under 18 years old) are accompanied by their adult parents or guardians. The sample frame is limited to adults that use mobile phones, in areas where phone networks were fully functional for the entire period of the survey. People residing in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) or the occupied areas of Donetska, Zaporizka, Luhanska, and Khersonska Oblasts were not included in the survey. For further details on the methodology and sampling design, please refer to the full Methodological Note

dtmukraine@iom.int

https://dtm.iom.int/ukraine