Round 18-19
National Monitoring System
on the Situation of
Internally Displaced Persons
Summary of Key Findings
September 2020, March 2021
Content
Introduction 1
Methodology 1
1. Characteristics of IDPs and their households 2
3. Financial situation and basic needs 5
2.	Labour market and IDPs 4
4. Psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic 8
5. IDPs' mobility 10
6. Integration into local communities 11
7. Annexes 12
Conclusion and recommendations 14
1
Introduction
The conflict in eastern Ukraine and the temporary occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) and the city
of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation in 20141 led to the displacement of over a million people across the country,
including women, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. As a result, people lost their housing, employment,
livelihoods, access to resources, documents and were also separated from their families. In 2016, IOM began carrying out
a regular complex survey of the situation with internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine — the National Monitoring
System (NMS) to support all government and non-government stakeholders in designing evidence-based policies and
programmatic responses regarding IDPs’ situation2`3.


The COVID-19 crisis has had an unprecedented impact on the economy, social system and every aspect of people’s lives,
their mobility and social connections, transforming the ways of social interaction. It has created barriers in accessing
resources and means to obtain them, impacted the mental health of people, increased social inequality and the risks of
social exclusion. The results of IOM regular survey show that in the context of protracted displacement, the issues related
to lack of housing, employment, and incomes remain pressing for IDPs for more than seven years. The economic shock
made many IDPs’ situation even more vulnerable, forcing them to apply different adaptation strategies. 
Methodology
The NMS is based on the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) approach designed by IOM at the global level4. Consisting
of the mobility tracking, registration, flow monitoring and survey components, the DTM is designed to capture, process,
and disseminate information to provide a better understanding of the movements and evolving needs of displaced
populations.



IOM Ukraine adapted the DTM to the Ukrainian context via the NMS to collect and process data as well as disseminate
information on the displaced populations in Ukraine. The NMS annually reaches over 15,000 conflict-affected people
across all 24 oblasts of Ukraine, including IDPs residing in government-controlled areas (GCA), those who have returned
to the non-government controlled areas (NGCA) and other groups. The survey collects information on the different
aspects of IDPs’ life: their financial situation, employment, needs, mobility, and integration into the local communities. The
NMS methodology ensures data collection using both quantitative and qualitative research methods including face-to-face
and telephone sample surveys, focus group discussions (FGDs) as well as other relevant data sources. 


This report reflects the key results of the 18th and 19th NMS Rounds.
Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. October 28, 2020 № 1544-r “On approval of the National Action Plan for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325
‘Women, Peace, Security’ for the period up to 2025.” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1544-2020-%D1%80#Text (accessed 8.05.2021).

Draft order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On approval of the Strategy for the integration of internally displaced persons and implementation of long-term decisions on internal
displacement until 2023.” https://oldsite.mtot.gov.ua/files/uploads/f859ee40-1ab8-11eb-81f2-1b41e6c4f331.rtf (accessed 8.05.2021)

https://dtm.iom.int/about
UN General Assembly Resolution 73/263.
1
3
2
4
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
2
The data collection process within the 19th Round of NMS was carried out from December 2020 to March 2021. Due to
the strengthening of COVID-19 quarantine measures, the fieldwork process within territorial units’ sample survey was
implemented via phone. 
In this round:
These FGDs became the key part of the IOM community consultation process conducted to report to the UN Secretary
General's High-Level Panel7 on the situation of IDPs in the country. The selection of the locations was done based on the
joint coordination with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), and the Danish
Refugee Council (DRC) to expand the geographical coverage of the research without duplicating the areas. 
2,403 IDPs were interviewed via telephone in 300 randomly selected territorial units throughout the country;

3,753 IDPs and NGCA returnees were surveyed using the telephone-based survey tool; 

five online FGDs were held in Ivano-Frankivsk, Kherson, Zakarpattia and Khmelnytskyi with the KIs, IDPs, and NGCA
returnees.
2,801 IDPs were surveyed using the face-to-face method5 in 300 randomly selected territorial units across the country;

3,701 more people (including NGCA returnees) were surveyed via the IOM telephone-based tool using the Unified
Information Database of Internally Displaced Persons6;

15 online FGDs were held with IDPs, host communities’ members, and key informants (KIs) working with IDPs in five
locations of Ukraine (Lviv, Sumy, Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, and Poltava).
1. Characteristics of IDPs
and their households
Women represented 56 per cent of the surveyed IDP
household members, which is slightly higher than the share
of women in the average Ukrainian household (54%)8.
Among them, 22 per cent were aged over 60 years, which
was higher than the share of men of the same age (15%)
(Figure 1.1). 
During the data collection stage, all COVID-19 safety requirements were followed: interviewers used masks, gloves and sanitizers; they kept a distance with respondents; paper tools were
disinfected before connection with every respondent.

Data from telephone interviews were combined with data from face-to-face interviews. The combining of these two data sets was done using a statistical weighing tool. Both data sets were
weighted according to the regional distribution of registered IDPs. Data from telephone interviews were also weighted, according to the sociodemographic characteristics of IDPs interviewed
face-to-face.

https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/united-nations-secretary-generals-high-level-panel-internal-displacement
5
6
7
Distribution of the permanent population of Ukraine by gender and age as of 1 January 2020. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, June 20208
Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households of Ukraine in 2020. Statistical Bulletin. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020.
9
0–4 years
Figure 1.1. Sex and age distributions of IDP
household members
5–17 years
18–34 years
35–59 years
60+ years
4%
18%
17%
39%
22%
6%
26%
17%
36%
15%
44%56%
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
The average respondent household size was 2.51, which is
comparable to the general population of Ukraine
(2.58 persons) according to the State Statistics Service of
Ukraine (SSSU) data9.
The data collection process within the 18th NMS Round was carried out in July–September 2020. Within this Round:
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
3
Figure 1.2. Distribution of IDP households

in Ukraine by number of members
23%
34%
22%
21%
1 person
2 persons
3 persons
4 persons and more
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
Figure 1.3. Share of households with
children
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
41%
Figure 1.4. Share of female-headed
households with children (among all
households with children)
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
33%
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
Figure 1.5. Share of IDP households with people with
disabilities 
(disability groups I–III, children with disabilities)
15%
Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households of Ukraine in 2020. Statistical Bulletin. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020.11
In Ukraine, disability status is assigned by the Medical and Social Expert Commission (MSEC). Depending on the severity of the disability and the individual’s ability to work and care for
oneself, persons with disabilities are categorized into three groups (I, II, III). Rasell, M., & Iarskaia-Smirnova, E. (Eds.). (2013). Disability in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union:
History, policy and everyday life. Routledge.
12
Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households of Ukraine in 2020. Statistical Bulletin. The State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020.10
Fifteen (15%) per cent of IDP households reported having a family
member with a disability12.
Almost one quarter (23%) of the respondents lived in
single-person households, which is higher than among the total
population of Ukraine (19%)10 (Figure 1.2). Almost three quarters
of IDPs (74%) living in single-person households were women and
almost a half of single-person households (47%) consisted of
people aged 60 and over.
Households with children made up 41 per cent of all surveyed IDP
households, or slightly more than in the average Ukrainian
household (38%)11. The share of large families with three or more
children made up 10 per cent of IDP households with children,
while the share of single-parent households was 34 per cent of IDP
households with children. Among all households with children,
33 per cent were female-headed households with children. 
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
4
Employed population in 2020, by age group, sex and place of residence. http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2020/rp/eans/znsmv2020_ue.xls

Ukrainian economic recovery tracker. NGO Centre for Economic Strategy. 2021. https://ces.org.ua/en/ukrainian-economic-recovery-tracker/
13
14
2.	Labour market and IDPs
Despite the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the labour market, the share of IDPs employed in
September 2020–March 2021 was 49 per cent among all the respondents, which is slightly higher than the IDPs
employment rate in March–July 2020 (46%). Similarly, the share of employed IDPs aged 20–64 was 60 per cent,
representing an increase, compared to the first and second quarters of 2020 (55% and 56%, respectively). However, at
the end of 2020, the employment rate of IDPs was still lower compared to the general population in the same
age group (65%)13 (Figure 2.1). Moreover, since September 2015, IDPs’ satisfaction with the availability of employment
opportunities decreased by 11 per cent (from 73% to 62%).
At first glance, employment indicators show positive dynamics. However, a deeper analysis of the data indicates the
application of various adaptation strategies by the IDPs. The data showed minor transitions of women of working age
from the economically inactive group to the economically active group in conditions of economic shock. In March 2021,
the share of employed women aged 20–64 was 55 per cent, which was higher than in the first quarter of 2020 (50%).
Whereas in January–March 2021, the share of women doing housework, looking after children or other persons was
16 per cent, which is four per cent lower compared to the first quarter of 2020 (20%) and third quarter of 2019 (20%).
This transition might have indicated the acute need for IDP households to have additional income sources to cover such
expenses as housing rent in the context of the rental prices’ gradual increase14. Despite the slight increase in the level of
economic activity that might have reflected positive adaptation strategies, it is worth paying attention to the employment
conditions of the interviewed persons. Compared to men, women were mainly employed in the retail and service sectors
(21% and 8%, 24% and 20%, respectively). The women employed in the service sector more frequently reported working
part-time (26%), compared to the average estimate (10%).
Figure 2.1. Employment of IDPs and general population of Ukraine aged 20–64
Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)
Source: The State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2020
IDPs
60%
General population of Ukraine
65%
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
5
Besides, according to the results of the FGDs with IDPs
and NGCA returnees, some IDPs have returned to
NGCA due to job loss, lack of livelihood opportunities
and inability to pay rent. At the same time, the share of
the respondents surveyed via the IOM telephone-based
tool and identified as NGCA returnees was slightly
higher than in the NMS rounds carried out before the
second quarter of 2020 (23% against 20%). As a result,
the possible IDPs outflow might have impacted the
slight decrease in the stock of the economically inactive
group (from 46% to 43%).
Besides, according to the results of the FGDs with IDPs
and NGCA returnees, some IDPs have returned to
NGCA due to job loss, lack of livelihood opportunities
and inability to pay rent. At the same time, the share of
the respondents surveyed via the IOM telephone-based
tool and identified as NGCA returnees was slightly
higher than in the NMS rounds carried out before the
second quarter of 2020 (23% against 20%). As a result,
the possible IDPs outflow might have impacted the
slight decrease in the stock of the economically inactive
group (from 46% to 43%).
“Housing rent has been growing because
of rising prices for everything. But not
everyone's salary has increased.” 
Source: FGD with IDPs
IDP (female, 36) from Luhansk Oblast
3. Financial situation, basic needs and access to services
Sixty (60%) per cent of the surveyed IDPs indicated salary as a source of income for their households during the last
12 months, which was in line with the age distribution of the IDPs household members and IDPs’ labour market situation.
The share of respondents receiving support from the government was still significant, demonstrating IDPs' reliance on
government support. Fifty-four (54%) per cent of the interviewed persons indicated the monthly targeted assistance to
IDPs15 as one of their households’ income sources during the last 12 months placing it as the second most frequently
mentioned income source among all the respondents (Figure 3.1). One third (30%) of the IDPs households combined the
sources of income during the last 12 months using both salaries and monthly targeted assistance to IDPs. The monthly
targeted assistance to IDPs as their source of income was most frequently mentioned by respondents who reported
having a family member with a disability in their household (68%), female-headed households with children (72%), and
households consisting exclusively of people aged 60 and over (60%).
Sources of income
Government Resolution No. 505 “On providing monthly targeted assistance to IDPs to cover living expenses, including utility costs.”
15
Figure. 3.1. Sources of income of surveyed IDP households in the past 12 months (five most mentioned)
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
Salary
Government IDP support
Retirement pension
Social assistance
Irregular earnings
Disability pension
60%
54%
34%
18%
8%
8%
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
6
The data gathered in the first quarter of 2021 demonstrated the deterioration of IDP households’ financial situation
(self-assessment). In Round 19, half of the IDPs (50%) assessed their financial situation as “enough money only for food”
or “have to limit even food expenses”, which is three per cent higher compared to the first quarter of 2020 (47%). The
share of households consisting only of persons aged 60 and over who had to “limit even food expenses” was 24 per cent,
while 43 per cent had “enough money only for food.” Among the households with people with disabilities, the share of
those who stated having to “limit even food expenses” was 27 per cent, while 42 per cent had “enough money only for
food.” As for the female-headed households with children and households with three or more children, these categories
accounted for 26 and 44 per cent, and 20 and 49 per cent, respectively.
Self-assessment of financial situation
In September 2020, the average monthly income per
IDP household member increased, compared to
June 2020 (UAH 3,350) and totalled UAH 3,666. In
March 2021, the average monthly income per IDP
household member amounted to UAH 3,651. The data
gathered within the two last rounds of the NMS
demonstrated the return of the average monthly
income per IDP household member reported by the
interviewed persons or respondents to the
pre-pandemic period (UAH 3,631 in September 2019). 


The income increase might be linked to different factors
including the slight growth of the employment rate of
the displaced population, and the increase in the
minimum wage16. However, the average monthly
income per IDP household member was lower,
compared to the average17 Ukrainian household; for the
general population, it was UAH 6,267 in December
2020.
Furthermore, the average monthly income of IDPs was still lower, compared to the actual subsistence level calculated and
published by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, which was UAH 4,22418 in March 2021.
Average income
“The wages are low, at least for me. We
moved: we need to rent a house, to buy
products which are getting more
expensive every day... It is only enough to
survive. But there are some savings in
case of serious problems or medical
treatment.”
Source: FGD with IDPs
IDP (male, 31) from Luhansk Oblast
The minimum salary in Ukraine. https://index.minfin.com.ua/labour/salary/min/

Expenses and resources of households in Ukraine (according to the data of the sample survey of living conditions of households) for the 4th quarter of 2020. Statistical Bulletin. State
Statistics Service of Ukraine. Kyiv, 2020. (http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2018/gdvdg/Arh_vrduB_u.htm)

The actual subsistence minimum in March 2021. The Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine / https://www.msp.gov.ua/news/19922.html
16
17
18
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
7
The survey results demonstrated that the main monthly priority expenses for IDP households were in the food and
housing categories (utility bills and housing rent). Eighty-seven (87%) per cent of IDPs reported food as the priority
expense when allocating monthly income, 78 per cent named utility bills and 57 per cent indicated the housing rent
payments. Other frequently mentioned expenses were health care (40%), electricity (33%), hygiene items (19%),
communication (17%), education (14%), transport (13%) and heating fuel (coal/firewood) (10%). Prioritization of expenses
on utilities increased by 16 per cent in October 2020–March 2021, electricity expenses increased by 18 per cent and
heating fuel expenses increased by seven per cent compared to September 2020. The IDPs residing in Luhansk and
Donetsk oblasts (GCA) and IDPs residing in rural areas reported heating fuel as a priority expense more frequently than
others (14% and 47%, respectively). One third (29%) of IDPs increased their expenditures for hygiene items during the
last 12 months due to COVID-19. The top three priorities for IDPs who are renting housing (62% of all IDPs) were rent
payment (84%), food (83%), and utility payments (77%).
Priority expenditures
Figure 3.2. Priority expenditures when distributing monthly income in IDP households
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
Food
Utility bills
Housing rent
Health care
Electricity
Hygiene items
Communication
Education
Transport
Heating fuel (coal)
Other
87%80%
78%
57%
62%
54%
40%37%
33%15%
19%
17%
14%
13%
10%3%
2% 10%
12%
9%
16%
15%
Round 19
(March 2021)
Round 18
(September 2020)
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
8
The most pressing issue identified by IDPs was lack of
own housing, reported by 31 per cent in Round 19.
The utility payments and lack of opportunity to return
to the place of habitual residence were the second
(13%) and the third (8%) most frequently mentioned
major issues, respectively. 


In Round 19, IDPs more frequently reported utility
payments and the risk of COVID-19 (4%) as the major
issue compared to the previous rounds. 


On the other hand, limited opportunity to return to
the place of habitual residence was mentioned less
frequently.
The IDPs were most satisfied with access to education (90%), administrative services (88%) and pensions/social assistance
(88%) and were least satisfied with the accessibility of health-care services (76%).
The results of the analysis have demonstrated the differences in the issues faced by the different IDPs households. The
female-headed households with children indicated unemployment as the biggest issue more frequently than others (8%
and 3%). The respondents presenting the households consisting only of persons aged 60 and over more often reported
the lack of opportunity to return to the place of habitual residence (15% and 6%). The interviewed persons from the IDP
households with people with disabilities more frequently reported the access to healthcare services and medications as
the biggest problem (4% and 1%).
Major issues
“Now I think that no one has stability due
to the quarantine. Prices are rising, there
is no income, you can't pay for an
apartment and the owners can evict you.”
Source: FGD with IDPs
IDP (male, 41) from Luhansk Oblast
The accessibility is related to the availability of information on the services functioning, affordability, transport
accessibility, etc. Fifteen (15%) per cent of IDPs visited a health-care facility for treatment or consultation at least once in
2021. Thirty-five (35%) per cent visited a health-care facility in 2020, seven per cent — in 2019 or earlier, and 43 per cent
did not respond to the question. The most frequently mentioned problems during the last visit to a medical facility were
fear of contracting COVID-19 (23%) and high prices for medical services (22%).
4. Psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 crisis has affected the mental health of people, causing different concerns. The respondents reported
becoming more worried about the health and safety of their family members and friends (73%) as well as about their
health and safety (69%). Fifty-nine (59%) per cent became more worried about their financial situation, 52 per cent —
about the financial possibility to purchase necessary food, 51 per cent – to purchase necessary medicines.
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
9
“I lost my salary just when the
quarantine started, because I worked in
the private kindergarten and they were
forbidden to work. There was the fear
when people were told everywhere that
they could get sick and should not go
outside. I was also afraid to be without a
salary — what if something would not
work out for my husband, and I had to
pay for housing every month. It is scary
to live in constant stress. You cannot
stop, get sick, lose your job. There will
simply be nothing to live on.” 
IDP (female, 33) from Donetsk Oblast
Source: FGD with IDPs
The IDPs reported their reliance on the informal
networks of support when they need counselling and
emotional help on COVID-19 related issues. Almost
one third (27%) stated that they turn to their family
members, friends, colleagues. Nineteen (19%) per cent
of the respondents named a family doctor. The shares
of those who indicated the Ministry of Health Hotline,
other hotlines, or the online platforms which provide
psychosocial support and counselling on the COVID-19
related questions did not exceed two per cent for every
mentioned option. Less than half of the respondents
(37%) did not mention a need in receiving counselling
and emotional support, while eight per cent were
unaware of the sources of such assistance.
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
Figure 4.1. Shares of IDPs who noted changes in
mental well-being due to COVID-19

(five most mentioned reasons for mental health
deterioration)
Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
Family members/friends health and safety
Own health and safety
Financial situation (in general)
Financial ability to buy necessary food
Financial ability to purchase medicines
73%
69%
59%
52%
51%
10
March 2021. OCHA Ukraine. April 2021. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ukraine_ Ukraine Crossing Points - Snapshot
humanitarian_snapshot_crossing_points_20210415.pdf
19
5. IDPs’ mobility
The share of IDPs who reported that they had been staying in their current settlement for over three years was 87 per
cent in Round 19. The share of IDPs who reported their intention to return to their place of residence after the end of
the conflict was 18 per cent which is slightly lower than in September 2020 (22%). On the other hand, 39 per cent of
IDPs expressed an intention not to return even after the end of the conflict. The share of IDPs who chose the option
“hard to answer” was 28 per cent. Having own home in NGCA (84%), family circumstances (23%) and family or friends
living nearby (17%) were the most frequently mentioned reasons to return to the place of residence before displacement
among those IDPs who plan to return once. The results of the analysis showed that IDPs who assessed their financial
situation as “have to limit even food expenses” more often reported their intention to return to their place of residence
in NGCA (41%) than those who had “enough funds for food and basic needs” (26%).
It has been a year since movement across the
entry/exit crossing points (EECPs) along the
contact line was restricted due to the quarantine
measures19. The limited functioning of the EECPs
since the introduction of quarantine restrictions
affects IDPs’ freedom of movement and the
possibility to maintain ties with family members
living in NGCA and support them. The share of
IDPs who visited their domicile after becoming
displaced was higher among those who had close
family members residing in NGCA (62% and 42%,
respectively). According to the data, the most
acute concerns associated with limited possibilities
to visit NGCA were breaking family ties (33%)
and lack of opportunity to help relatives and
friends (29%) among those who had close family
members residing in NGCA.
Figure 5.1. General IDPs’ intentions to return to and stay at
their place of residence before displacement, by rounds
Source: Interviews with IDPs (combined data)
Yes, in the near future
Yes, after the end of the conflict
Yes, maybe in future
Round15

(September2019)
Round16

(March2020)
Round17

(June2020)
Round18

(September2020)
Round19

(September2021)
No
Hard to answer
No answer
1%
21%
14%
36%
27%
1%
1%
20%
16%
42%
20%
1%
1%
19%
15%
39%
25%
1%
1%
22%
13%
31%
30%
3%
1%
18%
12%
39%
28%
2%
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
11
6. Integration into local communities
Figure 6. IDPs’ self assesment of their integration in the local community
Source: Telephone interviews (territorial units sample)
Yes Partly No No answer
The main conditions for successful integration indicated by IDPs were housing (85%) and regular income (75%). The first
two conditions have remained the most frequently mentioned over one and a half years while the share of those who
indicated “family and friends in the same place” as the condition of integration has increased from 45 per cent to 56 per
cent since the third quarter of 2019. Other conditions were employment (47%), access to social services (44%), support
of local communities (30%), easy access to documentation (28%) and the possibility to vote in local elections (20%). In
Round 19, new options were added: comfortable living conditions (access to water, electricity, heating, sewerage) and
acceptance by local communities, which were chosen by 30 per cent and 22 per cent of IDPs, respectively.
In Round 19, the share of IDPs who reported that they had integrated into their local community was 55 per cent, while
34 per cent of the surveyed IDPs stated that they had partly integrated. Generally, the total share (89%) of IDPs who
reported some level of integration remained about the same as in the previous two rounds. At the same time, the share
of IDPs who reported that they had not integrated was six per cent in both rounds 18 and 19.
55% 34% 6% 5%
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
7. Annexes
12
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
ANNEX 1. Methodology
Total 300
Oblast
Number of territorial
units selected
Vinnytsia 6
Volyn 6
Zakarpattia 6
Kirovohrad 6
Odesa 8
Khmelnytskyi 6
Ternopil 6
Dnipropetrovsk 18
Zaporizhia 18
Luhansk 36
Poltava 6
Cherkasy 6
Donetsk 70
Ivano-Frankivsk 6
Lviv 6
Kharkiv 18
Rivne 6
Chernivtsi 6
Zhytomyr 6
Kyiv Oblast (excluding the city of Kyiv) 10
Mykolaiv 6
Kherson 6
Sumy 6
Chernihiv 6
The city of Kyiv 20
Total 2,801 2,403
Oblast
Round

18
Round

19
Vinnytsia 61 47
Volyn 54 44
Zakarpattia
179 145
Kirovohrad
324 325
Odesa
60 48
Khmelnytskyi
53 50
Ternopil
182 143
Dnipropetrovsk 180 143
Zaporizhia
54 48
Luhansk
60 48
Poltava
52 48
Cherkasy
47 36
Donetsk 629 559
Ivano-Frankivsk
99 79
Lviv
51 48
Kharkiv
60 48
Rivne
54 48
Chernivtsi
54 48
Zhytomyr 54
48
48
36
Kyiv Oblast (excluding the city of Kyiv)
54 48
Mykolaiv
84 64
Kherson
60 48
Sumy
44 40
Chernihiv
204 164The city of Kyiv
Figure 1. Distribution of the sample by
territorial units within oblasts of Ukraine
Figure 2. Distribution of IDP households by the
number of the interviews in the oblasts (territorial
units sample)
13
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
Figure 3. Distribution of IDP households by
telephone interviews within oblasts
Total 3,701 3,753
Oblast Round

18
Round

19
Vinnytsia 73 80
Volyn 71 80
Zakarpattia
216 240
Kirovohrad
133 52
Odesa
79 80
Khmelnytskyi
69 80
Ternopil
213 244
Dnipropetrovsk 220 242
Zaporizhia
77 80
Luhansk (GCA)
68 80
Poltava
73 80
Cherkasy
74 80
Donetsk (GCA) 351 233
Ivano-Frankivsk
120 130
Lviv
73 80
Kharkiv
66 80
Rivne
73 80
Chernivtsi
72
528
80
502
Zhytomyr 72
76
80
80
Kyiv Oblast (excluding the city of Kyiv)
74 80
Mykolaiv
96 110
Kherson
64 80
Sumy
68 80
Chernihiv
Donetsk NGCA
271
331
270
370
The city of Kyiv
Luhansk NGCA
13
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
ANNEX 2. Statistics of calls in the telephone survey
Total 16,627
17%
5%
23%
25%
3%
10%
17%
19,891
Summary of calls 

Round 18 

(September 2020)
Summary of calls 

Round 19

(March 2021)
Completed interviews (GCA)
 2,842 2,881 15%
Completed interviews (NGCA)
 859 872 4%
Not IDP
 549 705 4%
No answer/nobody picked up the
phone (after three attempts)
2,769 3,922 19%
Refusal to take part in the survey
No connection
1,600 2,787 14%
Out of service
3,795
4,213
3,527 18%
5,197 26%
Total 3,795
80%
12%
0%
8%
3,527
No connection 

Round 18
(September 2020)
No connection 

Round 19 

(March 2021)
Vodafone 3,045 2,814 80%
Kyivstar 439 490 14%
Lifecell 303 216 6%
Other 8 7 0%
Total 4,213
69%
16%
0%
15%
5,197
Out of service 

Round 18
(September 2020)
Out of service 

Round 19 

(March 2021)
Vodafone 2,889 3,476 67%
Kyivstar 682 888 17%
Lifecell 624 803 15%
Other 18 30 1%
Conclusion and recommendations
The systemic transformation and economic shocks require enhanced socioeconomic interventions by the GoU and other
stakeholders to address the constant needs of IDPs and ensure their adaptation in conditions of the crisis for increasing
their employability, protecting their labour rights, ensuring housing availability, and enhancing the Mental Health and
Psychosocial Support (MHPSS). The obtained results indicate a constant need for the implementation of further research
on IDPs’ socioeconomic situation, employment, mobility patterns established in the replace with context of COVID-19,
MHPSS needs, protection risks, and the barriers for overcoming displacement vulnerabilities. The data should be gathered
considering the gender dimension as well as regional and local contexts.
The NMS data shows that IDPs' main obstacles to overcoming the key displacement vulnerabilities are related to
employment, income, housing, and separation from family members. Along with this, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a
disproportional impact on the lives of the displaced populations, forcing them to apply different coping mechanisms
including returns to the NGCA, increased reliance on governmental support and influencing IDPs’ transition from the
economically inactive group to the economically active group.
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration
For more information please contact

International Organization for Migration (IOM), Mission in Ukraine
8 Mykhailivska Street, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01001

Tel: (044) 568-50-15 

Fax: (044) 568-50-16

Email: nmsukraine@iom.int
This publication was produced by IOM Ukraine within the project “Essential Humanitarian Assistance and
Early Recovery Support to Vulnerable Returnees, IDPs and other Conflict-Affected Communities in Eastern
Ukraine” funded by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM).
The views and opinions expressed in this publication do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the
International Organization for Migration (IOM), its Member States or its donors.
14
U.S. Department of
State Bureau of
Population, Refugees,
and Migration