Communities are now facing unprecedented challenges as never before due to the full-scale war. From the problems of destroyed infrastructure, lack of human resources, to the challenges of relocating businesses or creating the necessary conditions for military personnel and their families.
To better understand these challenges and identify the needs to address them, the Alliance of Ukrainian Universities, with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation, conducted in-depth research in twelve selected communities, each with a unique experience. The towns were chosen for study because of their diversity – from the rear regions (Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, and Rivne oblasts) to the frontline areas and communities that have been de-occupied (Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnipro oblasts). This allows us to see a broader picture of the challenges faced by different regions of Ukraine. Particular attention was paid to identifying the specific needs of communities in three key areas: resilience, development, and recovery. The research was conducted in February-April 2024 by teams of universities that are members of the Alliance. In the process of deep immersion in community life, a wide range of data was collected, including statistical indicators and individual reports from each community. In particular, the study showed that resilience remains the most critical issue in the third year of full-scale war. The majority of the surveyed communities (eight out of twelve) consider resilience to be a top priority.
The need for resilience
The resilience of a community is measured by its ability to respond to emergencies and crises. The study showed that residents assess the level of resilience of their communities based on several key indicators: government response, effectiveness of information and quality of shelters. Residents’ satisfaction with the authorities’ response to emergencies varied: communities in Lviv region received lower scores, while frontline communities in Dnipropetrovska region received higher scores.
The quality and accessibility of shelters was an important topic of discussion. Frontline communities had better prepared shelters, which was important for the protection of the population. Communities in Dnipropetrovska oblast had the highest scores for these criteria. At the same time, communities in the rear lacked quality shelters (the worst assessment of the quality and accessibility of shelters was in the rear community in Lviv region). This aspect emphasizes the need to invest in improving the safety of residents regardless of the geographical location of the community.
Insufficient preparedness for crisis situations is also observed in the area of IT systems and data backup. In many communities, IT systems are not tested properly, which increases the risks of their functioning during emergencies. At the same time, the provision of power supplies to local governments was assessed positively, indicating a certain level of preparation for possible crises. It is also noteworthy that in a number of communities (in particular, in communities in Sumy region that either had experience of occupation or are located not too far from the border with Russia), less than half of the representatives of local governments said that they had stockpiled essential goods.
One of the key aspects of resilience is informing the population about emergencies. In some communities, residents receive timely and accurate information that helps them respond to crisis situations in a timely manner. At the same time, other communities have communication problems, which creates additional risks.
Social resilience is another element measured by the index, which takes into account the level of residents’ trust in local authorities and their willingness to participate in civic initiatives. The results showed that communities with a high level of social resilience have better emergency response performance, as residents are more actively involved in decision-making and interaction with the authorities. Communities with the worst scores in this indicator indicated a sense of isolation from the rest of the community or region. These communities are located in Sumy and Chernihiv oblasts, which were in the zone of occupation or hostilities. Perhaps such indicators are related to the potential threat of renewed hostilities in these areas and the overall unfavorable geographical location of these communities. They also have some of the highest rates, compared to other communities, of plans to leave the community, even if the security situation does not change. In some cases, the responses of residents of a particular community who lived in rural areas and in the city(s) differed. For example, in a community in Chernihiv Oblast, resilience as a critical need was predominantly identified by rural residents. The research team explains this by the fact that rural residents have less access to communications, and thus the need is felt especially acutely during crises.
The need for development
Community development includes providing quality services such as education, healthcare, utilities, and business support. According to the survey, residents are mostly satisfied with the quality of secondary education and public utilities. Water and heat supply were particularly highly rated, which is critical to meeting the basic needs of the population.
The assessment of the quality of secondary education revealed that most communities provide a high level of education. This is an important indicator, as education is the foundation for the development of future generations. However, there are problems with the accessibility of educational institutions in some regions, particularly in rural areas.
Healthcare is also an important aspect of community development. The study found that residents are satisfied with the quality of medical services, but there are problems with the availability of medical facilities and the insufficient number of medical workers. This is especially true in communities located near the frontline, where medical facilities are often damaged or destroyed.
The quality of public utilities, such as water and heating, received high marks from residents. This indicates that most communities are effectively meeting the basic needs of the population. However, the problem with road infrastructure remains one of the main challenges. Poor road quality complicates logistics and access to basic services, which negatively affects the quality of life.
The assessments of development needs for residents obtained in the communities are generally typical and not region-specific: communities in the west of the country do not differ in terms of development assessments from those that are near the frontline or have experienced occupation. At the same time, some of them have their own specific problems. For example, two communities in Dnipropetrovska oblast rated sports and preschool education rather low. In the community of Lviv region, problems with heat supply were recorded. In half of the communities, residents were rather negative about the inclusiveness and barrier-free nature of public spaces.
Business is the backbone of the economy, and therefore, comprehensive support for local entrepreneurs will help to increase the community’s capacity. In particular, business representatives emphasized the need to reduce rents for municipal property and provide benefits for local taxes. This will help create favorable conditions for business development and economic growth in communities. Many respondents noted that local authorities should be more active in supporting business initiatives and focus on the development of small and medium-sized businesses.
The public sector was also surveyed for a comprehensive picture. The main challenges include a lack of funding to implement their own projects. Civic activists emphasized the importance of local authorities supporting community development initiatives to ensure their successful implementation. Cooperation between CSOs and local authorities is a key factor in effectively addressing social problems and improving the quality of life of residents, and it also allows for a significant increase in opportunities for resource mobilization.
The need for recovery
Rebuilding communities after the destruction caused by war is a critical aspect of the study. Restoration of infrastructure, residential buildings, and other important facilities is a priority for communities. Securing funding for reconstruction projects is a major challenge, as many communities do not have sufficient resources to cover these needs on their own. It is necessary to attract additional funds from the state budget and international organizations, as well as to improve coordination between different levels of government and organizations for effective recovery.
Planning and resource management is an important aspect of recovery. Communities that have clear recovery plans and resource management strategies are more effective in addressing the challenges they face. This includes taking inventory of available resources, prioritizing areas for recovery, and raising the necessary funds to implement projects.
Ukrainian communities are currently receiving a lot of attention from international partners, and therefore it is important to use this window of opportunity by improving project implementation skills and effectively cooperating with international organizations. This will help attract not only financial support, but also the expertise and technology needed to restore infrastructure and improve the quality of life of residents. Communities should actively seek opportunities for cooperation and attract international resources to implement their projects.
Specific needs of certain groups
Internally displaced persons (IDPs) and military personnel and their families make up a significant part of the population in many communities. IDPs were most in need of additional assistance in finding housing, compensation for housing costs, and additional educational services. Many IDPs face difficulties in finding employment due to lack of necessary skills or age restrictions. Among the communities participating in the study, nine out of twelve host IDPs. Their share varies from 1 to 15% of the total population. In most communities, the share of IDPs who do not feel fully or partially supported by their communities is between 8-16% (four communities), in two communities it is 30% and in one community it is over 50%. In two more communities, the share of IDPs who do not feel supported is less than 5%. Interestingly, only one community received the lowest assessment of support from the community – the one that includes the regional center.
Families of military personnel were most in need of financial and medical assistance. It was noted that many of these families do not feel adequately supported by the community, which may be due to a lack of awareness of their needs. Special support programs should be created for these populations, including psychological assistance and rehabilitation measures.
Psychological support is an important element of assistance for IDPs and military families. War causes significant psychological trauma that requires qualified assistance. It is important for communities to provide access to psychological services and create rehabilitation programs to help people cope with the effects of war.
The educational needs of IDPs also require special attention. Many children from displaced families have difficulty accessing education due to relocation and adaptation to a new environment. Consideration should be given to providing additional educational services and support for these children so that they can successfully integrate into new schools and continue their education.
In summary, despite significant challenges, many communities demonstrate a high capacity for adaptation and development. An important condition for successfully overcoming the challenges is to increase the level of interaction between the central government and local authorities, business and civil society organizations, as well as to attract external resources and expertise. Involving the public in decision-making is also an important element to ensure transparency and accountability of the authorities.
A full summary report on the study of the needs of local communities for resilience, recovery and development is available here.
For reference: The Alliance of Ukrainian Universities united six higher education institutions in the spring of 2023: Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Kyiv), Kyiv School of Economics (Kyiv), National Technical University “Dnipro Polytechnic” (Dnipro), National University of Water and Environmental Engineering (Rivne), Sumy State University (Sumy), and Ukrainian Catholic University (Lviv).
Source: Dzerkalo Tyzhnia
