Ukrainians' Attitudes Towards Internally Displaced Persons from ...

April 2016

Ukrainians’ Attitudes Towards Internally Displaced Persons from Donbas and Crimea Summary of Opinion Polls

Photo: UNHCR/P. Shelomovskiy

Kiev International Institute of Sociology

Content Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Contact between local populations and IDPs .................................................................................................................................. 7 General attitude to IDPs .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Stereotypes about IDPs ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Willingness to work with internally displaced persons .......................................................................................................... 21 The perception of the impact of internally displaced on the cities with the highest concentration of IDPs (CLP) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 References .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Annex 1. Respondent profiles ............................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Annex 2. Cross-tables ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Abbreviations IDPs — internally displaced persons

CLP — cities with the largest population of IDPs

Introduction Since the beginning of the conflict in 2014, Ukraine has faced large-scale internal displacement of people from eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine has registered over 1.7 million internally displaced persons (IDPs). This number comprises hundreds of thousands of people who are not permanently displaced by the conflict to the government-controlled areas, but forced to register as IDPs since the current law links payment of pensions to the IDP status. IDPs mainly register in areas adjacent to zones of armed conflict, as well as in Kyiv. Most IDPs tend to view their situation as temporary. One of the primary conditions for their return is a cessation of hostilities and the restoration of normal life in their home regions, which most likely will not occur in the short term. There are also IDPs who are unable to return because of property destruction, political and ideological conflicts with those who remained on territories not controlled by Ukraine, and other reasons. Therefore, the successful integration and adaptation of IDPs in host communities remains a relevant issue in the long term. Since the beginning of mass migration from nonUkrainian government controlled areas various entities have conducted studies on the interaction between local populations and IDPs, in particular examining whether conflicts or misunderstandings exist between the two groups. The publicly available information is contradictory. In some cases, local residents claim to have neutral / friendly attitudes toward IDPs, expressing compassion and understanding of the difficult situation in which IDPs have found themselves,

while declaring their readiness to provide help [1]. On the other hand, there is evidence of discrimination and prejudice against IDPs, as well as negative stereotyping and the existence of hidden and potential social conflicts [2, 3, 4]. Researchers have used qualitative methods that allow them to explore and understand these issues in depth from the IDPs’ perspective, but that do not allow them to extrapolate results from the general population. Research is often local and conducted in single areas or in large cities and towns in Eastern Ukraine where the concentration of IDPs is the highest. Until now, no studies have measured the opinions and perspectives regarding IDPs across the whole of Ukraine. To clarify and update existing data, in February-March 2016 the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology at the request of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) conducted a public opinion poll to assess the resident population of Ukraine’s attitudes towards IDPs. The survey covered the entire territory of Ukraine (except for non-Ukrainian government controlled areas in Crimea and Donbas) with particular focus on cities with the largest number of registered IDPs (CLP), according to official statistics. The main objectives of this study were to uncover the general attitude of the local population toward IDPs; to assess the prevalence of stereotypes and prejudices about the latter; and, to detail the perception of the impact IDPs have on city life as perceived by local residents. The results may be used to guide the creation of programs and activities of UNHCR and its partners designed to enhance tolerance and promote peaceful coexistence in host communities.

Methodology The research consisted of two components: 1) Questions for UNHCR were included in KIIS Omnibus, a regular multi-purpose population survey commissioned and financed by multiple clients for different purposes. Fieldwork for the survey took place from 5 – 16 February 2016. KIIS Omnibus sampled 2,000 respondents. The information in the survey was compiled from personal interviews and is representative of the adult non-institutionalized population of Ukraine, except Crimea and non-Ukrainian government controlled territories

4

in Donetsk and Luhansk regions (Approximately 100 of the 2000 interviews were conducted in different not-controlled cities of Donetsk region, where it is impossible for security reasons, These respondents` questionnaire also included questions about individual attitudes towards IDPs). Overall the survey included the responses of 1896 people who lived in areas controlled by the Ukrainian government and who were not IDPs themselves. The maximum theoretical error of a random sample of this size is 2.25%.

During the first step, the population was divided into 49 strata of urban and rural population in each of the 24 regions in Ukraine, including Kyiv. In each of the strata (with the exception of Kyiv), city or rural areas were chosen randomly. In rural areas one village was randomly chosen. The higher the population in a city or rural area, the more likely that location was selected. The number of interviews in each location was proportional to the number of adults living there, according to Central Election Committee official statistics. Overall during the first step 110 settlements were selected across Ukraine for inclusion. During the second step polling stations in each location and an address within each station were randomly selected. During the third stage the interviewer worked systematically through the dwellings sequence, beginning with the starting address then determining the next respondent by the route, which provided an equal chance for all residents of a household to be included in the sample. The objectives of this method were: • To evaluate overall perception of IDPs by the local population in Ukraine, in general and in each region; • To estimate the prevalence of stereotypes and prejudice against IDPs in Ukraine and in the regions; • To determine the level of readiness of people to hire IDPs and / or provide rental accommodations, as well as to determine the conditions and barriers for this in Ukraine and in the regions; • To estimate whether the attitude towards IDPs depends on the proximity of contact with them, and / or the sources of information about IDPs. 2) A telephone survey was also conducted with residents in CLP, according to official statistics. Thus, the statistical population included residents of all regional centers and the city of Kyiv; the urban populations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, Zaporizhia and Dnipropetrovsk regions and individual regional cities in Kyiv (Bila Tserkva, Brovary, Boryspil, Irpen, Vyshgorod Bucha, Borodyanka, Obukhiv); Poltava region (Kremenchug, Myrgorod); and, Odesa region (Illichivsk, Kotovsk, Izmail, Yuzhny, Teplodar). Through this additional polling of residents in these cities, researchers were able to question respondents more closely about the consequences of IDPs living in their settlements and about personal experiences. Fieldwork took place from 5 – 17 February 2016. The size of the sample was 2003 respondents. Calls were made mainly to fixed line numbers, but mobile phone numbers were also used to reach younger respondents (18-29 y.o.). Overall there were 1536 (77%) interviews on fixed and 467 (23%) on mobile phones.

The sample population was divided into 34 strata: 22 regional centers; cities of Kyiv, Poltava, and Odessa region (3 strata); the cities of Donetsk, Luhansk, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhya regions with populations over 100 thousand people, apart from regional centers (4 strata); and the cities of Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhya regions with populations less than 100 thousand people (5 strata). The number of interviews in each stratum was proportional to the number of adults living in respective settlements, according to the Central Election Committee. The sampled cities in other regions were, in Western Ukraine, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lutsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Uzhgorod, Khmelnytsky, and Chernivtsi; in Central Ukraine, Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Kirovograd, Poltava, Sumy, Cherkasy, Chernihiv, and the cities of Kyiv and Poltava regions; in Southern Ukraine, all of the cities of Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhia regions, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Odesa and some cities in the Odesa region; and, in Eastern Ukraine, all of the cities of Kharkiv, Donetsk and Luhansk regions in controlled areas. Kyiv was distinguished as a separate area. Quotas for age and gender were established at the regional level to avoid over-representation of older women in the sample, which is inevitable even with a random selection of respondents, and to ensure that the sample was representative of the gender and age structure of the population. The selection of respondents was carried out in two phases. During the first phase telephone numbers were randomly selected. During the second phase interviews were conducted with the respondent who answered the call, or with another member of the household if the first respondent did not match the quota. In case of no answer on the first attempt at contact, interviewers made 1-2 repeated attempts at another time. The average length of an interview was 13 minutes. The objectives of this component of the survey were: • To rate the general perception of IDPs by local population in CLP, particularly by the region; • To estimate the prevalence of stereotypes and prejudice against IDPs in urban areas with the greatest concentration of IDPs, particularly by the region; • To determine the readiness of locals to hire IDPs and / or provide rental accommodations, as well as to determine the conditions and barriers for this in CLP; • To learn how CLP residents perceive the consequences of having IDPs in these settlements; • To determine whether there was a relationship between the attitude of the local population and the closeness of their contact with IDPs, and also between their attitude and sources of information on IDPs.

5

Respondent profile Appendix 1 shows the distribution by gender, age, education, employment, nationality, financial status, type of settlement and region of residence of the respondents for both components of the study.

Conclusions and Recommendations About one fifth (17%) of all the inhabitants of Ukraine have had a conversation with an IDP. In cities with the largest IDP populations, almost half (47%) of the citizens have had such an experience. • Mass media is the main source of information on IDPs. 65% of all respondents throughout Ukraine and 63% of respondents in CLP have attitudes towards IDPs based on information gained from media. Information obtained through mass media, as well as from acquaintances, plays an important role even for those Ukrainians who have or have had contact with IDPs. Therefore, proper media coverage of the IDP situation is an important part of creating and maintaining a positive image of IDPs among the general population. • Nearly all respondents maintain positive (43% of Ukraine’s general population, 58% in CLP) or neutral (47% Ukraine-wide, 34% in CLP) attitudes towards IDPs from Donbas and Crimea. According to a retrospective assessment completed by the majority of respondents (83% throughout Ukraine and in CLP), attitudes towards IPDs have remained unchanged for the past two years. There is no clear trend towards deterioration or improvement in attitudes in the minority of respondents whose opinions changed during this same period. The shift took place both ways. Respondents in CLP do not differ in their opinion towards the various demographic and social groups of IDPs. However, opinions of the general population are somewhat more favorable towards working IDPs in contrast to unemployed; towards poor and middle-class IDPs rather than rich; to women as opposed to men; and to older IDPs versus younger. • 76–77% of the respondents throughout Ukraine and in CLP do not know the amount of assistance IDPs are entitled to by law. More than half of the respondents cannot assess whether this assistance is sufficient for IDPs. The rest are inclined to believe that IDPs need larger amounts of assistance, as the aid available does not provide for all the necessities. Almost no one expressed the idea that IDPs receive too much assistance. • The respondents tend to perceive IDPs as citizens who have found themselves in an unfavorable situation who are in need of help, being entitled to the

6

same rights as others (89% Ukraine-wide, 96% in CLP), and do not consider IDPs responsible for the situation they are trapped in (77% Ukraine-wide, 85% in CLP). However, respondents (80% Ukrainewide, 75% in CLP) believe that civic duties, such as military conscription, should be carried out by IDPs on equal terms. • 40% of respondents throughout Ukraine and 57% in CLP do not see much difference between IDPs and long-term inhabitants in their current places of residence. 38% of respondents across Ukraine and 27% of locals in CLP believe that there is a difference between the two groups. • IDPs are generally perceived as a population that is suffering, vulnerable and in a life situation in need of help. Most respondents realize that negative characteristics, such as aggressiveness, unwillingness to work, misuse of assistance, and the like are inherent to particular individuals, not to IDPs in general. However, there are respondents who have attributed these characteristics to IDPs as a whole, a perception that might hinder conflict-free integration of IDPs into communities. • Inhabitants of Ukraine’s western region (especially if oblast centers are excluded from the sample) maintain more negative stereotypes about IDPs. In particular the respondents in this sample emphasize the following features they attribute to IDPs: pro-Russian political views; unwillingness to work on equal terms; aggressiveness towards locals; arrogance; and the desire for special treatment fitting their circumstances. Also, people in Western Ukraine are more likely to blame IDPs for the situation in which they find themselves. That said, residents of this region have the least direct communication with IDPs (50% of them have not spoken with a single IDP and are unaware of any IDPs living in their vicinity), and therefore have less opportunity to make their judgment about IDPs based on personal experience. • More than half of respondents throughout Ukraine and in CLP are willing to hire IDPs or provide them with housing for rent. 60% throughout Ukraine and 61% in CLP would have privately hired a group of IDPs for apartment renovation, provided the quality and cost of work were satisfactory. 54% through-

out Ukraine and 55% in CLP would hire a tutor or a nanny for an underage family member under the same conditions. 50% throughout Ukraine and 58% in CLP would agree to provide premises for rent. Fear and distrust of strangers are named as the primary reasons for refusal in regard to these questions. Personal biases also play a negative role. However, awareness and positive examples of cooperation with IDPs might alleviate this issue. For example, positive feedback on IDPs from other employers or landlords could increase IDPs’ chances of finding a job or accommodations for rent. • The presence of IDPs has minimally affected the daily lives of host communities in CLP. 70% of the inhabitants of those cities and towns have felt little or no influence from the arrival of IDPs to their communities. In particular, 64% have not noticed any of the following effects: crime rate reduction or growth; rise of social cohesion or tension; increase in state or international assistance to their location; or, development of local businesses as a result of additional manpower or growing consumer base. One fourth of respondents have heard about competition between the long-term local population and IDPs for jobs, housing, places in schools and kindergartens, and wait time in public facilities; however, a minuscule number of respondents have had first-hand experience in any of these situations. Regular conflicts between IDPs and locals are largely unheard of: 81%

of respondents are not aware of any such conflicts in their city, and 11% could remember individual cases. Thus, overall, host communities across Ukraine appear not to perceive any significant pressure from IDP presence on the infrastructure, labor or housing markets. Nor do host communities in general believe that life has undergone any fundamental changes. One should take into account, however, that the situation in a particular locality may differ from that observed generally. • The presence of IDPs is more noticeable in the East and in Kyiv. About a third of residents in these areas have noticed the effects of IDPs in their communities. The population in the East is moderately aware of competition, conflicts, and other negative effects of the IDPs’ presence. Kyiv residents, however, assess the presence of IDPs unfavorably to a far greater extent than elsewhere. In particular, 39% of Kyiv residents share worries about a worsening crime situation; while in any other region no more that 16% share the same concern. 21% of Kyiv citizens perceive a rise in social tension, a figure twice as high as in any other region. The percentage of people who know about competition between IDPs and the long-term local population is two to three times larger in Kyiv than in other areas, although the number of those who have experienced competition first-hand is no larger than elsewhere. A third of Kyiv residents have also heard about conflicts with IDPs.

Contact between local populations and IDPs 45% of respondents from across Ukraine know that there are IDPs from Donbas and Crimea living in their communities. Of these, 17% have spoken at least once to an IDP, 8% have IDPs as neighbors, friends or colleagues, and 2% have IDP relatives or close friends. Less than 1% of respondents across Ukraine host IDPs in their homes. 39% have no connections to IDPs whatsoever (including those respondents unaware of the presence of IDPs in their communities).

As expected, in CLP these figures are much higher: 86% of respondents are aware of the presence of IDPs in their city; 47% have communicated with IDPs; 27% have IDPs as neighbors, colleagues or friends; 11% have IDP relatives or close friends; 3% share accommodations with IDPs; and, only 12% have no connections with IDPs whatsoever.

Figure 1.1. Contact between local populations and IDPs (% in Ukraine and in CLP, multiple response).

7

According to official statistics, in the towns and villages of western and central regions (the latter also includes the city of Kyiv in the second component of the study) local people are less aware of the presence of IDPs in their communities than those in the South and East. People in the West, Centre and South have almost identical levels of personal contact with IDPs. The East stands out in that respondents there have the greatest experience communicating with IDPs and the greatest number of IDPs among neighbors, colleagues or friends.

In the sample of residents in CLP, all indicators are higher in the East, where most of those polled had definite contact with IDPs. Additionally, in Kyiv the majority of residents are aware of IDPs living in the city, and one in three has colleagues, neighbors, or friends among them (which is higher than anywhere else except the East).

Figure 1.2. Contact between local populations and IDPs (% in macro regions and in CLP, multiple response).

Media is the population’s main source of information on IDPs. 65% of respondents across Ukraine and 63% in CLP base their attitude towards IDPs on information from the media. Media is the source of information for the greatest share of respondents in CLP in the East, South, Centre, West and Kyiv as well as for the urban and rural

8

general population in all Ukrainian regions, except for the East (see Appendix Table 3). All gender and age groups, particularly older people, base their opinions on media messages. Even a significant percentage of those who have friends or acquaintances among IDPs are still influenced by media (see Appendix Table 4, 5). Therefore, proper media coverage is needed in order to create and maintain a positive image of IDPs among local populations.

49% of respondents in Ukraine and 36% in CLP report that personal communication with friends or acquaintances also influences their attitudes towards IDPs. Informal communication plays a larger role for those who have personally communicated with IDPs, as well as for those in western and eastern regions (for urban and rural population, but not for those living in CLP). 13% of respondents in Ukraine and 33% in CLP state that personal experiences communicating with IDPs

form the basis of their attitude towards IDPs in general. In the latter group, the closer the contact with IDPs, the more people tend to rely on personal experience than on information from the media or from friends. Among the general population media and friends are important sources of information even for those who have or have had personal communication with IDPs. 13% of respondents across Ukraine and 20% in CLP, mostly younger age groups, get information about IDPs from social networks.

Figure 1.3. Sources of information on which attitudes to IDPs is based (% in Ukraine and in CLP, multiple response).

General attitude to IDPs Almost all respondents have positive or neutral attitudes towards IDPs from Donbas and Crimea. In the general population sample 43% reported a positive attitude and approximately 47% a neutral attitude (comprising 90%). Only 6% expressed a negative

attitude, and 4% were undecided. In CLP the attitudes were even positive: 58% of people perceive IDPs positively, 34% neutrally, 2% negatively, and 6% were undecided.

Figure 2.1. Attitudes of local populations to IDPs (% in Ukraine and CLP).

The highest percentage of those who expressed a positive attitude to IDPs is found in the East, Center and South in CLP (63%, 63% and 57% respectively).

Regions in Western Ukraine have the lowest percentage of people who expressed positive attitudes to IDPs (35%).

9

Figure 2.2. Attitudes of local populations to IDPs (% in macro regions).

The local populations’ attitude to IDPs remains essentially constant over time, according to a retrospective evaluation completed by the respondents themselves. Across Ukraine and in CLP 83% say that their perception of IDPs has not changed over the past 2 years. Across Ukraine as a whole, 5% of respondents noted an improvement in their at-

titude, while 7% reported a worsening in attitude. In CLP 10% noted an improvement, while 3% now have lower opinions of IDPs than before. In terms of awareness, the majority of the local population do not report any changes in their attitude to IDPs. Any changes in the attitude of the minority have been almost equally positive and negative.

Figure 2.3. Dynamics of local population’s attitudes to IDPs (% in Ukraine and in CLP).

The largest share of those who said that their attitude to IDPs has improved can be found among people living in CLP, especially in the East (13%). Residents of the western regions, on the contrary,

mostly report a worsening attitude (10%). In general, all regions are dominated by persons who have not changed their attitude towards IDPs. 76–77% of the respondents throughout Ukraine and in CLP do not know the amount of assistance IDPs are entitled to by law. Photo: UNHCR/A. Scherbyna

10

IDPs are generally perceived as a population that is suffering, vulnerable and in a life situation in need of help. Photo: UNHCR/M.Levin

Figure 2.4. Dynamics of local population’s attitudes to IDPs (% in macro regions).

Respondents living in CLP primarily declare that they give equal treatment to IDPs from Crimea and Donbas (86%) regardless of gender (92%), age (90%), employment status (81%) or income (84%). However, resident populations are somewhat inclined to favor one or another group of IDPs primarily related to social status (income, employment) rather than demographic characteristics (gender, age, region of origin). Among residents of Kyiv a larger share of respondents differentiate their attitudes to different categories of IDPs than in other regions. In particular, working IDPs are perceived better by 13% of people in CLP and 25% in Kyiv, compared to the unemployed (2% in CLP and Kyiv). Poor and middleincome IDPs garner more sympathy (9% in CLP and 15% in Kyiv) than the rich (2% in CLP and 3% in Kyiv).

Female IDPs were preferred more, by 6% in CLP and 12% in Kyiv, than male IDPs. 6% of CLP and 9% of Kyiv respondents have a better attitude to older IDPs than to the middle aged (2% in CLP, 5% in Kyiv) or youth (1% in CLP, 2% in Kyiv). Finally, people in the West (11%), the Centre (9%) and Kyiv (12%) feel more sympathetic to IDPs from Crimea; whereas, in comparison, this figure is 6% in all CLP. In the East 7% of local residents have a better attitude towards IDPs from the Donbas, while in the Centre, the West and in Kyiv this share does not exceed 4%. Those who have communicated with IDPs more often show preference to a certain group than those who have not had such contact. (see Appendix Table 6).

11

Figure 2.5. Attitudes of local populations in CLP to different categories of IDPs (% in macro regions, multiple response).

Figure 2.6. Level of support by local populations of statements concerning rights, duties and status of IDPs (% who agreed, in Ukraine and in CLP).

Residents of certain regions of Ukraine somewhat differ in the degree of their support of statements concerning the rights, duties and status of IDPs. In particular, more frequently respondents in Southern Ukraine (92% versus 85% across Ukraine in general) agree on the necessity of IDPs returning to their homes. Respondents in the West (63%) more rarely agree that IDPs are not to be blamed for their situation, especially when compared with the East (92%) and in Ukraine in general (77%). Also, in the West respondents more rarely completely agree with the statement “IDPs are equal citizens of Ukraine held

12

hostage by their situation and need support”. 44% in the West agree entirely with this statement, 70-71% in the South and East, and 61% throughout Ukraine. Far fewer respondents in the East (44%, compared to 80% in Ukraine overall) believe that male IDPs should serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which is most likely due to the local perception of the Ukrainian army and condemnation of the armed conflict which is more characteristic of the region. These results indicate a greater prevalence of prejudice in Western Ukraine against IDPs, namely, the tendency to blame IDPs for what has happened to them.

Figure 2.7. Level of support by local populations of Ukraine and CLP of statements concerning rights, duties and status of IDPs (% of those who agreed, in macro regions).

76% of respondents across Ukraine and 77% in cities with the highest concentration of IDPs were unaware of the type of assistance IDPs receive from the state. Some respondents across Ukraine (19%) and in CLPs (15%) know that IDPs receive financial assistance, but more than half of these people were unable to name the sum of such payments. 7% and 10%, respectively, mentioned some other types of aid (humanitarian, temporary housing, employment, benefits, etc.). Residents of the East and those respondents who have IDPs as relatives or friends generally are better acquainted with which types of assistance are provided. Given the low level of awareness of aid provided by the state, 55% of respondents in Ukraine and CLP have no opinion, unsurprisingly, on whether state aid is sufficient for IDPs. 29% in Ukraine and 38% in CLP

are inclined to believe that the aid is insufficient and should be increased. 13% in the first sample group and 6% in the second believe the assistance sufficient enough to meet IDPs’ needs, while 3% and 1%, respectively, consider the aid excessive and in need of reduction. More often state aid is considered to be excessive by those who do not know what types of aid are provided or who could not give a UAH figure of money that they considered excessive (according to the national survey) (see Appendix Table 9). Thus, public belief that IDPs need assistance would be bolstered by encouraging better awareness of the life conditions of IDPs, the actual forms of aid to IDPs guaranteed by law, and the fact that IDPs do not abuse stateprovided benefits.

Figure 2.8. Assessment of the sufficiency of state aid to IDPs (% in Ukraine and in CLP).

13

Stereotypes about IDPs KrymSOS performed a study supported by UNHCR on relationships between host communities and IDPs in Ukraine [3], and found that locals sometimes express the following negative statements about IDPs: IDPs ask for special treatment; IDPs do not want to work and rely on support from the government and volunteers; IDPs are aggressive and arrogant; IDPs support the armed insurgents of the so-called “people’s republics” in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine; some IDPs flaunt their wealth ostentatiously, a perception which infuriates the poorer members of host communities. The methodology of KrymSOS’ research did not allow researchers to assess the prevalence of these and other stereotypes. Researchers examined two aspects in regard to negative and positive perceptions of IDPs: first, the prevalence of these ideas among people throughout Ukraine and in CLP; and, second, whether the general population considers a specific characteristics to be attributable to a majority or minority of IDPs. Respondents throughout Ukraine attribute this characteristic mainly to the majority of IDPs: •

IDPs are usually very vulnerable and need help. 56% associate this characteristic with the majority or almost all IDPs, 29% with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, and 15% have no definite opinion.

Respondents throughout Ukraine associate these characteristics mainly with a minority of IDPs: •

•

IDPs display their wealth excessively. 56% associate the ostentatious demonstration of wealth with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 12% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 32% have no definite opinion; IDPs tend to support the side that opposes the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donbas.

•

49% associate such support with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 16% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 35% have no definite opinion;

•

IDPs behave aggressively, arrogantly, or disdainfully.

•

61% associate aggression with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 20% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 19% have no definite opinion; IDPs are highly educated and qualified. 55% associate education and skills with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 25% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 20% have no definite opinion;

•

•

IDPs avoid working and misuse the aid provided by the state and volunteers.

•

52% associate the unwillingness to work with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 20% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 28% have no definite opinion.

The general public is divided on these characteristics: •

IDPs are making an effort to integrate into local communities.

•

38% associate this characteristic with the majority or almost all of the IDPs, 36% with a minority of the IDPs or almost none of them, and 26% have no definite opinion;

•

IDPs ask for unreasonable special treatment. 32% associate such demands with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 16% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 35% have no definite opinion; Nearly all respondents maintain positive (43% of Ukraine’s general population, 58% in CLP) or neutral (47% Ukraine-wide, 34% in CLP) attitudes towards IDPs from Donbas and Crimea. Photo: UNHCR/P.Shelomovskiy

14

•

IDPs fill jobs that were previously lacking specialists.

•

IDPs consider themselves to be a part of their host communities.

•

39% associate this characteristic with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 26% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 35% have no definite opinion;

•

41% associate this characteristic with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 32% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 27% have no definite opinion.

Figure 3.1. Assessment of certain characteristics in IDPs (% throughout Ukraine).

The attribution of these assessments and stereotypes is largely similar in CLP, but not identical. In particular, a smaller proportion of respondents in CLP tend to associate negative stereotypes with the majority of IDPs.

Respondents in CLP mainly consider these characteristics applicable to a minority of IDPs: •

IDPs display their high wealth extensively. 57% associate the ostentatious demonstration of wealth with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 6% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 37% have no definite opinion;

•

IDPs tend to support the side that opposes the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donbas. 52% associate such support with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 6% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 42% have no definite opinion;

•

IDPs behave aggressively, arrogantly, and disdainfully. 66% associate aggression with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 9% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 25% have no definite opinion;

Respondents in CLP attribute these characteristics to the majority of IDPs: •

•

IDPs are usually very vulnerable and need help. 62% associate this vulnerability with the majority or almost all of IDPs, 15% with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, and 23% have no definite opinion. IDPs are making an effort to integrate into local communities. 41% associate this characteristic with the majority or almost all of IDPs, 21% with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, and 38% have no definite opinion.

15

•

•

IDPs avoid working and misuse the aid provided by the state and volunteers. 55% associate the unwillingness to work with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 9% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 36% have no definite opinion.

•

IDPs ask for unreasonable special treatment. 53% associate such demands with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 19% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 28% have no definite opinion.

IDPs fill jobs that were previously lacking specialists. 31% associate this characteristic with a minority of IDPs or almost none of them, 20% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 49% have no definite opinion;

•

IDPs consider themselves to be a part of the population in their host communities. 34% associate this characteristic with a minority of t IDPs or almost none of them, 23% with the majority or almost all of the IDPs, and 43% have no definite opinion.

Respondents are strongly divided on these assessments: •

IDPs are highly educated and qualified. 28% associate education and skills with a minority of

IDPs or almost none of them, 19% with the majority or almost all of IDPs, and 53% have no definite opinion);

Figure 3.2. Assessment of certain characteristics in IDPs (% in CLP).

People in Southern Ukraine associate positive characteristics with IDPs to the greatest extent. For example, 62% of the respondents in the South say that the majority of IDPs are trying to integrate into local communities, 43% agree that IDPs consider themselves to be a part of the local population, 47% that IDPs are highly educated and qualified, and 48% that a majority of IDPs are filling jobs for which specialists were previously lacking.

16

Negative assessments of IDPs are more common in the West than elsewhere. For example, 39% of respondents in this region believe that the majority of IDPs ask for unreasonable special treatment, 38% that most IDPs avoid working and misuse help, and 31% that IDPs are mostly aggressive, arrogant, and disdainful of locals. These negative stereotypes are the least prevalent in the East.

Figure 3.3. Assessment of certain positive characteristics in IDPs (% in macro regions).

More than half of respondents throughout Ukraine and in CLP are willing to hire IDPs or provide them with housing for rent. Photo: UNHCR/J. Wendle

17

Figure 3.4. Assessment of certain negative characteristics in IDPs (% in macro regions).

40% of respondents throughout Ukraine and 57% in CLP do not see much difference between IDPs and long-term inhabitants of their communities. 38%

throughout Ukraine and 27% in CLP consider IDPs to be rather different from locals. 22% and 16%, respectively, have no definite opinion on this issue.

Figure 3.5. Perceptions of IDPs compared to long-term inhabitants of a community (% throughout Ukraine and in CLP).

18

In CLP (other than Kyiv) the majority of respondents do not see a difference between IDPs and the longterm local population. 48% of respondents in Western CLP agree with this assessment, 50% in Central CLP, 59% in Southern CLP, 66% in Eastern CLP, and 43% in Kyiv. The opposite opinion is shared by 36% of respondents in CLP in the West, 29% in the Center, 22% in the South, 21% in the East, and 44% in Kyiv.

The assessment that IDPs do not differ from the local population is similar in regions to that in CLP. This opinion is supported in the East (by 54%, with 26% having the opposite opinion), in the South (43% and 38%, respectively) and in the Centre (41% and 35%). In the West, the public opinion is reversed with 27% perceiving IDPs as similar to and 51% as different from locals.

Figure 3.6. Perceptions of IDPs compared to long-term inhabitants of a community (% in macro regions).

The respondents also went into detail about the similarities and differences between locals and IDPs. The arguments for the similarity to IDPs were straightforward and expressed almost identically by all respondents: “they are the same as us with joys and problems similar to ours “, “they want peace like all Ukrainian people”, “they have the same the needs as we do”, “just like with us, there are good people, and there are bad ones”, “they are poor just like us”, and “they are people just like anyone else”. The respondents explained the differences between them and IDPs through a variety of arguments, especially the following: •

Poverty of IDPs, their need for assistance, their vulnerability, and the poor living conditions: “people have lost much, they need help”, “they took the brunt of the military action themselves”, “they have had more evil times than others “;

•

Political beliefs (pro-Russian views, paternalism): “we have different political beliefs, they blame us for the war in the East”, “their political views are different, they are more in tune with Russia”, “they

are a little intoxicated with pro-Russian propaganda”, “they support separatists”, “they are living with nostalgia for the Soviet Union”; •

Language preferences;

•

Mentality, culture, tradition, philosophy, and other beliefs (without specifying what these mean);

•

Lower levels of education and culture: “80% of them have low intelligence, 20% are intellectuals”;

•

Aggression, effrontery, bad attitudes towards host communities: “they all hate Transcarpathians and want to live here as lords, doing nothing but receiving help from the Ukrainian government”, “they believe they are entitled to everything, and no one knows to what”, “they take offence, they feel badly in society”, “they are arrogant and unwilling to compromise”, “they do not want to live by our rules, they are prone to conflicts”;

•

Unwillingness to work at all or for a low salary: “most of them despise our people, they are not satisfied with our salaries, they do not wish to conform to local life”, “We are working people, and

19

they only want welfare”, “they do not want to work the way people work in our area, they are lazy, and want to live free and easy”; •

In Kyiv, 11% have said that IDPs are prone to criminal behavior.

Respondents in CLP emphasize the more vulnerable position of IDPs as the primary difference between IDPs and locals. The second most popular opinion is the difference in political views; the third, IDPs’ alleged lower level of education and culture. Throughout Ukraine, the most popular assessments are the difference in political views and mentality, and aggressive, arrogant attitude towards locals.

In the West, respondents emphasize the difference in language, political views, and mentality, as well as IDPs’ unwillingness to work and aggressive attitude towards locals. Respondents in the Center also agree with assessments on aggressiveness and effrontery, but on IDP’s vulnerability and poverty as well. In the South, respondents highlighted differences primarily in mentality, worldview, traditions, opinions, and attitudes, as well as in increased vulnerability. In the East the respondents also emphasize the unfavorable living conditions of IDPs and their specific needs. Opinions in CLP differ considerable based on region, with the exception of Western CLP where respondents consistently emphasized the preference for Russian language, and in Kyiv, political opinions. Also, residents of Kyiv more often express the idea that IDPs are less educated and tend to participate in illegal activities.

Figure 3.7. The most important perceived differences between IDPs and long-term local population (% in CLP).

Mass media is the main source of information on IDPs. Photo: UNHCR/O.Khudoteplyi

20

The presence of IDPs has minimally affected the daily lives of host communities in CLP. Photo: UNHCR/A.McConnell

Figure 3.8. The most important perceived differences between the IDPs and long-term local populations (% throughout Ukraine).

Willingness to work with internally displaced persons According to previous studies, the main problems IDPs face, in addition to financial, are related to the search for employment and housing [5, 7]. IDPs have reported that employers and landlords often reject them because of their status [2]. On the other hand, certain sources indicate that potential employers and landlords usually have no prejudice against IDPs as such, but evaluate their capacity as employees and tenants — skills related to a job in question, or reliability, stability and solvency in case of paying rent [6, 7]. As most people have never been required to hire a person at their workplace, be it permanently or temporarily, as well as don’t own a spare dwelling to rent out, any assessment based on personal experience would give little information. Therefore, the respondents were asked to imagine that they had to hire a contractor to renovate an apartment or take care of

a child (both situations being more familiar to the general public), and find a tenant for an apartment. 60% of respondents throughout Ukraine and 61% in CLP would have hired a group of IDPs to renovate an apartment, provided the quality and cost of work were satisfactory. 20% in the first sample and 24% in the second would have refused to hire IDPs. 3% of respondents in each sample listed some additional conditions that IDPs would need to meet in order to be hired, and the remainder did not answer the question. The respondents outlined the most important additional conditions that would influence their decision: professionalism and quality work, as well as recommendations, integrity, and positive impression following a personal conversation.

21

Figure 4.1. Readiness to hire an IDP to complete housing renovations (% throughout Ukraine and in CLP).

At its core, hiring someone to work with a child would call for more thorough consideration and greater prerequisites, compared to hiring a repair crew. Therefore, any prejudices towards IDPs would be manifested more clearly in respondents’ answers. In fact, only slightly fewer people would hire an IDP

as a tutor or nanny for an underage family member, 54% of respondents throughout Ukraine and 55% in CLP. 3% would stipulate additional conditions (primarily recommendations, integrity, and compatible personal qualities). 20% of respondents throughout Ukraine and 24% in CLP would not hire an IDP for such a job. The remainder was undecided.

Figure 4.2. Readiness to hire an IDP as a tutor or nanny (% throughout Ukraine and in CLP).

50% of respondents throughout Ukraine and 58% in CLP would agree to provide accommodations for rent to an IDP. 24% and 26%, respectively, would not agree; 7% and 3% respectively would do so under

certain conditions, including the individual’s integrity, timely payment, recommendations and more. The rest of respondents were undecided.

Figure 4.3. Readiness to provide rental accommodations to an IDP (% throughout Ukraine and in CLP).

22

The readiness to hire an IDP to complete housing renovations is highest in Southern and Eastern regions (75% and 74%, respectively), and the lowest in the West and Center (50% each). In CLP the regional difference is not as pronounced, with the lowest percentage of agreement 57% in Kyiv, and the highest 64% in the East. The same findings apply to hiring a tutor or nanny for a child. In the South and East, 65% and 72%, respectively, of respondents are ready to hire an IDP for the

job, but in the West and Center, only 42% and 46%, respectively. In CLP the level of readiness varies from 49-50% in Kyiv and the West to 57%-58% in the Centre and East. Regional differences are less pronounced regarding renting out accommodations. Potential landlords are the least favorable to IDPs in the West (45%) and Centre (43%), particularly in Kyiv (51%). Respondents are most favorable to such a proposition in Eastern and Central CLP (62% and 60%, respectively).

Figure 4.4. Readiness to hire an IDP for house renovation/child care, and to provide rental accommodations to an IDP (% in CLP).

75% of the respondents in CLP were unable to recall an example of someone providing an IDP with employment or rental housing as none of their acquaintances have done so. 2% of the respondents have friends who have hired IDPs to complete house renovation, 1% to take care of a child, and 6% to do any other job. 20% of respondents know someone who has rented an apartment to an IDP. Long-term local population in CLP and Ukraine in general differ in the reasons why they does not want to associate with IDPs in the above-mentioned situations. The two main reasons, however, are the same in both samples. The reluctance to deal with strangers (37% throughout Ukraine, 45% in CLP) was cited by those who would not hire an IDP for at least one task or who would not provide rental accommodations to an IDP). And the distrust of IDPs, the fear of being defrauded, was the other most cited reason (25%

throughout Ukraine, 20% in CLP). In other words, the primary reasons for rejection are the fear and distrust of strangers. Other reasons are more important throughout Ukraine in general than in CLP: the negative attitude to IDPs because of political views (20% throughout Ukraine, 3% in CLP), the disapproval of their behavior (18% throughout Ukraine, 5% in CLP), the anticipation that an IDP would not be around long-term (14% throughout Ukraine, 6% in CLP), and the account of negative experiences heard from other people (10% throughout Ukraine, 4% in CLP). Among those who would not hire an IDP for at least one task or who would not provide rental housing to an IDP, only 1% have had a first-hand negative experience. 4% of the respondents throughout Ukraine and 10% in CLP cited other reasons, primarily a lack of housing for rent or no need for specialists.

23

Figure 4.5. Reasons for the reluctance to hire IDPs for house renovation/child care, or to provide rental accommodation to an IDP (% throughout Ukraine and in CLP).

This reluctance to interact with IDPs in these situations is largely related to prejudice and fear of strangers, and therefore could be alleviated by awareness, communication with IDPs and other positive informational influence. Those people who have never been in contact with IDPs are more likely to deny a job or rental housing to an IDP. People much less likely to deny work or accommodation to an IDP are: •

persons who have spoken with IDPs or are acquainted with those who have spoken with IDPs (friends, relatives, acquaintances, neighbors or colleagues) (Appendix Table 10). This correlation has been observed in every region;

•

persons whose friends have had an experience hiring or providing rental accommodations to IDPs (Appendix Table 11);

•

persons whose attitude towards IDPs is influenced by their own personal experience communicating with IDPs (Appendix Table 12).

Younger age groups are more likely to be willing to interact with IDPs than older age groups (Appendix Table 13). This difference is probably related to younger age groups being more open to new experiences and acquaintances.

The perception of the impact of internally displaced on the cities with the highest concentration of IDPs (CLP) Only residents of CLP were asked questions about the impact of IDPs on the life of local populations and only during the telephone survey. Those respondents who were aware of the presence of IDPs in their city answered all questions about the consequences of IDPs’ arrival. The thoughts and attitudes of this group are recorded in charts 1-7 and accompanying comments. Those people who were unaware of the presence of IDPs answered some questions about what impact they expect when IDPs settle in their city (charts 8-9).

24

In general, from the perspective of 70% of respondents the presence of IDPs is not particularly. 24% hold the opinion that the presence of IDPs is rather or very noticeable, while 6% find it difficult to decide. In the East and in Kyiv the presence of IDPs is more obvious to a larger share of local residents. 32% in the East and the same share in Kyiv describe IDPs as a noticeable presence. In the South, West and Centre only 13-15% of respondents share this opinion.

Figure 5.1. Assessment of noticeability of IDP presence in the city (% of those who know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP and in macro regions, separately).

Without prompting the majority of respondents were unable to name any positive effects of the presence of IDPs in their community. Only 3% of respondents (55 people) were able to articulate any positive changes. This figure varies from 1% in the South to 5% in the East. Among such changes mentioned: •

business development and the creation of new jobs: “there are more food stores now and more jobs”, “development of business”;

•

additional working hands: “they have filled the untaken vacancies”, “IDPs can work and contribute to society as well as we do”;

•

new acquaintances, good people: “new friends”, “people are being nicer”, “normal people are coming to the city”;

•

revival of life in the city: “more and more people are coming to the city, and it has become more lively”;

•

new good specialists: “a lot of highly qualified teachers and doctors arrived”,” among the IDPs there are good professionals who do their job cheaper and better than the locals”;

•

the city receiving aid and grants: “we’ve got a grant from an international organization to repair the House of Culture”, “there is aid for schools and kindergartens”;

•

IDPs’ cultural contribution to city life: “Philharmonic Hall is working again”, “communicating with different people, a different culture”.

Figure 5.2. Positive consequences of IDPs’ appearance in cities (% of those who know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP and macro regions, separately).

25

Respondents were also asked to specify whether they feel any of the following changes due to the appearance of IDPs: worsening or improvement in the crime situation, strengthening of social cohesion or further tensions, increase in state or international aid for the city, the development of local businesses through additional manpower, or growth in consumer market services. 64% state that they have not noticed any of these effects, while the remaining share have noted at least one of these changes.

ence with worsening in the crime situation in their city. In contrast, only 2% note improvements in the crime rate. 80% state they have noticed no changes in this regard.

Answers to this question highlight the existence of a negative aspect in the perception of IDPs. Almost one in five respondents (18%) correlates IDP pres-

A small number of respondents have noticed increased support for their city (6%) or the development of local businesses (4%).

Roughly equal percentages of respondents (12% and 11%, respectively) have felt increased social tension or social cohesion, while the remaining 77% believe that nothing has changed since the appearance of IDPs in their community.

Figure 5.3. Consequences of IDPs’ appearance in cities (% of those who know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP).

Respondents in Kyiv evaluated the consequences of the presence of IDPs significantly more negatively than residents from other regions. Among the permanent residents of Kyiv 39% noticed a worsening in crime situation, while in other regions the share of such responses is below 16%. Residents in Kyiv also perceived higher levels of social tension in their community with 21% believing so, twice as much as elsewhere.

In the East a slightly higher percentage of respondents noticed an increase in the amount of state or international aid for their cities (8% versus 4% in other regions, except Kyiv), and in the West respondents more often pointed to increasing social cohesion (15% compared to 10-11% in other regions). However, given the more negative perception of IDPs in the West, social cohesion may just as well mean a community uniting to exclude, rather than include, IDPs. People displaced by the conflict in Ukraine search through donations of second-hand clothes at a transit center in the city of Dnipropetrovsk. Aid at the center comes in the form of blankets, hygiene kits and second hand clothes. Nearly 75,000 people are now registered as IDPs in Dnipropetrovsk. Photo: UNHCR/A.McConnell

26

Figure 5.4. Consequences of IDPs’ appearance in cities (% of those who know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP and macro regions, separately).

One in four respondents (25%) believes competition exists between the local population and IDPs in their city. The remaining 75% have not heard of such cases. The respondents who share this opinion believe that there is competition for jobs (17%), affordable housing (14%), places in schools and kindergartens (14%), waiting time for admission to public institutions and health facilities (8%), and aid for vulner-

able population groups provided by the state or volunteers (6%). However, only very few permanent city residents have personally experienced any competition with IDPs, 2% for jobs and 1% for all other resources. Thus, competition between locals and IDPs for limited resources is more of a fallacy than a real problem that significantly affects people’s lives.

Figure 5.5.Competition between IDPs and host communities (% of those who know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP).

In Kyiv, the belief of the existence of competition between IDPs and local residents is much more widespread than in other regions of Ukraine. Respondents in Kyiv perceive an existence of competition for jobs (31%), affordable housing (29%), places in schools and kindergartens (29%), waiting time for admission to public institutions and health facilities (14%),

and help to vulnerable groups (13%). Indicators that respondents in Kyiv perceive competition between themselves and IDPs are two to three times higher than in other regions. At the same time, the proportion of people in Kyiv who have had a personal experience with such competition is very small and does not exceed the average rate for Ukraine in general.

27

Figure 5.6. Competition between IDPs and host communities (% of those who know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP and macro regions, separately).

Most respondents did not recall any systemic conflicts between IDPs and the local population in their city. 81% are unaware of any such conflicts, and another 11% have heard of individual, isolated cases. 4% of residents in the surveyed cities replied that conflicts occur from time to time, and only 1% indicated that they happen all the time.

aware of isolated incidents, and 3% aware of frequent conflicts. In the West and Centre the situation is somewhat tenser. 75% and 76%, respectively, are unaware of any conflicts, 17% and 14% have heard about individual episodes, and 5% - 6% know of more regular problems in the relationship between locals and IDPs.

The situation in Eastern Ukraine looks the calmest: 88% of respondents from this region are not aware of any conflicts between IDPs and locals, 7% know of isolated cases, and 2% are aware of recurrent conflicts. In the South, respondents are also unaware of systemic problems with 83% not aware, 10%

Most problematic is the relationship between IDPs and locals in Kyiv. 1% of Kyiv residents pointed to the existence of constant conflicts, 11% say that conflicts take place occasionally, and 18% are aware of some rare cases. The remainder did not know of such cases or were unable to answer.

Figure 5.6. Conflicts between IDPs and host communities (% of those who know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP and macro regions, separately).

28

Respondents who are unaware of the presence of IDPs in their city would primarily expect a worsening of the crime situation (15% of those who replied) and strengthening of social cohesion (14%). Another 9%, in contrast, identified an increase in social tension as a probable consequence. 7% tend to expect the

development of local businesses, 5% an increase in aid for the city, and another 5% an improvement in the crime situation. Overall, 31% expect at least one of the above results, but the majority (69%) believe that the presence of IDPs will not change anything in these respects.

Figure 5.7. Expected outcomes in the case of appearance of IDPs in the city (% of those who do not know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP).

Respondents who were unaware of the presence of IDPs in their city were not too concerned about the possibility of competition. The most likely event to happen, in their opinion, is the competition for jobs. 14% see this scenario as possible. In second place (11%) would be the likelihood of competition for affordable housing and for places in schools and kindergartens.

Another 7% fear the emergence of queues in hospitals and public institutions, and 5% expect competition for public and voluntary assistance for vulnerable groups. In general, only one in five expects competition with IDPs for resources, and 82% believe that there are no such risks in their city.

Figure 5.8. Risk of competition between IDPs and host communities in case of appearance of IDPs in the city (% of those who do not know about the presence of IDPs in their city, in CLP).

29

People who have IDPs among relatives, friends or acquaintances more often point out that there is competition between IDPs and the local population as well as occasional conflicts (see Appendix Table 14). This phenomenon may be explained using the findings of one of the previous studies: IDPs feel

more competition from locals rather than vise versa, and also assess locals’ attitudes towards them as worse than declared by locals themselves. People who interact more closely with IDPs are better acquainted with IDPs’ problems and with perceptions of relationships within the community.

The respondents tend to perceive IDPs as citizens who have found themselves in an unfavorable situation who are in need of help, being entitled to the same rights as others. Photo: UNHCR/A.McConnell

References [1] KIIS survey by request of IF “Vidrodzhennya”. A presentation (Ukr) of main results is available at: http://www.irf.ua/knowledgebase/news/zaluchennya_gromad_vpo_do_vidnovlennya_ukrainy/ [2] Survey of IDPs by Chuguev Human Rights Group in Kharkiv region. Report (Ukr) is available at: http://www.khpg.org/index.php?id=1439424767 [3] KrymSOS research project with the support of UNHCR and Canada Fund for Local Initiatives. Report (Eng) is available at: http://krymsos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Monitoring-report_CrimeaSOS_Eng.pdf [4] Survey conducted by the Center “Social Monitoring” and the Ukrainian Institute for Social Research. O. Yaremenko. Report (Ukr) is available at: http://www.uisr.org.ua/img/upload/files/Settlers%20and%20volunteering.pdf [5] Survey “Social Initiatives on Occupational Safety and Health” among IDPs. Report (Ukr) is available at: http://www.lhsi.org.ua/images/2015/Doslidzhennya_VPO_LHSI2015.pdf [6] KIIS research by UNDP request “Assessment of the demand for jobs in the labour market”. Report (Eng) is available at: http://kiis.com.ua/materials/pr/20151230_PROON/Report_Employment_KIIS_final_ukr.pdf [7] UNHCR research with IDP focus groups. The reports (Eng) are available at: http://unhcr.org.ua/en/?option=com_content&view=article&layout=edit&id=1526

30

Appendix 1. Respondent profiles Table 1. Respondent profiles – all-Ukraine survey.

Gender

Age

Education

Ethnicity

Main occupation

Financial situation

Urban and rural population

Macro region

Male Female Total 18-30 31-49 50-65 66+ Total Secondary uncompleted Secondary completed Professional or secondary technical education Uncompleted or completed higher education Difficult to answer Total Ukrainian Russian Reported both Ukrainian and Russian Other Total Blue-collar worker, agriculture worker While-collar worker Specialist Self-employed Entrepreneur, business owner, farmer Soldier, law enforcement employee Housewife Retired (by age, disability) Pupil, student Unemployed Other Difficult to answer Total We do not have enough money even for food We have enough money for food, but buying clothes is difficult We have enough money for food, clothing, and some savings We can afford some expensive items We can buy whatever we want Difficult to answer Total Urban population Rural population Total West Center South East Total

% by column

Unweighted count

46% 54% 100% 24% 32% 26% 18% 100% 8% 17% 42% 33% 0% 100% 92% 5% 1% 2% 100% 13% 11% 15% 6% 2% 1% 9% 30% 4% 8% 1% 0% 100% 17% 51% 29% 3% 0% 1% 100% 67% 33% 100% 26% 33% 24% 17% 100%

734 1162 1896 355 545 604 392 1896 168 321 806 594 2 1891 1723 99 26 46 1894 227 201 248 95 31 8 168 691 57 137 24 8 1895 338 964 502 39 1 28 1872 1251 645 1896 489 621 449 337 1896

31

Table 2. Respondent profiles – phone survey in cities of the largest population of IDPs (CLP).

Gender

Age

Macro region

Education

Main occupation

Ethnicity

Financial situation

32

Male Female Total 18-30 31-49 50-65 66+ Total West Center South East Kyiv Total Secondary uncompleted Secondary completed Professional or secondary technical education Uncompleted or completed higher education Difficult to answer Total Employee Self-employed Employer (hires workers on a permanent or temporary basis) Soldier, law enforcement employee Homemaker Retired (by age, disability) Pupil, student Unemployed Maternity leave Other Difficult to answer Total Ukrainian Russian Reported both Ukrainian and Russian Other Difficult to answer Total Wealthy Above average Average Poor Destitute Difficult to answer Total

% by column

Unweighted count

44% 56% 100% 24% 31% 27% 18% 100% 13% 13% 27% 35% 12% 100% 2% 8% 37% 52% 1% 100% 40% 8% 1% 0% 5% 30% 5% 5% 4% 0% 1% 100% 83% 8% 6% 2% 2% 100% 0% 2% 50% 37% 8% 2% 100%

890 1113 2003 474 634 541 354 2003 252 253 547 702 249 2003 35 167 733 1047 21 2003 806 166 29 7 100 596 96 98 75 10 20 2003 1666 151 111 39 36 2003 3 46 1011 734 166 43 2003

Appendix 2. Cross-tables. Table 3. Sources of information that form the attitudes to IDPs, in macro regions (all Ukraine, % by column, multiple response).

Based on which information do you shape your attitude towards IDPs?

East

West CLP

Center South CLP CLP

East CLP

Kyiv

71%

45%

65%

65%

65%

57%

72%

47%

39%

65%

36%

32%

35%

36%

39%

From social networks 16%

15%

12%

4%

25%

17%

20%

17%

24%

Based on personal experiences communicating with IDPs

11%

9%

12%

24%

27%

32%

25%

41%

30%

Other

1%

1%

1%

2%

0%

2%

1%

2%

1%

Difficult to answer

7%

5%

6%

5%

4%

5%

8%

8%

3%

West

Center South

From mass-media

71%

65%

From acquaintances

52%

Table 4. Sources of information that form the attitudes to IDPs, depending of the level of contact with IDPs (all Ukraine, % by column, multiple response).


From mass-media

No contact with IDPs 70%

Communicated with IDPs 53%

Have IDPs as neighbors, colleagues, friends, or relatives 38%

From acquaintances

45%

66%

66%

From social networks

13%

11%

14%


8%

31%

30%

Other

2%

1%

0%

Difficult to answer

7%

3%

4%

Table 5. Sources of information that form the attitudes to IDPs, depending of the level of contact with IDPs (CLP, % by column, multiple response).


From mass-media

No contact with IDPs 73%

Communicated with IDPs 56%

Have IDPs as neighbors, colleagues, friends, or relatives 51%

From acquaintances

32%

40%

39%

From social networks

18%

22%

21%


6%

51%

65%

Other

2%

1%

1%

Difficult to answer

9%

5%

3%

33

Table 6. Attitudes to different groups of IDPs, depending of the level of contact with IDPs (CLP, % by column, multiple response). Is your attitude different to the following categories of IDPs:

Those from Crimea or from Donbas

Poor, middle class or wealthy IDPs

Working or and unemployed IDPs

No contact

Communicated

Have IDPs as

with IDPs

with IDPs

neighbors, colleagues, friends, relatives

Better attitude to IDPs from Crimea

4%

10%

8%

Better attitude to IDPs from Donbas

4%

3%

7%

Equal treatment

89%

84%

81%

Difficult to answer

3%

2%

3%

Better attitude to poor

9%

7%

11%

Better attitude to middle class

4%

7%

6%

Better attitude to wealthy

2%

2%

3%

Equal treatment

86%

84%

81%

Difficult to answer

2%

2%

3%

Better attitude to working

11%

17%

16%

Better attitude to unemployed

2%

1%

3%

Equal treatment

85%

79%

77%

Difficult to answer

3%

3%

4%

Table 7. Support of the statement “IDPs should return home as soon as it becomes possible”, depending on the attitude to IDPs (all Ukraine, % by column). Attitude in general to the IDPs from Donbas or Crimea

IDPs should return home as soon as it becomes possible

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Difficult to answer

Agree

81%

88%

98%

80%

Disagree

6%

4%

0%

2%

Difficult to answer

13%

8%

2%

18%

Table 8. Support of the statement “IDPs should return home as soon as it becomes possible”, depending on the attitude to IDPs (CLP, % by column). Attitude in general to the IDPs from Donbas or Crimea

IDPs should return home as soon as it becomes possible

34

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Difficult to answer

Agree

77%

81%

94%

78%

Disagree

12%

11%

0%

6%

Difficult to answer

11%

8%

6%

16%

Table 9. Assessment of the sufficiency of state aid to IDPs depending on the level of knowledge (all Ukraine, % by column). In your opinion, state assistance to IDPs is…

sufficient to insufficient to meet excessive their needs and and should meet their should be increased be reduced needs Do you know what kind of aid the government provides to IDPs by law?

Do you know how much monetary aid the government provides to IDPs by law? (WRITE AN AMOUNT IN UAH)

Difficult to answer

Money

19%

26%

39%

7%

Other

4%

16%

9%

3%

Difficult to answer

77%

60%

55%

91%

Up to 2000 UAH

47%

37%

47%

16%

Over 2000 UAH

43%

7%

3%

7%

Difficult to answer

11%

56%

50%

77%

Table 10. Readiness to hire IDPs and provide rental accommodation, depending on the level of contact with IDPs (all Ukraine and in CLP, % by column). No contact with IDPs

Communicated with IDPs

Have IDPs as neighbors, colleagues, friends, relatives

Ukraine

55%

76%

80%

CLP

49%

67%

75%

Would you hire an IDP as a tutor or nanny for an underage family member? - Yes

Ukraine

48%

72%

77%

CLP

45%

60%

67%

Would you agree to lease accommodation to IDPs? - Yes

Ukraine

45%

64%

67%

CLP

47%

64%

71%

Would you hire IDPs to help with renovating accommodations? - Yes

Table 11. Readiness to hire IDPs and provide rental accommodation, depending on the existence of acquaintances who have had such experiences (CLP, % in column). Have any of your acquaintances hired IDPs or provided rental housing?

Yes

No


76%

56%


67%

51%


72%

53%

35

Table 12. Readiness to hire IDPs and provide rental accommodation, depending on the attitude based on personal experiences communicating with IDPs (all Ukraine and CLP, % in column). Based on which information do you shape your attitude towards IDPs? - Based on personal experience communicating with IDPs

Yes

No

Ukraine

68%

59%

CLP

74%

54%


Ukraine

62%

53%

CLP

67%

48%


Ukraine

59%

48%

CLP

71%

51%


Table 13. Readiness to hire IDPs and provide rental accommodation, by different gender-age groups (CLP, % in column). Would you hire IDPs to help with renovating accommodations? - Yes



18-30 Males

72%

59%

66%

18-30 Females

70%

64%

66%

31-49 Males

69%

64%

68%

31-49 Females

67%

62%

65%

50-65 Males

49%

47%

47%

50-65 Females

57%

52%

56%

66+ Males

45%

38%

42%

66+ Females

43%

37%

37%

Table 14. Knowledge about conflicts or competition between IDPs and host communities, depending on the level of contact with IDPs (CLP, % in column). No contact Communicated Have IDPs as neighbors, with IDPs with IDPs colleagues, friends, relatives

Do you think there is competition between IDPs and local residents in your community

Do you know of any conflicts that have occurred between IDPs and local residents in your community?

36

for working places

14%

18%

21%

for affordable housing

11%

14%

18%

for places in schools and kindergartens

12%

15%

17%

for waiting time in public institutions and medical facilities

6%

7%

10%

Yes, occurring constantly

1%

1%

1%

Yes, occurring occasionally

4%

4%

4%

Yes, in very rare, individual cases

9%

14%

14%

No, I do not know of any conflicts

84%

80%

76%

Difficult to answer

3%

1%

5%