Key Conclusions

Social housing in the broadest sense is housing provided for people in need, which is rent-free or at an affordable rent. Social housing in the broadest sense includes social housing as such (social housing in the narrow sense), temporary housing (including temporary housing for IDPs), and places of temporary residence.

IDPs’ need for housing. The full-scale Russian invasion caused the biggest housing crisis since independence. At the beginning of 2023, the number of internally displaced persons in Ukraine was 5.4 million people. Most of them lived in rented housing. A significant part of displaced persons lacks financial resources to pay rent and utilities. They may also face a number of barriers specific to this housing sector, such as unreasonable price increases, evictions, discrimination when looking for housing, etc. At the same time, the idea of social housing seems attractive to at least part of IDPs, and society maintains high expectations from the authorities to overcome housing problems. According to some estimates, about 1.42 million IDPs may need about 500,000 housing units.

Existing system. In the mid-2000s, the issue of social housing (in the narrow sense) and temporary housing was settled in Ukraine. The purpose of social housing (in the narrow sense) is to provide housing to socially vulnerable groups of the population, and the purpose of temporary housing is to provide housing to those who have lost their housing due to various emergency reasons. Certain categories of people, including IDPs, have the right to receive such housing by registering in a certain register (“in a queue”). After the first wave of internal displacement caused by the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war in 2014, separate regulations were adopted for the development and provision of temporary housing for IDPs with a separate registration and scoring system for determining the priority of settlement. As of the beginning of 2021, there was a total of 1,098 units of social housing (in the narrow sense) and 1,997 units of temporary housing (including temporary housing for IDPs) in Ukraine.

To respond to the housing crisis, at the beginning of the full-scale invasion local governments and civil society mobilized their resources to shelter IDPs. In order to create the places of temporary residence, educational and cultural institutions, administrative buildings, dormitories and other types of premises were utilized, which allowed to accommodate a large number of people. Initially, the operation of temporary housing in different communities was organized differently in a decentralized manner, but since September 1, 2023, minimum standards and regulations have been introduced by the Cabinet of Ministers at the national level.

Housing development, record keeping, distribution, maintenance and management of social housing (in the broadest sense) are the responsibilities of local self-government bodies. The responsibility of the government is to create a legal framework, as well as to provide assistance in the development and maintenance of social housing (in the broadest sense). International organizations and donors can also provide assistance in housing development and participate in determining the conditions for its distribution and utilization.

Key rights and responsibilities of housing residents, rules of residence, as well as standard contracts for social housing (in the narrow sense), temporary housing (including for IDPs), as well as places of temporary residence are defined by the laws and resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers. For social housing (in the narrow sense) and temporary housing de jure, there is an opportunity to receive rent from residents to cover the costs of housing maintenance and development, but in fact, this mechanism does not work, as well as the state support, which leaves local self-government bodies without adequate resources, the consequence of which is the risk of decline and marginalization of the social housing fund. For temporary accommodation, the state provides compensation for utility services, but the long-term sustainability of this support is uncertain. The mechanisms for ensuring the sustainability and further utilization of housing, if the need for it decreases, are not clearly defined. At the same time, territorial communities understand the needs of different social groups in housing and other functions that can potentially be satisfied with the help of these premises.

Obstacles. The complexity or lack of sufficient regulation of certain aspects of housing development leaves room for different interpretations of the relevant standards. Passing various authorization procedures is also a challenge. Financial obstacles are the main problem in the housing construction and remodeling process. In particular, they also include difficulties in finding donors, the insufficient level of skills in project and grant management and a lack of vision for a sustainable model of housing management in communal ownership. Administrative challenges include insufficient funding to support administrative capacity, insufficient staffing in general and fragmented responsibility for various aspects of housing policy implementation at the local level. Clearly prescribed rules, coordination of interaction and control of donors at various stages of projects can serve as safeguards against corruption risks.

Examples. The experience of the hostel for IDPs from the Mariupol community in Dnipro, the social hostel in the Konotop community, the CO-HATY project and the IOM project show various options and approaches to providing internally displaced persons with social housing (in the broadest sense). The analysis of these and other examples allows us to project changes in national legislation and offer recommendations for the implementation of the following activities and projects. The experience of the EU countries offers different models of social housing regulation and development.

Recommendations. Given that the housing crisis in Ukraine, caused by the full-scale Russian invasion, has been going on for two years now, the priority of the government, local authorities, and international, humanitarian and public organizations is the transition from emergency short-term measures to long-term sustainable solutions. In the case of housing assistance, the key solution is the development of a social housing system (in the broadest sense) at the local level.

Non-governmental humanitarian organizations can offer support to local authorities in the form of funding, expertise and partnership for the development of social housing (in the broadest sense), including by converting existing buildings into IDPs accommodation.

For humanitarian organizations, the project implementation model of assisting local authorities in the social housing development (in the broadest sense) involves two phases. The first phase can be implemented immediately within the existing legal framework and the restrictions imposed by it. First and foremost, it is focused on responding to existing needs. At this stage, housing development can take place in partnership between local self-government bodies and their utility enterprises, as well as local public organizations. The possibility of introducing rent to support the long-term sustainability of housing at this stage is impossible. The transition to the second phase requires the availability of respective legislative conditions. The second phase is aimed at ensuring the sustainable development of social housing (in the broadest sense) in the long term. Both utility enterprises and non-governmental organizations can be housing providers at this stage, and the key condition is the combination of absolutely rent-free housing with affordable housing.

The implementation plan for support projects shall consist of a preparation stage, a stage of selecting communities for cooperation, a collaborative planning stage, a development stage that involves housing development, as well as an operational stage, during which its full functioning takes place. Important model elements at each stage are measures for coordination of key stakeholders, measures for increasing the capacity and training of partner communities, as well as measures for community involvement and empowerment of housing residents.

Methodology

The full-scale Russian invasion caused the largest housing crisis in Ukraine’s history since independence in 1991. Millions of people were forced to leave their homes due to hostilities and many houses were destroyed. In the early days after the start of the invasion, providing shelter in relatively safe regions of the country was one of the key priorities for local authorities and civil society. In the second year, the key challenge in housing remains the search for sustainable, affordable and long-term solutions to provide housing for those in need. Given the large scale of the demand, it is not possible to meet it adequately without inter-sectoral cooperation, assistance and joint efforts.

The purpose of this study was to identify the potential, conditions and obstacles for non-governmental organizations in increasing the capacity of local authorities in the development of social housing sector (in the broadest sense) for IDPs and other vulnerable groups as a long-term solution in the context of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The concept of social housing in Ukraine can have a broad and narrow understanding. In the narrow sense, social housing is housing that belongs to a housing stock of social purpose. In the broadest sense, social housing includes not only housing from the social purpose stock, but also other types of housing provision, which involves providing accommodation without rent or at an affordable rent. Thus, the concept of social housing in the broadest sense includes not only housing from the social purpose stock, but also from the temporary purpose stock (including for IDPs), as well as places of temporary residence. In order to avoid confusion, in this report, when it comes to Ukraine, we specify whether we mean 1) social purpose housing stock, that is, social housing in a narrow sense, or 2) social housing in the broadest sense.

Given the purpose of this study, it did not include issues of private sector housing, mortgages, or other financial and credit mechanisms. Considering the potential, conditions and obstacles for non-governmental organizations, the objective of the study was to collect information and develop recommendations relevant to non-governmental organizations that have an opportunity to implement large-scale programs to support the development or conversion of housing, as well as to increase the capacity of authorities.

To implement the study objective, we used a combined research methodology applying qualitative methods of social research (expert interviews, focus group discussions) and desk research (analysis of legislation and literature, data collection through requests for access to public information). 

The desk research included the analysis of legislation and regulatory acts in the field of social housing (in the broadest sense) in Ukraine, as well as previous studies and publications dedicated to the issue of housing provision, in particular to IDPs. The review of legislation and literature allowed us to determine the main legal framework of the social housing sphere (in the broadest sense), as well as the areas of responsibility of local authorities and non-governmental organizations regarding the development and maintenance of social housing (in the broadest sense), including temporary housing and housing for IDPs.

In addition, the desk research involved sending and processing requests for access to public information to regional administrations and territorial communities to collect data on the number of social housing units (in the broadest sense), the need for such housing and local housing programs. Requests were sent to the regional administrations of all regions, except for those in which a significant part of the territory is under active hostilities or occupation (Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, Donetsk), as well as Kyiv City Administration. The list of territorial communities was determined in a selective manner, taking into account geographical and typological diversity. Several regional administrations have also redirected requests to district administrations or territorial communities.

The field stage was based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with experts, representatives of state and local authorities and utility enterprises. Respondents were selected by the targeted method according to the list of contacts. The purpose of the interviews was to collect expert assessments about the needs and vision of municipalities regarding social housing (in the broadest sense), the main challenges during a full-scale invasion, the experience of interaction with non-governmental organizations or donors in the field of social housing (in the broadest sense), and plans for the implementation of potential or existing housing support programs for IDPs and other vulnerable groups. A total of 30 interviews were conducted, of which 20 – with representatives of territorial communities and 10 – with experts and representatives of public organizations and initiatives.

The field research stage also included focus group discussions with IDPs of different ages, and genders, residing and not residing in the collective centers. The purpose of the focus group discussions was to collect needs, motivations, assessments, and readiness to participate in possible programs from the point of view of IDPs. Conducting 4 focus group discussions allowed to take into account the experiences of different subgroups of IDPs based on socio-demographic characteristics in order to better understand their needs. In particular, focus groups were conducted with:

  • IDPs who rent housing;
  • IDPs living in a modular town;
  • IDPs living in a dormitory;
  • IDPs living in converted schools/kindergartens.

In addition, the study used the results of the Housing Leadership Lab — a three-day event organized by Cedos on December 7-9, 2023, during which 24 representatives of authorities and non-governmental organizations developed recommendations for the development of the housing sector in Ukraine.

The limitations of this study include the following. First, among the communities whose representatives agreed to participate in the study or provided answers to the requests, those who were more interested in the development of the social housing sector (in the broadest sense) may prevail. Taking this into account, the viewpoints of communities with less interest may be underrepresented in this study.

Secondly, requests for information and interviews indicated that the purpose of the study was to generate recommendations for organizations that could potentially provide assistance to communities. This could have an impact on the willingness of potential informants to agree to the conversation, as well as on the honesty of the answers.

Thirdly, the responses of regional administrations and communities to information requests were heterogeneous. Various authorities responded selectively to the points of requests. For example, regional administration could report on the number of approved local social housing support programs (in the narrow sense), but not provide any information on the number of already available social housing. Some of the regional administrations, in particular, Lviv, Volyn, Zakarpattia did not provide any comprehensive information on any of the requested items.

Download full report in PDF (5 MB)