Recently, there has been increasing discussion about what kind of support might encourage people to return to Ukraine following forced displacement. When considering this issue, it is important to distinguish between two objectives.

The first is to make people more open to the idea of returning. The second is to organise the return process for those who have made that decision, in particular by providing them with social support.

These two tasks are interrelated but require separate attention and distinction. Their interconnection lies, in particular, in the fact that the existence of a reliable social protection system in the country can influence people’s openness to returning. However, this refers specifically to the general social protection system, whereas with targeted support programmes, such a connection does not always hold.

Support programmes available only to those returning are unlikely to have a significant impact on people’s decisions to return. This is due to several factors:

  • Overall, trust in social support is not high. In Cedos’s research, people emphasised that they feel more secure in their host countries. This is linked to their confidence that, in the event of difficult circumstances or loss of housing, they will receive support. Some people also mentioned that, even before the full-scale invasion began, they had had negative experiences when seeking state support. This led them to be sceptical of the Ukrainian government’s ideas regarding return assistance programmes. 
  • The existing IDP support system serves as an example to people of what support they can expect upon return. At present, they have concerns about the state of the IDP support system. Research participants emphasised that they consider such support to be insufficient. Furthermore, they pointed out that they do not trust IDP support programmes due to the short-term nature of some of them.
  • The problems that may arise after returning from abroad are not unique. IDPs and other people in vulnerable situations face similar challenges. For example, difficulties in finding accommodation due to high costs and the lack of security in renting from private landlords. Prioritising the needs of returnees may lead to a growing sense of injustice regarding the distribution of support. This, in turn, may increase people’s fear of facing judgement and negativity upon their return. 

With this in mind, the social support system should be designed not to encourage return, but as a guaranteed, reliable social protection system accessible to everyone.

Accessibility for all is a key feature. Ensuring that everyone receives adequate support when needed will help restore public confidence in social protection. The issue of support being accessible to everyone is also relevant because, when returning from abroad, people generally do not have unique needs. These needs are similar to those of people who have experienced internal displacement or found themselves in difficult life situations. This includes, in particular, the opportunity to access social housing, receive high-quality social services in the local community, have access to inclusive spaces and services, be able to access educational opportunities that would assist with future employment, and have opportunities to participate in community life, etc.

When planning such a support system, it is necessary to consider how the situation regarding the return of people from abroad might affect the state’s ability to provide this support. Therefore, several factors must be considered:

  • The number of people returning depends not only on their own wishes, but also on the policies of the countries in which they are currently residing. In particular, there is currently no public strategy from EU countries regarding what will happen after the war ends — whether Ukrainians will be able to remain in these countries, under what conditions, and for how long. Consequently, a situation may arise where a significant number of people requiring social support return to Ukraine in a short timeframe. This will place an additional burden on social protection institutions in communities, even though there are already significant problems in this area. It is therefore important to develop the capacity of communities to provide social protection for the population.
  • What matters is how people themselves describe the help they need. Not everyone expects substantial and long-term support from the state. Most people want to be able to meet their own needs. Therefore, they view social support as temporary, something that would build their capabilities rather than make them dependent on assistance. Most people speak of temporary support — initially, following their return. In particular, this concerns accommodation where people could stay upon arrival. Financial payments may also be of interest to people as support until they are able to find work.
  • Whether the resources are sufficient to provide the planned support. Our research experience shows that people react quite strongly to unfairness in the distribution of support. Therefore, the same level of support must be available to all people who have had the same experience. It is therefore undesirable for those returning earlier to have access to a better support system than others. Differences in the level of support depending on the community to which a person returns may also cause concern.

Building a support system accessible to all those who need it is no simple task. However, it is precisely such a system that will restore people’s confidence in receiving support and their sense of security. Therefore, joint action is required from various parties: the national government, local authorities, civil society organisations at both national and local levels, international organisations and donors.

This blog was first published on LB.ua.