This study was conducted at the request of the Pryntsyp Human Rights Center for Military Personnel, with the support of the Ukrainian Rapid Response Fund program, implemented by IREX and supported by the U.S. Department of State.

Introduction

According to projections by the Ministry of Veterans Affairs of Ukraine, after the end of the war, veteran policy will need to address the needs of approximately 4–5 million people. At the same time, public discourse increasingly highlights the lack of a comprehensive veteran policy that would cover all areas of veterans’ lives, effectively support their reintegration into civilian life, and ensure coordinated and coherent action by various relevant public authorities, particularly in shaping the sectoral policies within their respective mandates. Social policy is among the most critical areas in this regard, as it is essential that its programs and measures reflect the actual needs and demands of veterans and are capable of addressing them when necessary.

Public discussions on the need to develop a comprehensive veteran policy and to revise and harmonize sectoral policies of relevant ministries reveal a number of shortcomings in the current social policy framework related to veterans, which limit its effectiveness in providing support. To date, civil society organizations representing the interests of veterans and their families have played the most active role in these discussions. They draw attention to inconsistencies in benefits and payments, as well as to the limited scope of the existing social protection system for veterans, which does not cover all areas of life and is not always able to respond to emerging needs. In addition, current policies primarily focus on veterans’ legal status, while veterans themselves are often treated as a homogeneous group. There is a lack of systematic attention to individual differences in life experience, combat experience, capabilities, and needs, as well as insufficient consideration of gender, age, and other factors.

The social protection system consists of two main components: the first includes benefits, payments, and other forms of material support for veterans; the second comprises social services. Public debates, legal analyses, and social research have largely focused on the first component. These discussions address the adequacy of existing benefits, the correspondence between payment levels and actual needs, and access to entitlements guaranteed by legislation. However, alongside financial and material support, there is a need for assistance that helps individuals cope with difficulties, return to a dignified standard of living, and regain the ability to independently meet their needs. There is also a need for support that compensates for lost capacities and helps individuals maintain not only their financial situation but also the overall quality of life. Such support can be provided through social services. Nevertheless, significantly less attention has been paid to the challenges within the social services system and to its effectiveness in supporting veterans.

Given this context, our study focuses specifically on the system of social services. We analyzed whether the existing system recognizes veterans as recipients of social services, whether it considers their specific characteristics as service users, and whether it is capable of supporting veterans in successful reintegration into society and adaptation to civilian life. An important element of building an effective social services system is avoiding the stigmatization of service users. Therefore, we also discussed with experts whether existing approaches to providing social services to veterans may have discriminatory features or pose risks of unintentionally isolating veterans from other groups in society.

One of the key elements of the discussion on social services for veterans is the understanding that, after their deployment in the war ends, veterans return to their communities and seek social services at the community level. Communities differ significantly in their capacity, preparedness to receive veterans, experience in providing social services, financial resources, and ability to implement new initiatives. They also differ in their networks of partnerships and in their experience cooperating with other communities, national and international civil society organizations. Communities face different challenges in providing social services and address them in different ways.

For this reason, our study examines social services for veterans through the lens of community preparedness and capacity. We aimed to assess the situation at the community level, identify areas that require strengthening, and explore effective ways to support communities. We analyzed communities’ readiness to receive veterans, discussed with community representatives whether strategic planning is already underway and what actions are planned or being implemented, and examined how communities perceive their cooperation with civil society organizations.

Access to social services depends on awareness of available services and on a clear and understandable pathway for obtaining them. Without this, social services remain inaccessible to veterans and exist only nominally. Therefore, our study also examined how communities organize their work with veterans, what the first step in accessing services looks like, what trajectories veterans follow afterward, whether communities plan to change existing pathways, and which stages require improvement.

We hope that the findings and recommendations of this study will contribute to discussions on the need to develop the social services system for veterans, support communities in planning and service delivery, and inform the modernization of the existing system so that veterans can access all necessary services without barriers when needed.

Conclusions

We interviewed representatives of local communities about their readiness to provide social services to veterans, the challenges they anticipate, and the support they may need to address these challenges. Effective planning of support measures and budget expenditures requires data on the number of veterans returning to communities. Some informants noted that it is impossible to predict or assess these numbers, while others reported having estimates. We observed a correlation between community size and the ability to anticipate the number of returning veterans: rural communities more often reported better understanding due to closer informal communication with residents and better knowledge of who is currently fighting in the war.

The interviews showed that community readiness to receive veterans and ensure adequate social protection is closely linked to the development of existing social service infrastructure and overall community capacity. Key challenges include insufficient local budgets, staff shortages, limited financial capacity to recruit specialists, lack of transport (especially vehicles accessible for persons with disabilities), and a shortage of premises suitable for service provision. As a result, communities currently have unequal resources to prepare for veterans’ return.

Some communities have already established dedicated departments or designated staff responsible for providing services to veterans, while smaller communities often lack such capacity due to staffing constraints and high workloads. At the same time, representatives of most communities expressed a desire to establish specialized units or designate staff focused exclusively on services for veterans. They also emphasized the need for additional training for social workers. In some communities, such training has already been arranged, while in others it has not yet been possible. In several communities, social work with military families is already underway; psychological support is provided when needed, though this practice is not yet widespread.

We also asked communities about veterans’ awareness of available social services and relevant institutions. While respondents reported efforts to inform residents—often via social media—some believed that veterans’ awareness remains low. There is no single institution where the service pathway begins in all communities: veterans may first approach different bodies, such as administrative service centers, social service providers, or community heads, and then be redirected. Pathways are simpler in smaller communities, where services are often located in the same building. Overall, service pathways differ significantly across communities, and in some cases institutions duplicate functions. These factors complicate the development of a unified “veteran pathway” for all communities and centralized national information efforts.

Informants emphasized the importance of individualized needs assessments to tailor support measures. In smaller communities, information about veterans’ needs often emerges through informal communication. Community representatives noted that many existing social service standards do not explicitly recognize veterans and their families as service users, prompting calls to update standards or introduce new services.

Regarding anticipated challenges after veterans’ return, informants most often mentioned increased demand for social services, benefits, and material support, while acknowledging insufficient readiness due to lack of funding. Two potential solutions were identified: cooperation with Ukrainian or international donors and charitable organizations, and the introduction of state subventions or other co-financing mechanisms. Donor support can increase service capacity but cannot fully address staffing costs.

Communities expect increased demand primarily for social adaptation and social support services, daytime care, and psychological support. Psychological services are particularly difficult to expand due to workforce shortages and challenges in recruiting qualified specialists, especially in rural and small urban communities.

In addition to social services, communities highlighted challenges related to employment opportunities for veterans, access to retraining, legal counseling, and improving accessibility of public spaces, transport, and institutions for people with disabilities and limited mobility.

Interviews also revealed difficulties in ensuring benefits and payments due to insufficient funding and unpredictability of state subventions. Communities expressed concern that disparities in capacity may lead to perceptions of unfairness among veterans. Experts from veteran organizations noted that some veterans do not apply for benefits due to low awareness, regulatory complexity, or previous negative experiences. Bureaucratic delays in obtaining certificates for the status of a participant in hostilities further complicate access, prompting some communities to provide support based on copies of reports on participation in hostilities.

Some communities reported positive experiences cooperating with non-governmental veteran organizations, implementing joint projects and expanding service capacity. Others cited barriers such as the absence of NGOs, lack of coordination units, or insufficient experience. Desired NGO support includes legal counseling, psychological services, staff training, experience exchange, and the ability to procure services from NGOs.

Opinions differed on the establishment of separate veteran centers. Some viewed them as necessary to centralize services and increase funding, while others warned of risks of segregation, duplication, and inefficient resource use, advocating instead for dedicated “desks” or units within existing institutions.

Overall, experts and community representatives emphasized the need to avoid duplicating services, assess feasibility, and ensure adequate state support for new initiatives, including funding, infrastructure, staffing, training, clear guidance, and feedback mechanisms. Concerns were also raised about staff workload, burnout, and the need for qualified personnel. The “peer-to-peer” approach, namely employing veterans as assistants to other veterans and their families, was seen as promising but premature, given the need for training, recovery, and risk mitigation.

Recommendations

Based on the study findings, we emphasize the need for comprehensive measures to strengthen community capacity to provide social services, particularly for veterans, their families, and persons with war-related disabilities.

Key recommendations include:

  • Introducing state co-financing for basic social services through subventions or revised funding models.
  • Providing local governments with access to relevant data (including aggregated or direct access) on veterans and persons with war-related disabilities, and improving access to other administrative data to support planning.
  • Supporting communities in conducting needs assessments through training and co-financing, particularly where local budgets are insufficient.
  • Improving administrative data exchange and harmonizing statistical data with territorial reforms.
  • Developing additional support mechanisms for underdeveloped services such as daytime care, supported living, and physical assistance.
  • Increasing accessibility of transport and social infrastructure, particularly through inclusive planning and implementation.
  • Supporting the development of social transport services, including “social taxi” schemes.
  • Expanding digitalization and mobile service delivery where appropriate.
  • Investing in facilities, transport, and equipment for municipal social service providers, with accessibility as a mandatory condition.
  • Increasing wages, prestige, and psychological support for social service workers, and regulating workloads in line with legal standards.
  • Developing a clear “pathway” for accessing benefits and services, starting from mobilization and including needs-based consultations at demobilization, with guidance for relocation between communities.
  • Revising social guarantees to prioritize needs-based, dynamic support rather than status-based benefits.
  • Updating needs assessment protocols and social service standards to reflect veterans’ needs and ethical communication requirements.
  • Piloting and scaling new veteran-focused social services with community and NGO involvement, and including successful services in the list of basic services with guaranteed state funding.
  • Improving mechanisms for procuring services from non-state providers and informing communities about cooperation opportunities.
  • Implementing comprehensive training on ethical communication for all social service staff.
  • Strengthening sustainable psychological support systems at the community level.
  • Supporting the development of veteran and disability organizations, particularly at the local level, and their cooperation with local authorities.
  • Taking a comprehensive approach to community development funding that includes strategic planning, workforce development, infrastructure investment, and transport.