Introduction and research context
As part of the project “Unity and Interaction: strengthening the advocacy and institutional capacity of IDP Councils in Zakarpattia”, implemented with support from the International Renaissance Foundation, a comprehensive study was conducted on the work of advisory bodies dealing with internally displaced persons.
This report synthesizes data from several sources: a quantitative survey of 152 IDPs , analysis of official responses to information requests from 70 public authorities (local self-government authorities and district military administrations), self-assessment results from 100 IDP Council members and in-depth interviews conducted through focus groups.
The purpose of the analysis is to objectively assess their institutional capacity, identify systemic barriers to cooperation, and develop a roadmap for strengthening the voice of IDPs in Zakarpattia communities.
Respondent profile
The demographic profile shows a strong majority of women. Most respondents are in the most economically active age groups.
91,4%
Women among respondents
Age structure and activity
The 26–55 age group was the most active in the survey, indicating strong potential for engaging these people in the work of IDP Councils.
Geography of displacement
Respondents came from different regions most affected by hostilities. Understanding where people came from helps IDP Councils design cultural and integration programs. The eastern displacement vector predominates.
- Donetsk Oblast
- Luhansk Oblast
- Kharkiv Oblast
- Kherson Oblast
Geographic paradox
The study found that the larger the community, the harder it is for an IDP Council to reach people.
Uzhhorod
Risk zone
The Council’s voice gets lost at the scale of the city. Digital outreach is needed.
Berehove
Development zone
An active community, but deeper awareness still needs to be strengthened.
Velykyi Bychkiv / Irshava
Success zone
IDPs know Council members personally.
High trust through direct contact.
Key insight: the awareness gap
This is the most alarming finding of the study. Almost half of respondents do not know about the existence of an IDP Council in their community (mainly in larger communities). This points to the need to improve communication strategy.
Communication channels
Where do IDPs learn about news? Traditional methods, such as noticeboards, are losing to digital channels. Word of mouth through friends and acquaintances remains powerful, but it is not a controllable channel.
Gap analysis: perception vs real needs
We compared areas where Councils are perceived as effective (gold zone) with areas most requested by IDPs (blue zone). The results show a shift toward humanitarian aid, while there is strong demand for systemic advocacy and housing solutions.
Main insight
At present, IDP Councils are perceived mainly as centers of humanitarian support, which somewhat limits their role in strategic issues.
There is high expected demand (over 90%) for rights protection and housing solutions, where the Councils’ influence is currently felt least.
“We want to see the Council as a policy actor, not just a volunteer headquarters.”
Barriers to effectiveness
The main obstacles are an information vacuum and the perception of IDP Councils as advisory bodies without real powers.
Expectations and needs
“IDP Councils should have a stronger voice and influence the allocation of housing and community budgets.”
The myth of passivity is disproved
Most respondents who do not participate in the work of the Councils
are not “indifferent”, but “not yet engaged”.
60%
Want to get involved
But do not know how to join or are waiting for a direct invitation
Low
Entry threshold
Councils often function as “closed clubs” for a narrow circle of activists
Willingness to participate (Uzhhorod and oblast)
The problem is not people; a broader engagement funnel is needed
Institutional reality in numbers
Monitoring of 27 public authorities (1 oblast military administration, 6 district military administrations and 20 territorial communities)
Council status
27 / 2
Active / being established*
Planning
33%
Have an approved plan
Activity
3.6
Meetings per year (avg.)
Composition (IDPs)
39%
Share of IDPs in Councils
Geographic structure of IDP Councils
EAST →*Teresva and Kolchyno territorial communities declared that they are establishing an IDP Council.
**Rakhiv territorial community has not established an IDP Council.
Composition analysis: who actually makes decisions?
Differences in IDP Council formation models depending on the level of authority
District level:
“Standardized model”
District military administrations follow the recommendations of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 812 most closely.
Size:
Almost everywhere, the composition is 18–19 people.
Share of IDPs:
The highest level of inclusion. In most district military administrations (Berehove, Mukachevo, Rakhiv, Uzhhorod), IDPs make up almost 50% of the membership (9 out of 18 people).
Conclusion: district military administrations appear to be the most balanced bodies in terms of “authorities / IDPs” representation.
City level:
“Open model”
In large cities, IDP Councils have the largest membership, but the share of IDPs themselves is often lower.
Size:
Membership may reach 37 people (Uzhhorod) or 21 people (Mukachevo).
Share of IDPs:
A “dilution” of voice is observed: in Uzhhorod, IDPs account for only 35% (13 out of 37), while the situation in Mukachevo is better 43% (9 out of 21).
Conclusion: Councils are often overloaded with representatives of local self-government, which may weaken the direct voice of IDPs.
Small-community level:
“Minimalist model”
At this level, Councils are the smallest, and IDP participation is often formal.
Size:
Membership is small — from 5 to 14 people (Kolochava — 5, Velyki Koroptsi — 9).
Share of IDPs:
Positive cases: Tiachiv city territorial community (6 IDPs out of 9).
Nominal cases: Velyki Koroptsi (1 out of 9), Pyiterfolvo (1 IDP abroad).
Conclusion: communities often create Councils “for the record”, which raises doubts about their real effectiveness.
Activities and challenges: from declarations to real action
How IDP Councils work in practice and what limits their potential
Operating mode
The survey of public officials shows that most Councils operate in a reactive mode. Meetings are held mostly once a quarter or less often.
Positive trend: Councils with approved plans (33%) show twice as much initiative in developing local programs, such as “Turbota”.
What prevents effectiveness?
Officials identify two key factors limiting Councils’ influence on community decision-making:
Lack of financial resources
No dedicated budget lines to implement IDP Council initiatives
Lack of advocacy skills
Difficulty translating IDP needs into the language of official budget programs and strategies
Institutional transformation
Analysis of official reports and surveys of officials revealed the authorities’ readiness for qualitative strengthening of IDP Councils.
90%
Demand for competencies
Officials see Council development through training in advocacy basics and strategic planning
2025
Year of formation
Communities such as Berehove are actively joining the creation of new Councils, showing the evolution of the institution
Training priorities (authorities’ request)
Authorities see potential in IDP Councils that requires institutional support and new knowledge, not only humanitarian functions.
Competent, but under-resourced
Council members show strong knowledge of legislation and cooperation with authorities, but at the same time have critically low access to technical and financial resources.
Critical gap
The difference between knowledge (4.7) and resources (1.5) is more than 3 points
Two realities: an effective minority vs imitation of activity
Analysis of Council members’ responses revealed two fundamentally different work scenarios that determine the success or failure of the advocacy function.
Group A
Effective minority
Regular meetings → real influence on the budget → full resilience → minimal perception gap
Group B
Imitation of activity
Rare meetings → budget wall → risk of collapse → huge perception gap
Comparative analysis of key metrics
✓ Synergy (Group A)
Gap: 0.4 points
Both sides see success
✗ Gap (Group B)
Gap: 1.7 points
Authorities do not see the problem, while IDP Council members burn out
70% of Councils are in a state close to imitation, where irregular meetings and lack of budget access lead to demotivation and a gap between the expectations of authorities and IDP Council members.
Hidden wins: what Councils achieved, but few people know about
Analysis of open-ended questionnaire responses revealed concrete Council achievements that remained “behind the scenes” in the perception of the wider IDP community.
Healthcare
Uzhhorod
The IDP Council initiated a program to improve access to medicines for displaced people with rare diseases
Infrastructure
Rakhiv
Through the Council’s advocacy, temporary accommodation facilities for IDPs gained energy independence with support from international donors
Strategy
Irshava
The Council conducted an in-depth survey of IDP needs, and the results became the basis for the community development strategy for 2025–2027
“It is hard to influence decisions because the IDP Council is often only an advisory body on paper. Our strategies remain recommendations that are ignored when it comes to the real allocation of money.”
IDP Council member, anonymous response
In-depth dimension: why does the mechanism stall?
Focus groups with IDP Council representatives helped identify hidden reasons for the gap between ambition and reality.
The discussion confirmed that the problem is not a lack of willingness, but systemic institutional traps.
Identity crisis
Councils are caught between different expectations. Communities see them as a “humanitarian headquarters” (distribution of aid), while Council members themselves seek to be actors of strategic change
Leadership factor
The activity of IDP Councils depends on one or two activist leaders. Several community cases are revealing: when an activist leaves the community, the work stops. People burn out while trying to combine employment, survival and civic workload.
“There were excesses... since this is an IDP Council, people expected it to solve all their problems. For example, arrange transport for me... Unfortunately, such unpleasant cases happened.”
On consumer-like expectations
“Officials mostly look through the prism of statistics, and less than 10% of the population means nothing to them. It is hard to influence decisions when there is a stereotype that IDPs are temporary.”
On the wall of indifference
“It is impossible to work fully on a volunteer basis. It would be good to create a paid position... at least part-time, to support IDPs.”
On resource scarcity
Strategic request: the “resilience triangle”
Focus group participants agreed: for IDP Councils to work effectively in 2026,
they need systemic transformation along three vectors:
Institutional foundation
To exist. A transition from pure volunteering to professionalization. A critical need for a paid secretariat to preserve institutional memory and for technical support.
Budget literacy
To understand. Shift the focus of training from general advocacy theory to practical budget work: how to read budget regulations and at what stage to advocate amendments.
Cross-sector cooperation
To influence. Move beyond the “IDP bubble”: include Council members in executive committee or council commissions and build coalitions to address shared problems.
Consequences
View of authorities
- “We hear them” 70% of officials consider the Councils’ influence significant
- “IDP passivity” They see low motivation among Council members as a barrier
- “Success in assistance” They report firewood, food packages and payments
View of people
- “We do not see them” 45% of IDPs do not know that the Council exists (cities)
- “We need housing” 98% demand strategic solutions
- “We want to get involved” 60% are ready to work, but do not have access to the Councils
Risk that IDP Councils become nominal structures
Without access to real mechanisms of influence, such as budgets and regulatory policy, Councils may remain a “decorative element” that satisfies formal requirements of authorities but does not solve community problems.
Causes
Limited finances
Most rural communities are dependent on subsidies and lack resources for dedicated support programs. As a result, the expert potential of Councils remains unrealized because proposals cannot be backed by funding.
Mismatch of expectations
There is a gap between community demand and the Councils’ capacities. IDPs expect solutions to fundamental problems such as housing and jobs, but Councils, as advisory bodies without budgets, can mainly offer consultations.
Risk of burnout
The current resilience of Councils (82%) is based solely on participants’ internal motivation. Lack of technical support and assistance creates a risk of staff shortages in the future.
Recommendations
Communication
Strengthen digital presence to overcome the information barrier
Strategy
Shift the focus from one-off assistance to advocacy for long-term solutions
Interaction
Engage wider groups of IDPs in decision-making processes to build trust
Sustainability
Partial transition to funding secretariats and technical support to preserve institutional memory
Inclusion
Include IDP Council representatives in sectoral commissions on transport, education and healthcare with an advisory vote