Community Preparedness

NP Teams conducted 30 interviews across Donetsk Oblast in 5 villages within 4 hromadas and with different community representatives. The sample turned out to be predominantly female, with 77% women and 23% men interviewed, representing the current ratio between men and women, as a result of the war. 

In terms of displacement status, the majority of respondents (83%) are members of the host community. IDPs account for 10%, while 7% identify as returnees, indicating that the responses reflect host community experience mostly, with more limited input from displaced and returning populations. This ratio division also represents the social fabric in Donetsk region, as very few IDPs choose or have the opportunity to stay there. Equally, it is not deemed safe enough for returnees either.

20% of the respondents were members of veterans’ families, 37% reported not being related to veterans or their families, while the majority stated that they currently had family members serving in the army, or being retired servicemen. Overall, the sample largely reflects host community members, predominantly women, with diverse social backgrounds and a notable share of households connected to veterans, which should be considered when interpreting the findings.  

Security remains the overriding concern in Donetska Oblast, cited by 24% of respondents, with 90% reporting that the situation is worsening. Notably, respondents in hromadas further from the frontline unanimously described a deterioration in security, suggesting a gradual but perceptible shift in frontline dynamics. Only 10% (primarily those already living close to the frontline) reported no change, and none reported improvement. Overall, perceptions reflect widespread and accelerating insecurity across communities. 

Beyond security concerns, respondents highlighted persistent challenges: livelihoods and employment (19%), housing and infrastructure (18%), education (14%), and healthcare (10%). These findings point to compounded vulnerability, where protracted insecurity intersects with weakened basic services. Social cohesion was identified as a primary concern by 7%, indicating that while material and humanitarian needs dominate, tensions persist and can be expected to increase. 

Expectations regarding a near-term end to the war are overwhelmingly pessimistic. A majority expressed uncertainty or disbelief: 43% stated they had no clear expectation and could only hope for an end; 27% considered it rather unlikely, and 17% viewed it as entirely unlikely. Only 13% believed an end to the war is likely within six months. This prevailing uncertainty reflects limited confidence in political developments and contributes to a sense of reduced agency among civilians. Given Donetska’s centrality in ongoing political negotiations, any significant shift—whether ceasefire, escalation, or territorial change—is likely to trigger rapid population movements of some sort. Yet the findings suggest limited preparedness for such abrupt transitions, underscoring the need for contingency planning and anticipatory programming led by duty bearers and civil society actors. 

Despite the protracted conflict state, 62% of respondents reported no major breakdowns in trust within their communities. Where tensions were noted, they were primarily linked to competition over resources (12%) and, to a lesser extent, political or ethnic divisions (9%). Additional stressors—including limited communication, insecurity, and destruction from air attacks (18%)—were also cited as factors undermining trust. 

While social cohesion has not yet significantly eroded, the combination of prolonged insecurity, material strain, and low preparedness for sudden political or military shifts presents risks. Without proactive and inclusive engagement between authorities and affected communities, future developments could rapidly amplify existing pressures, strain community trust, and complicate humanitarian and early recovery efforts. 

Respondents identified employment opportunities (21%), housing reconstruction (19%), security and demining (17%), and MHPSS services (17%) as the top priorities for post-conflict recovery. These findings reflect a context where large-scale destruction and economic collapse shape expectations for the future. Reconciliation activities were cited by 9% of respondents—lower than in neighbouring Kharkiv, likely reflecting Donetska’s acute humanitarian situation following a series of occupation and de-occupation. However, while physical reconstruction dominates immediate recovery priorities, the findings in the current challenges section show how 1/3 of respondents think that there are existing tensions, suggesting that reconciliation and trust-building remain essential components of recovery work. 

Despite these internal pressures, 77% of respondents expressed partial or full confidence in the Oblast’s ability to engage in recovery efforts. At the same time, 29 out of 30 identified external factors as the primary threat to recovery. This reflects a strong perception that the main constraints—security arrangements, political decisions, and military developments—lie beyond local control. Given the legacy of failed ceasefire arrangements prior to the full-scale invasion, this skepticism appears grounded in lived experience and underscores the need for credible guarantees and sustained trust-building in any future settlement. It also highlights the limits of perceived local agency in shaping recovery trajectories. This could also be why there is such a high rate of apathy in Donetska.  

Return incentives remain a major uncertainty due to widespread displacement across Donetska’s Hromadas. Security guarantees were consistently identified as the primary precondition for return, particularly in frontline-adjacent areas such as Slovyanska (19%). In Oleksandrivska hromada, security was prioritised alongside repaired infrastructure and employment opportunities (18–20%). Access to education and healthcare (14%) was especially important for families and older persons, while social cohesion and dialogue (11%) were seen as enabling factors for longer-term reintegration. Some respondents noted that return will not be possible due to the widespread destruction.  

Respondents identified several areas where community support and cooperation could be strengthened. The most frequently cited factor was increased transparency from local authorities (26%), highlighting the importance of trust and clear communication in sustaining social cohesion. Support from neutral organizations followed closely (23%), suggesting a continued demand for impartial actors to facilitate assistance and coordination. Community dialogue or mediation, along with the inclusion of all groups in planning and decision-making processes, were each mentioned by 21% of respondents, underscoring the perceived value of participatory and inclusive approaches to addressing local challenges. A smaller proportion (8%) referred to other forms of support, including livelihood assistance, improved aid coordination, or noted that additional support may not be required, or that challenges are complex and require broader engagement. 

Among the majority of respondents who reported receiving support (55%), early recovery or reconstruction assistance was most frequently cited (16%), followed by economic development (14%) and livelihood support (14%). This pattern aligns closely with the most pressing needs identified under current challenges, particularly related to livelihoods and economic stability.