Community Preparedness

In total, 24 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted across seven villages in five hromadas in Kherson Oblast. 

Of the respondents, 18 were women (most between 31 and 50 years old), and 6 were men. The sample predominantly reflects host community members, with only 17% identifying as internally displaced persons (IDPs), all from Velykooleksandrivska hromada. This distribution aligns with broader displacement patterns in the Oblast, where limited security and infrastructure conditions reduce both the presence of IDPs and the feasibility of return for displaced populations. 

Seventy-five percent of respondents reported no direct family connection to a veteran, while 21% had relatives who are veterans and 4% had family members currently serving. Overall, the sample largely represents host community perspectives, primary women with at least one dependent.  

Security remains the primary concern in Khersonska Oblast, cited by 28% of respondents, followed by livelihoods and employment (24%) and housing/infrastructure (18%). These priorities reflect compounded vulnerability, where ongoing insecurity intersects with weakened economic conditions and damaged infrastructure. Social cohesion was identified as a key concern by 11% of respondents, indicating that while material needs dominate, social tensions are present and may deepen if conditions deteriorate. 

Perceptions of the security trajectory are sharply divided: 46% reported that the situation is improving, while an equal 46% believe it is worsening. These perceptions closely correlate with geographic proximity to the Dnipro River and frontline dynamics. Communities closer to the river report increasing insecurity due to drone and artillery attacks, whereas hromadas further from active hostilities describe relative improvement compared to previous years and the period of occupation. Eight percent, all of whom were IDPs, reported no change.  

Expectations regarding a near-term end to the war are similarly mixed. While a majority consider it unlikely, 29% assess an end to the war as “likely”, the highest proportion recorded across all assessed Oblasts. Perceptions of social tensions are equally divided: 54% report tensions between population groups, while 46% report none. Where tensions exist, they are primarily linked to host–IDP relations (26%) and political or ethnic divisions (15%). 

The absence of clear majorities across key indicators underscores the highly differentiated nature of experiences within the Oblast. These findings highlight the need for geographically tailored responses and inclusive engagement with local authorities and communities at multiple levels. 

Respondents identified employment opportunities (28%), housing reconstruction (27%), and the reopening or rebuilding of hospitals and schools (21%) as the top priorities for post-conflict recovery. Notably, these were the same conditions cited as primary incentives for civilian return, suggesting a strong alignment between recovery priorities and return intentions. One respondent summarised this sentiment by stating, “With a job and a house, every Khersonian will return”—reflecting a comparatively high level of confidence in future returns, particularly when contrasted with more skeptical perspectives expressed in other frontline Oblasts such as Donetska. 

Confidence in local recovery capacity is also relatively strong: all respondents expressed either partial (46%) or full (56%) confidence in the Oblast authorities’ ability to engage in recovery efforts. However, 22 out of 24 identified external factors as the principal threat to recovery, indicating a clear distinction between local willingness or capability and the broader political and security environment. This reflects a perception that while local actors are prepared to move forward, the trajectory of recovery ultimately depends on credible security guarantees and political developments beyond their control. Sustainable recovery in Kherson will therefore hinge on both material reconstruction and reliable external conditions that enable local efforts to take hold. 

Overall, a majority of respondents reported having received support from NGOs. Only respondents in Novovorontsovska and Chornobaivska hromadas indicated that they had not received assistance, though even there this represented less than half of those interviewed. The types of support most frequently cited, reconstruction assistance, infrastructure repair, and economic or livelihood support, closely align with the priority needs identified under current challenges, suggesting a relatively strong correspondence between assistance delivered and community demands. 

At the same time, respondents identified clear opportunities to strengthen cooperation and community resilience. The most frequently cited measure was increased support from neutral organisations (40%), followed by community dialogue and mediation initiatives (32%) and greater transparency from local authorities (20%). These findings indicate a demand not only for material assistance, but also for trusted facilitation, improved communication, and inclusive civic engagement. For NGOs and INGOs, this highlights the importance of complementing reconstruction and livelihood support with structured dialogue platforms that connect local authorities and communities, particularly in a context marked by divided security perceptions and ongoing uncertainty.