Community Preparedness

NP teams conducted 22 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) across 10 hromadas in Odesa Oblast. The sample was predominantly female, with most women respondents aged 31–50. The majority of male respondents were younger (18–30), likely reflecting the reduced visibility of men of conscription age in public spaces. 

In terms of displacement status, most respondents identified as host community members (73%), while 23% were internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 5% were returnees. A notable proportion of respondents reported connections to military service: 23% were members of veterans’ families, 14% were veterans themselves, and 25% reported having family members currently serving in the armed forces, retired servicemen, or working with veterans. 

All respondents reported having dependents, typically between one and three, with the largest share (42%) reporting two dependents. Overall, the sample reflects predominantly host community perspectives, with strong linkages to military service and family responsibilities. 

Perceptions of the security situation in Odesa Oblast are mixed but indicate trend toward deterioration. Half of respondents (50%) reported that the security situation is worsening, while 41% perceived no significant change and 9% reported improvement, all from Chornomorska Hromada. Despite these varied perceptions, security remains the most frequently cited concern (23%). 

Notably, social cohesion and trust (19%) emerged as the second most significant challenge—setting Odesa apart from other assessed Oblasts, where material needs typically dominate. Housing and infrastructure concerns followed closely (16%), indicating continued pressure on basic living conditions. Overall, 56% of respondents reported existing tensions within their communities; the second highest proportion recorded across assessed Oblasts after Kharkiv. 

These tensions are primarily linked to competition over resources (18%), political or ethnic divisions (17%), and strained relations between host communities and IDPs. A further 14% attributed tensions to other factors, including interpersonal conflicts within shelters and collective accommodation sites. Given Odesa’s role as a major reception location for displaced populations, these findings highlight the potential for social strain to intensify if migration flows increase due to either escalation or a potential ceasefire. Without proactive engagement by local authorities and support actors to address existing grievances and strengthen dialogue mechanisms, these tensions risk deepening further. 

Expectations regarding a near-term end to the war remain cautious. As observed in other assessed Oblasts, the majority of respondents expressed uncertainty or skepticism, with 68% assessing an end to the war within six months as unlikely. Only 13% considered such a development likely, reflecting continued uncertainty regarding the trajectory of the conflict. 

Respondents identified employment opportunities (26%), MHPSS services (19%), and housing reconstruction (16%) as the top priorities for post-conflict recovery in Odesa Oblast. A further 10% highlighted the need for reconciliation initiatives. This is particularly significant given that 56% of respondents reported existing tensions within their communities, primarily linked to competition over limited resources, as well as strained relations between IDPs and host communities. 

Overall, these priorities closely mirror the challenges identified under current needs, reflecting the dual nature of recovery requirements in the Oblast. On the one hand, respondents emphasised the need for material and economic stability, including employment and housing. On the other hand, there is a growing recognition of the importance of peacebuilding measures, particularly in addressing the emerging mental health burden and strengthening reconciliation between different social groups. Respondents noted that psychosocial pressures are likely to intensify over time, underscoring the need for sustained MHPSS and social cohesion programming alongside reconstruction efforts. 

Looking ahead to potential return dynamics, respondents again emphasised security guarantees (22%), housing availability (19%), and employment opportunities (17%) as the most important enabling factors. Ten percent also reiterated the importance of reconciliation initiatives to support reintegration and prevent tensions between returning populations and host communities. These findings highlight the importance of addressing both structural and social conditions to ensure sustainable returns. Unlike in several frontline Oblasts, responses across different hromadas in Odesa were relatively consistent. This may partly reflect the Oblast’s greater distance from active frontline dynamics, resulting in more uniform experiences across communities. At the same time, respondents described the conflict as increasingly protracted: while security conditions may fluctuate, the broader social and economic impacts are widely felt across the population regardless of social status or location within the Oblast. 

When asked about preparedness for a transition or recovery phase, 45% of respondents expressed confidence that their hromadas would be ready, while 32% believed they would be partially prepared. However, 23% responded that they were not prepared, reflecting ongoing uncertainty about the trajectory of the conflict. While overall attitudes toward local recovery capacity remain cautiously positive, respondents overwhelmingly emphasised that key determinants of recovery (particularly security guarantees and economic stability), lie beyond the control of local authorities. This perception reinforces the view that meaningful recovery and dignified returns will depend not only on local readiness, but also on credible national and international security arrangements. 

The majority of respondents reported that they have not received support from NGOs. This is not unexpected given the relative deprioritisation of Odesa Oblast within the humanitarian response in recent years, as assistance has increasingly focused on frontline regions. However, Odesa was again partially included in the 2026 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan (HNRP) coordinated by OCHA, particularly for selected activities. 

Among respondents who had received support, the most commonly cited assistance included infrastructure repair following shelling, economic development initiatives, and livelihood support. IDPs in particular referred to cash assistance related to relocation. At the same time, the relative reduction of humanitarian support in the Oblast may partly explain why tensions, such as ‘competition over resources’, are perceived as relatively pronounced within communities. 

Respondents also identified several areas where cooperation and community support could be strengthened. The most frequently cited priority was greater transparency from local authorities (34%), highlighting the importance of trust and clear communication in maintaining social cohesion. Community dialogue and mediation mechanisms followed closely (26%), reinforcing earlier findings that reconciliation and facilitated engagement between groups are seen as critical needs. In addition, 24% emphasised the importance of including all social groups in planning and decision-making processes, reflecting a strong demand for more participatory governance and community consultation. 

Together, these findings point to a need not only for targeted material assistance, but also for strengthened communication, inclusive governance, and trusted facilitation mechanisms that can help address emerging tensions and improve coordination between communities, local authorities, and external actors.