August 2026 confirmed the trend that monitoring services have been recording for more than a month: the flow of internally displaced persons from the east and south of the country does not decline, and in some places even intensifies due to the approaching heating season and fears of possible power outages in winter. This is shown by a report from the charity fund “Right to Protection,” which tracks the situation with evacuation, access to social services, and housing issues in Ukrainian regions every month.
The West Welcomes Newcomers Cautiously, the East Continues to Evacuate Children
In western regions, the number of newly arrived displaced persons increased in August mainly due to worsening security in the east and south, and also due to fear of winter power cuts. The largest intake was by the Stryi territorial community – 101 people in a month, while the Lutsk community recorded about 60 new residents. Smaller flows were observed in the Trostianets, Berezhany, Boryslav, and Morshyn communities.
Meanwhile, in rural areas of Volyn, Lviv, and Ternopil regions, the number of IDPs remains stable or even decreases compared to the 2022 peak. A notable example is the Lypeshiv community, where out of 723 officially registered displaced persons, only about 190 actually live there – the rest have left for seasonal work.
In Kyiv and its region, the number of newcomers steadily rises, mainly due to people from Donetsk, Sumy, Zaporizhzhia, and Dnipropetrovsk regions. In some city districts, the increase over recent months amounts to hundreds of people – the Dniprovsk district registered 471 new residents in just one month, and the Holosiivsk district accepted 570 displaced persons in July.
Zhytomyr region records moderate and mostly repeat displacement, while in Chernihiv migration is largely seasonal. The border community of Kamianets-Sloboda is an exception, from which about 80% of the population has left since 2022 due to regular shelling – by August only 190 residents remained. Nevertheless, local authorities record occasional returns of pensioners who could not settle in Kyiv or Chernihiv.
In Khmelnytskyi, Vinnytsia, Cherkasy, and Kirovohrad regions, displacement remains at a moderate and mostly individual level. In Khmelnytskyi, the largest intake was by the Horodok, Khmelnytskyi, and Slavuta communities, with only about 900 of the 1,800 registered IDPs actually living in the last. Vinnytsia continues to accept people who independently evacuate from Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kharkiv, while Cherkasy has already counted about 30,000 displaced persons in its regional center. Kirovohrad’s biggest influx was recorded by the Znamyanka community – 72 people in a month.
Ivano‑Frankivsk and Chernivtsi regions combine organized evacuation with self‑arranged arrivals. In August, an evacuation train arrived in Chernivtsi with 19 passengers, including four people with limited mobility housed in the Hertsivka hospital. The number of initial requests for IDP registration in Chernivtsi rose from 94 in July to 166 in August – mainly due to people from Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Sumy. Seven families returned from Germany and the USA were also recorded.
In Donetsk and Sumy regions, the situation remains dictated by security conditions. The Kramatorsk community expanded forced evacuation of families with children from the most dangerous areas, while in Sumy the main departure point remains the city of Sumy itself.
The most intense displacement in August remained in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia regions, where forced evacuation expanded. In the Sineylnyk district, mandatory evacuation of children from several settlements in Mykolaiv, Ukrayinka, and Petropavlivka communities was introduced, and some institutions and services were moved to Sineylnyk and Dnipro. Organized evacuation from Vyshhetarasyvka in Nikopol district was completed, but only 33 people used official routes – 491 remained on site despite the danger. In Zaporizhzhia city, secondary displacement continues within the city.
Читайте також:
Дивіться як Український Червоний Хрест евакуйовує людей на Дніпропетровщині
Transit Centers Operate at the Edge of Capacity
Transit centers and temporary evacuation points played a key role in receiving and redirecting evacuees throughout August. Through the Kharkiv transit center, 4,320 people passed in a month, mainly from Kupiansk and Bohodukhiv districts, while the Loziv center served 5,794 people, mostly from Kramatorsk and Slavyansk. Main difficulties in Kharkiv include a lack of spaces for people with limited mobility and restrictions on registering families of more than five people for cash assistance. Temporary evacuation points in Kramatorsk and Slavyansk accepted about 1,500 and 1,217 people respectively – more than a month earlier.
Social Services Have No One to Work With
Access to social services in western regions remains limited by staff shortages, weak transport links, and the absence of Pension Fund offices and banking infrastructure in rural areas. In Ternopil, a lack of personnel led to increased complaints about delays in issuing IDP certificates. In Ivano‑Frankivsk, especially in Vorokhtyn and Kut communities, the barrier is the exclusion of displaced persons from the list of privileged categories. In Khmelnytskyi, where about 56,000 IDPs are registered, despite opening 19 new resilience centers, there is still a shortage of qualified specialists, and the physical accessibility of some buildings remains low.
In Chernivtsi, personnel and financial constraints are most acute in home care. Due to the dismissal of two social workers in Toporivka, beneficiaries were left without support for almost a month, and in Nedoboyivka one social worker serves ten clients. Meanwhile, some communities continue to develop infrastructure: Storozhynets received a UNDP grant for a social taxi, and Kaduvovets is preparing a project to install an elevator in a long‑term care facility.
Delays in payments and staff shortages are also noted in Vinnytsia and Poltava. In Tulchyn, increased requests led to a 800,000 hryvnia boost to the “Care” program, while in Kozelshchyna, Kobelya, Orzhytsia, and Holobyn communities payments are delayed up to three months, and there is a shortage of staff for home care.
Kyiv and Chernihiv gradually expand access to social services, though some communities still face administrative and staffing constraints. The senior support center in Vorzel accepted 56 new residents under the “money follows the person” program, while in the Tereshan rural council, IDP registration is not carried out at all due to lack of access to the relevant registers. In Chernihiv, alongside positive examples – the “Anchor Point” program saved 229 jobs – local staffing problems persist: the dismissal of the sole social worker in Kysylivka effectively halted on‑site social support.
In Dnipropetrovsk, access to state services is increasingly limited by security and relocation of institutions. In the rural councils of Saivka and Shestirnya, there are no banks or ATMs, and the post office arrives only once a week. In Donetsk and Sumy, basic administrative and social services largely depend on security: only three State Migration Service offices – in Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, and Oleksandrivka – remain operational, while citizenship and refugee status applications are suspended. A social protection specialist in Novodonetsk visits residents only once a week due to worsening security.
In Kharkiv, access to social services is limited by several factors – security risks, staff shortages, and transport problems. In the Saltiv district, timely data updates for payments are hampered by long queues, appointments are scheduled about a month in advance, and facilities close during air alerts. Mobile work in remote villages of the Zmiiv community is severely limited by lack of transport, and social workers in the Donetsk community of Izium district work in overload, serving 18–20 recipients per specialist – twice the norm.
Housing for Displaced Persons Remains Deficient and Expensive
Access to housing for IDPs in western regions is limited by high rent costs, insufficient municipal housing stock, and difficulties implementing state support programs. Residents of Novovolynsk, Lutsk, and Sokilnytsia communities in Volyn and Lviv practically have no access to municipal housing and must rent apartments on general terms. Communities choose different solutions: Zabrodiv buys private houses for displaced persons, while Litovez converts a former kindergarten into a housing building. In Brody and Trostyanets, the housing stock for IDPs was never created because local authorities see no need.
In Khmelnytskyi, Vinnytsia, Cherkasy, and Kirovohrad, the rural housing buy‑back program is implemented unevenly due to high prices, technical non‑compliance, and unregulated ownership rights. In the Teofipol community, six IDP applications were registered and six potential houses identified, while Polonska and Horodok communities do not plan to participate due to expensive housing and ownership issues. In Vinnytsia, inspections are underway, but in Voronivka and Olgopil, up to 90% of rural houses lack registered ownership, effectively closing the path to participation.
In Ivano‑Frankivsk and Chernivtsi, communities continue to build temporary housing and use state programs, though implementation faces practical and financial constraints. In Bilsivtsi, supported by the “Right to Protection” fund, a regulation on temporary housing was adopted, and in Burshtny the former midwife‑obstetric point is being converted into housing. In Chernivtsi, the Varenchanska community identified six suitable houses for the state program, while in Storozhynets and Kelmenechka communities displaced persons showed no interest due to lack of ownership rights. Before the heating season, several collective housing centers report heating and energy supply problems, and in one Chernivtsi center residents complain about high utility bills and overcrowding.
Kyiv and Zhytomyr use various mechanisms to expand housing – from construction and reconstruction to repairing temporary accommodation. In Hoshomel, with support from the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, two energy‑efficient housing units were built for medical staff among displaced persons, and in Rzhysivka two dormitories are being renovated for IDP housing. The Kurenna community in Zhytomyr received a 1.8 million hryvnia grant for repairing a temporary accommodation point, and within the state housing program three suitable houses were already found. In Polisk, the housing stock already exists, but the existing temporary accommodation point is non‑functional due to lack of funds for repairs.
Chernihiv and Poltava have separate reserves for IDP accommodation, though their use is limited by either the technical condition of the facilities or insufficient demand from the displaced themselves.
The most difficult housing situation remains in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia, where suitable rural housing is scarce, and shelling continues to destroy existing stock. In Sofiyivka, Pidhorodne, and Karpy communities, as well as in the Sursko‑Mykhailivsk rural council, there are suitable objects under the program, but they are either too far from infrastructure or exceed the compensation limit.
In Donetsk, housing and property issues remain closely tied to security, large‑scale destruction, and administrative constraints. In the Oleksandrivka community of Kramatorsk, the state registrar stopped working, depriving about 1,044 affected people of the ability to register property documents and access state compensation mechanisms for destroyed housing.
Читайте також:
Українські виробники котельного обладнання закликали владу створити резерв тепла до зими
