The Chornobaivka military administration, in collaboration with the village council's structural units, conducted a comprehensive analysis of the risks identified during focus group studies with representatives from various population categories and an additional meeting with local businesses.
Purpose of the work
The work on risks aims to create a holistic vision of possible threats to the community, encompassing both security and socio-economic aspects, and develop practical solutions that can be implemented at the local level.
During the discussions, 50 key risks were analyzed, which were grouped into three time periods:
- pre-war risks (2020–2021),
- wartime risks (current challenges),
- potential risks of the post-war period (after the end of hostilities and in the process of reconstruction).
How the community understands risks
The work used an approach in which the concept of “risk” was defined by the participants themselves. In the study, risk was interpreted as “the possibility that something negative could happen”.
This approach enables us to focus not on abstract statistical probabilities but on the real fears, apprehensions, and anxieties that people experience, which influence their daily behavior, decisions, and vision of the future.
It prioritizes “lived experience of risk”, which is key to developing resilience strategies that are not only technically sound but also socially and psychologically resonant with the real needs of the community.
Examples of key risks identified by community residents
🔹 Security risks
- High probability of loss of life and health due to constant shelling, use of drones, and cluster munitions.
- Lack of shelter in the private sector, lack of access to safe places for children and the elderly.
- Illusion of security - some residents ignore air raid warnings or underestimate the risks.
🔹 Socio-economic risks
- Mass unemployment and lack of jobs for young people.
- Problems with access to medicine: a limited number of doctors, diagnostics, and psychological assistance.
- Growing poverty and social tension among families who have lost their homes or jobs.
🔹 Management and institutional risks
- Loss of trust in the authorities due to the difficulty of obtaining assistance or compensation.
- Corruption risks during future reconstruction and distribution of funds.
- Lack of coordination between units and public initiatives.
🔹 Social and psychological risks
- Psychological exhaustion, increased manifestations of post-traumatic stress disorder among the population.
- Lack of socialization in children and adolescents due to distance learning.
- Future conflicts between those who remained in the community and those who left.
Practical work with risks
For each risk, the following were determined:
- probability of occurrence,
- possible actions at the local level,
- responsible parties (structural units, services, organizations),
- funding sources (local budget, state programs, grants),
- additional comments and suggestions.
The results of the analysis were compiled into a working document, which will serve as the basis for a plan to enhance the community's resilience to crisis situations.
The developed suggestions can also be taken into account when updating programs for security, social protection, and community recovery.
“Each risk is not just a problem, but a point for decision-making. If we clearly understand what can threaten people, we can plan actions to protect, support, and develop the community,” said Yurii Antoshchuk, head of the Union Foundation.
Based on the identified risks, further work is planned to develop a local risk management plan and prepare project proposals for donors and partners, aimed at enhancing public safety, improving education, healthcare, and social resilience.
Similar work is planned in Kherson, where a working group on public safety, social cohesion, and recovery was recently established.
This work is being carried out by the Union Foundation within the framework of the Impulse Project implemented by the International Renaissance Foundation and the East Europe Foundation with funding from Norway (Norad) and Sweden (Sida).
