IDP councils are often perceived as formal advisory bodies—structures that exist merely for show. But in practice, they can become spaces where internally displaced people transition from adaptation to influence: learning to talk to the authorities, form joint requests, and participate in the development of the communities in which they live.
It is with this approach that the civil society organization Access Point is implementing the project Institutional Support: A New Impulse for IDP Councils with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation. This is a continuation of the work on integrating IDPs into the life of communities in Ivano-Frankivsk region, focusing not on individual activities, but on strengthening the capacity of IDP councils in their real daily work.
As project manager Mykyta Boiev explains, this topic has a personal dimension for him: “I myself am an IDP from Mariupol, and I remember well the feeling when you feel like you are already safe, but you don’t yet feel like part of the community. For me, working with IDP councils is not about structures for the sake of structures. It is about making people feel that they are not here temporarily, that their experience is important, and that they can influence decisions that affect their lives.”
That is why the project focuses on the process—learning, dialogue, collaboration, and gradual changes that build trust and capacity. In each community, the work of the IDP councils began under different conditions, but with the same request—to be heard and to be useful where people live now. At the outset, this often meant a desire to help without a clear understanding of the tools and powers available. In the course of their work, the focus shifted to a systematic approach: needs analysis, clear rules of interaction, joint decisions, and partnership with local authorities. It is this path—from participation to influence—that IDP councils in the Bolekhiv, Kolomyia, Otynia, and Horodenka communities have taken.
Bolekhiv community: when the IDP Council becomes a starting point for change and cooperation
In the Bolekhiv community, the IDP Council was formed as a space for the active participation of internally displaced persons. Council members joined training sessions and meetings primarily as IDPs – with a desire to be useful, support each other, and get involved in community life. This activity was lively and sincere, but at first it was fragmented, without a clear common vision and understanding of the limits and possibilities of the advisory body.
Participation in the Institutional Support project became a moment of rethinking. The IDP Council moved from intuitive actions to conscious work: an analysis of the needs of displaced persons, surveys, reasoned appeals, and proposals appeared. Communication with local authorities gradually shifted from the emotional to the working level—in the language of facts and data.
As Alina Buts, representative of the IDP Council of the Bolekhiv community, notes, participation in the project provided not only new knowledge but also practical tools that already allow for more effective representation of IDPs’ interests at the local level. At the same time, the IDP Council has become more visible in the community itself. Working meetings, cooperation with the employment center, and informing IDPs about opportunities for training, retraining, and employment have strengthened trust in the Council as a real representative platform. It was at this stage that the team took a crucial step—it initiated the creation of a public organization. The public organization did not become an alternative to the IDP Council, but a logical continuation of the work already done, which made it possible to expand the tools of influence, work with projects, and attract resources, facilitated by the knowledge gained within the project.
Another result of institutional growth was inter-community cooperation. The Bolekhiv IDP Council began to interact with other councils, in particular with the Dolyna community. Joint events became not just support events, but points of unification for people from different regions of Ukraine. It is important that such cooperation continues: the councils have already agreed on further meetings and exchanges, including the next meeting in the Dolyna community. This indicates a transition from individual initiatives to sustainable cooperation between communities.
The Bolekhiv case shows how, with institutional support, the IDP Council can become a platform for growth: from personal activity to the creation of a public organization, from local work to inter-community cooperation, from “here and now” support to long-term solutions for people and community development.
Kolomyia community: when the IDP Council becomes a platform for systemic solutions
The Kolomyia community is one of the largest in the region in terms of the number of internally displaced persons. From the very beginning, it was obvious that without a systemic approach, the IDP Council risked remaining a formal advisory body that could not keep up with the scale and complexity of requests.
As head of the IDP Council, Tetiana Bilyavtseva brought her experience as a psychologist and manager to the job. This shaped the Council’s approach: not pitting “locals” against “displaced persons,” but bringing different groups of people together around shared decisions. The IDP Council in Kolomyia gradually became a space for mediation—a place where complex issues are discussed and realistic mechanisms for resolving them are sought.
Housing remains the most acute challenge for the community. Interviews with members of the IDP Council and active IDPs show that the problem lies not only in the shortage of resources, but also in the lack of formalised mechanisms for recording needs. As the head of the IDP Council of the Kolomyia community explains, if people’s needs are not officially recorded – in queues, registers, commission decisions – they do not become the basis for further action and programs. That is why the IDP Council has focused on launching long-term processes: participation in working and deputy commissions, forming queues, informing IDPs about the need to officially register their needs, even despite mistrust of quick results. This is complex and often emotionally difficult work, especially with older people, but it creates the basis for systemic solutions in the future. Separately, the chair of the IDP Council emphasized that everyone who has been forced to move to Kolomyia and is building a life in a new community is invited to participate in the dialogue: “We need active people, and together we can do more.”
The Institutional Support Project became a tool for strengthening the Kolomyia IDP Council team. Training and inter-community communication helped participants not only gain new knowledge, but also feel confident in their own roles. There is now an understanding that the IDP Council is a full-fledged partner, as it currently serves as a point of connection between displaced persons, local government bodies, social services, and the public sector.
The case of the Kolomyia IDP Council shows that institutional capacity is not about quick decisions, but about the community’s ability to withstand complex challenges and work with them in the long term.
Otyniya community: institutional “assembly” from scratch
The Otyniya community is an example of how an IDP Council can be formed practically from scratch. At the outset, some of the Council members had neither experience in public activity nor a clear understanding of what an advisory body is and how it can influence processes in the community. Participation in meetings and trainings was perceived more as an opportunity to learn more and help individuals than as systematic work.
The turning point came when the IDP Council began to build its own internal structure. Within the project, the focus shifted to basic institutional matters—regulations, protocols, recording decisions, and regularity of meetings. It was these seemingly technical tools that enabled the IDP Council to become structured, understandable, and visible to local authorities.
As explained by Mykhailo Hezenko, head of the IDP Council of the Otynia community, the most valuable thing for the team was understanding how document flow works and why, without it, the Council remains “invisible,” even if it has ideas and motivation. At the same time, inter-community networking played an important role. Familiarity with the practices of other IDP Councils made it possible not to invent solutions from scratch, but to rely on existing experience. In particular, the experience of the Dolyna community in forming a housing queue prompted Otynia to launch its own process, even with the community’s limited financial resources.
Another area of work was the idea of creating an “IDP roadmap” – a clear route for people who have just arrived in the community and do not know where to turn for everyday, social, or medical issues. This approach allows us to move from situational assistance to systematic support.
The Otynia case demonstrates that institutional capacity does not depend on the size of the community. Even in a small community, the IDP Council can become a real partner for local authorities, provided that its work is structured, consistent, and conducted in dialogue with other communities.
Horodenka community: moving beyond formalities and working with trust
In Gorodenka, IDPs were initially not very active, and the IDP Council itself was often perceived as a mere formality. There was a lack not only of resources, but also of belief that participation in the Council’s work could yield tangible results. The situation began to change gradually. Participation in the Institutional Support project gave the IDP Council clear guidelines on how to build its work systematically, which issues are truly priorities, and how to move from general discussions to concrete actions. Regular meetings, a clear agenda, and a focus on analyzing the needs of IDPs and finding realistic solutions emerged.
As Svitlana Herko explains, the key change was in the Council’s self-perception: “After participating in projects run by the Access Point NGO, we felt that we were not alone. We gained self-confidence and realized that we could talk to the local authorities as equals. The IDP Council ceased to be just a word—it took action.”
An important step was to build trust, both within the IDP community and in cooperation with local authorities. The IDP Council gradually began to serve as the first point of contact for new arrivals: providing information, referring them to social services, lawyers, and international organizations, and helping them navigate the opportunities available in the community.
According to a representative of the Council of IDPs, changes have also taken place in communication with the authorities: “Over the past year, attitudes have changed. We have begun to be perceived as partners rather than a formal advisory body. There is now dialogue, less formality, and more collaboration.”
The Gorodenka case shows that institutional capacity is not just about active leaders or large resources. It is about consistency, presence, and willingness to work with passivity, doubts, and mistrust. This is an example of how the IDP Council is becoming an instrument of slow but steady change, where the result is measured not by the number of events, but by the level of people’s involvement in community life.
Four communities, four different stories, but one common conclusion: IDP Councils are most effective when they have not only motivation, but also support and knowledge. Training, institutional capacity, and the ability to build dialogue and partnerships with local authorities transform them from a formal body into a real instrument of participation and influence, and this is where the long-term value of such work lies.
The project was implemented by the NGO Access Point with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation. The material represents the authors’ position and does not necessarily reflect the position of the International Renaissance Foundation.
Source: Access Point
