Homelessness in Ukraine in Wartime: Assessment of the Situation and Public Attitudes is a major analytical study conducted by Depaul Ukraine, in partnership with the Sociological Group “Rating” and the Mykhailo Ptoukha Institute for Demography and Quality of Life Research of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The research received financial support from the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD). Depaul Ukraine is part of the international Depaul Group and has worked with people experiencing or at risk of homelessness in Ukraine for nearly two decades.

The study combines several complementary forms of research conducted in April 2026. It includes face-to-face interviews with 1,090 people using homelessness services in Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv, and Lviv; a detailed survey of 250 people experiencing homelessness; in-depth interviews with 10 representatives of organizations providing assistance; and a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,200 Ukrainian adults. It also uses the European ETHOS Light framework, which recognizes that homelessness includes not only living on the street, but also staying in shelters, temporary accommodations, non-conventional dwellings, or temporarily with relatives or friends because no secure home is available.

Drawing on this extensive evidence, the following series explores twelve different dimensions of homelessness in wartime Ukraine—from its largely hidden scale and its causes to health, employment, public prejudice, housing solutions, and the need for systemic change. Together, the posts seek to make visible the people behind the statistics and to encourage an informed, compassionate, and effective response.

We invite all members of the Vincentian Family to learn more about the homelessness crisis created and intensified by the war in Ukraine, to discover how Vincentian organizations are responding, and to engage more deeply with the findings of this study—either through these twelve summaries or by reading the full report.

You can read or download the full report by clicking here (in English).

Eight out of ten Ukrainians surveyed believe that most people experiencing homelessness could work if they truly wanted to. Yet the report tells a more complicated story—one of previous employment, poor health, missing documents, discrimination, exploitation, and a labor system poorly adapted to people trying to rebuild their lives without a stable home.

The Assumption Behind a Powerful Stereotype

One of the most persistent beliefs about homelessness is also one of the simplest: people remain without housing because they are unwilling to work.

In the nationwide public survey included in Homelessness in Ukraine in Wartime: Assessment of the Situation and Public Attitudes, 80 percent of respondents agreed that most homeless people could work if they wished to do so. This belief exists alongside other assumptions that place responsibility primarily on the person: 53 percent considered homelessness a lifestyle people actively choose, while 70 percent associated it with addiction.

Such judgments can seem convincing from the outside. A person is seen collecting food or asking for assistance during working hours, and the observer concludes that employment is available but deliberately refused.

The report does not deny that motivation can weaken during prolonged homelessness, or that some individuals may reject particular opportunities. But it demonstrates why unemployment cannot be explained simply as a lack of will.

Wanting to work and being able to obtain, perform, and retain suitable employment are not the same thing.

A person without documents, adequate sleep, clean clothing, transportation, medical care, or a secure place to keep belongings enters the labor market at an enormous disadvantage. When age, disability, trauma, displacement, discrimination, or years of exclusion are added, the instruction to “just get a job” becomes far less realistic than it appears.

What the Employment Figures Show

The study found that 78 percent of respondents experiencing homelessness had no work at the time of the survey. Sixteen percent were engaged in temporary or casual employment, while only 6 percent had permanent jobs.

Paid employment was more common among men and respondents under 40. Older people were considerably less likely to work, reflecting retirement age as well as the health and mobility problems reported throughout the study.

Former prisoners were among the most economically active groups: 8 percent had permanent employment, while 36 percent performed casual work. Even this relatively high level of activity, however, did not necessarily provide enough stability to secure housing.

The figures confirm that unemployment is widespread, but they do not establish that people have never worked or lack experience.

Among respondents who currently had some income but no paid employment, 95 percent said they had previously held a job. Only 5 percent reported that they had never worked.

Many people encountered in shelters and food distribution programs therefore have employment histories. They may once have supported themselves and their families, paid rent, practiced a trade, or worked in ordinary businesses and public services.

Homelessness does not erase that history but the longer someone remains outside the labor market, the harder it becomes to return.

Years Away From Formal Employment

Among respondents who had worked in the past but were not currently employed, 73 percent said their last job had ended more than two years earlier. Eleven percent had worked within the previous six months, while smaller groups had last worked between six months and two years before the survey.

A long absence from employment can weaken professional skills, references, confidence, and familiarity with workplace routines. It may also create gaps in a résumé that employers interpret negatively.

For someone experiencing homelessness, that absence is rarely an isolated problem. The person may simultaneously be trying to restore identity documents, obtain medical treatment, recover from trauma, secure benefits, and find somewhere safe to sleep.

Employment applications usually assume a minimum level of stability. Employers expect candidates to have a telephone, email access, clean clothes, transportation, documents, and the ability to arrive rested and on time.

A person living in a shelter may have some of these resources, but not consistently. Someone sleeping outdoors or moving between temporary locations may have almost none.

The question is therefore not only whether the person is prepared to work. It is whether the surrounding conditions make employment sustainable.

Homelessness Is Physically Exhausting

Living without permanent housing consumes time and energy.

A person may spend much of the day traveling between food distribution points, shelters, government offices, clinics, and locations where casual labor is offered. Hours can be lost waiting for a meal, shower, document appointment, or place to sleep.

Rest may be interrupted by noise, cold, fear, or shelter schedules. Personal belongings must be carried or left somewhere vulnerable to theft. Medication cannot always be stored safely. Washing work clothes or preparing food may be difficult.

The report found that 59 percent of respondents rated their health as poor or very poor. Fifty-eight percent experienced mobility problems, and more than half reported persistent pain or discomfort. One-third were people with disabilities, while 39 percent of respondents were aged 60 or older.

These realities matter when discussing employment.

Someone with severe pain may be unable to perform manual labor. A person with reduced mobility may not be able to travel across the city or stand throughout a workday. An older adult may face both health limitations and age discrimination.

To describe these people simply as unwilling to work is to overlook the physical conditions under which they are being asked to compete.

Missing Documents Close the Door to Legal Work

Identity documents are another decisive barrier.

A passport and tax identification number are normally required for formal employment. Yet 37 percent of respondents reported difficulties with each of these documents.

Some had lost papers while fleeing military action or occupation. Others had experienced theft or years of unstable living. More complex cases involved people unable to prove citizenship or residence because archives and witnesses were located in occupied territories or countries with which Ukraine no longer maintains normal diplomatic relations.

Experts emphasized that missing documents prevent people from accessing job centers, formal employment, social benefits, medical services, and other essential systems.

The contradiction is severe. Employment might provide income and stability, but the person cannot obtain legal work without documents. Restoring those documents may require transportation, fees, court procedures, evidence, and sustained help that the person cannot manage without income and stability.

Informal labor then becomes one of the only available alternatives.

The Work People Actually Do

Among respondents engaged in employment, the most commonly reported activity was collecting and sorting recyclable materials. Others cleaned public spaces, helped with household tasks, worked as security guards or caretakers, delivered goods, or performed seasonal agricultural labor.

These are real forms of work. They require time, physical effort, and reliability. But they are often low paid, temporary, and insecure.

Among those who had worked during the week before the survey, one-third had worked six or seven days. Others worked only one or two days, depending on whether casual labor was available.

This reveals another problem with the stereotype. Some people experiencing homelessness are working and remain homeless.

Employment does not automatically produce enough income to rent an apartment, especially when work is irregular, wages are low, and landlords require deposits or proof of stable earnings.

The phrase “working homeless” may sound contradictory, but it describes a real condition: a person can contribute labor and still be unable to afford a home.

A Labor Market With a “Glass Ceiling”

Experts interviewed for the study described a structural “glass ceiling” limiting the employment prospects of people experiencing homelessness.

They are generally directed toward a narrow range of low-skilled jobs: street cleaning, guarding property, stocking or cleaning supermarkets, construction labor, and other forms of physical work. Their previous education, qualifications, and professional experience may receive little consideration.

This is significant because the people surveyed did not all have low levels of education. Forty-two percent had completed general secondary education, 30 percent had vocational secondary qualifications, and 16 percent possessed higher education credentials.

A person with professional training may therefore find that homelessness itself becomes the defining item on an unwritten résumé. Employers see an address problem, an unkempt appearance, or a long employment gap and assume unreliability.

The person’s actual skills become invisible.

War has created labor shortages in some Ukrainian cities, and experts noted that low-skilled jobs can be relatively plentiful. But availability does not guarantee fairness, suitability, or enough income to escape homelessness.

A person with a disability may be offered only physical labor. An older worker may be rejected despite experience. A displaced professional may be unable to prove qualifications. Someone with no permanent address may be excluded before an interview takes place.

Exploitation in the Informal Economy

When formal employment is inaccessible, people often accept work without contracts or legal protections.

The report’s experts described serious exploitation within this informal labor market. Some employers refuse to pay after the work is completed. Others offer goods instead of wages, including alcohol. People may be required to work excessively long days—sometimes 12 hours or more—without adequate breaks.

A worker with housing, savings, and legal support may be able to reject abusive conditions or demand payment. A person who needs money for food or a shelter bed has far less bargaining power.

Employers may assume that someone experiencing homelessness will not report abuse, pursue a legal claim, or be believed by authorities.

The absence of a written contract also means that employment provides no reliable income history for renting housing, obtaining credit, or demonstrating financial stability.

Informal work may help someone survive the day while doing little to create a permanent path out of homelessness.

The study therefore recommends mechanisms that guarantee formal, legal employment for people experiencing homelessness, helping protect them from discrimination and exploitation.

Where Income Comes From

Because permanent employment is rare, many respondents depend on other sources of income.

State benefits were the most frequently reported source, cited by 41 percent. Assistance from charitable foundations was mentioned by 18 percent, paid work by 17 percent, and recycling by 10 percent. Nearly one-quarter reported having no income at all.

Benefits were particularly important for people with disabilities, older adults living alone, women, and respondents aged 60 or above. Charitable assistance was more frequently used by former prisoners and younger adults.

These figures should not be interpreted as evidence of dependency by choice. A pension or disability benefit may be the only realistic source of income for someone whose age or health prevents full-time employment.

The deeper question is whether the income available is sufficient to secure housing.

Even a person receiving regular benefits may be unable to pay market rent, a security deposit, utility bills, medication, food, and transportation. Employment policy and housing policy therefore cannot be separated.

Increasing income without creating affordable housing may leave the person in a shelter. Providing housing without income or support may make it difficult to retain the home.

A sustainable solution requires both.

Education Without Accessible Training

Almost all respondents—99 percent—were not studying or participating in any course at the time of the survey.

Experts reported that specialized training and employment programs designed specifically for people experiencing homelessness are virtually nonexistent in Ukraine.

In theory, homeless applicants may participate in general programs offered through public employment centers. In practice, these courses are often poorly matched to their circumstances.

Some require regular attendance over six months or a year. For a person moving between shelters, dealing with health problems, or trying to replace documents, such consistency can be extremely difficult.

One organization described a partnership with technical colleges that allowed residents to train in sewing and obtain qualifications for formal garment-industry employment. The program offered a genuine professional path, but participants had to remain in training for a full year. Many stayed at the center for only a few months and could not complete it.

The lesson is not that long-term training is useless, rather programs must be designed around the realities of the people they intend to serve.

Shorter modules, flexible schedules, supported placements, recognition of previous skills, transportation assistance, document restoration, and continued housing could make training far more accessible.

Motivation Is Not a Fixed Personal Trait

Experts acknowledge that motivation can become a genuine difficulty, particularly after years of homelessness.

Daily survival gradually changes how a person thinks about the future. Repeated rejection lowers expectations. Attempts to find work may end in exploitation, discrimination, or failure. A person may stop believing that effort will lead to meaningful change.

The report describes how this transformation can begin within three to six months of losing housing. As homelessness becomes prolonged, self-esteem and confidence can decline, and marginalization may begin to feel normal.

This should not be confused with an inborn unwillingness to work.

Motivation is influenced by circumstances. It can be damaged by trauma and exclusion, but it can also be rebuilt through trust, stability, encouragement, and achievable opportunities.

Experts noted that employment and training programs are far more likely to succeed when accompanied by sustained social work. A social worker can help the person restore documents, attend appointments, manage health problems, communicate with employers, and continue after setbacks.

Motivation grows when effort produces visible results.

Asking someone to complete a year-long course while still living in crisis may reinforce failure. Offering a stable room, a short training program, a fair employer, and personal accompaniment creates a very different possibility.

Employment Alone Does Not End Homelessness

One of the experts interviewed for the study expressed the problem directly: finding casual work for a person experiencing homelessness may be realistic, but having work alone does not solve the problem.

A low-wage worker may still be unable to rent an apartment. A casual laborer does not know how much will be earned next week. A shelter resident may lose a bed because work ends after the facility’s entry time. Someone working long physical hours may have no place to shower, prepare food, or recover.

Employment is essential for many people’s independence and dignity, but it is not a substitute for housing.

This is why the report supports housing-led approaches. A stable home can make work more sustainable by providing sleep, hygiene, an address, document storage, and a predictable daily routine.

Employment support can then be adapted to the individual. Some people may be ready for immediate full-time work. Others may need medical treatment, rehabilitation, part-time employment, vocational training, or supported work.

Older adults and people with severe disabilities may not reasonably be expected to enter the labor market at all. Their right to housing and dignity does not depend on economic productivity.

What a Better Employment Response Would Require

The report points toward several changes necessary to make employment a genuine route out of homelessness.

First, people need access to formal work protected by contracts and labor law. This would reduce the risk of unpaid wages, excessive hours, and payment in goods rather than money.

Second, employment services must be adapted to the circumstances of people without stable housing. Programs should combine vocational training with social work, document assistance, health care, transportation, and reliable accommodation.

Third, employers and public agencies need education to confront stigma. A person’s appearance, temporary address, or history of homelessness should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of laziness or unreliability.

Fourth, employment must be connected with affordable and social housing. Earnings that are insufficient to enter the rental market cannot provide an exit from homelessness, no matter how hard a person works.

Finally, support should begin quickly. The longer someone remains without housing and outside employment, the more difficult reintegration becomes.

The goal is not simply to make a person economically active, but to create the conditions for stable and dignified participation in society.

Work, Dignity, and the Vincentian Response

The Vincentian tradition recognizes the dignity of work, but it does not measure human dignity by employment status.

A person is not less worthy because illness prevents work, because war destroyed a livelihood, or because years of homelessness have weakened confidence. Nor should charitable assistance be withheld to force someone into any job available, regardless of exploitation or suitability.

A Vincentian response begins by listening.

What work did this person do before? What skills remain? What documents are missing? What health conditions limit employment? Is the available work legal and fairly paid? Would a stable home make employment possible? What kind of accompaniment would help the person succeed?

These questions move beyond judgment toward practical solidarity.

Food and emergency aid protect life. Legal assistance opens access to formal employment. Training can restore skills. Ethical employers provide opportunity. Social workers help people endure setbacks. Affordable housing makes the income from work meaningful.

All of these belong within the same response.

The opposite of homelessness is not merely employment. It is stability, belonging, and the possibility of building a life with dignity.

The report asks society to abandon the easy assumption that people remain homeless because they refuse to work. The evidence shows many people who have worked before, some who are working now, and others who could work if health, documents, housing, training, and discrimination were properly addressed.

The question, then, is not simply whether people experiencing homelessness are willing to work. It is whether society is willing to remove the barriers that keep their work from becoming a path home.

Image © DePaul Group.