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).

Seven out of ten Ukrainians surveyed associate homelessness with addiction. Yet most people experiencing homelessness in the study reported never having had an alcohol or drug dependency. The evidence reveals a more complex relationship in which addiction may precede housing loss, develop after it, or become intertwined with trauma, isolation, and prolonged life without a home.

One of the Most Persistent Stereotypes

Few assumptions about homelessness are as widespread as the belief that it is primarily caused by alcohol or drugs.

When members of the public encounter someone sleeping outdoors, behaving unpredictably, or showing the visible effects of prolonged hardship, addiction can appear to offer a simple explanation. The person is assumed to have lost housing because of substance use and to remain homeless because he or she refuses treatment or change.

The nationwide survey included in Homelessness in Ukraine in Wartime: Assessment of the Situation and Public Attitudes shows how deeply this idea has entered public opinion. Seventy percent of Ukrainians surveyed associated homelessness with addiction.

This belief forms part of a broader pattern of individual blame. Eighty percent thought most people experiencing homelessness could work if they wanted to, while 53 percent regarded homelessness as a lifestyle that people actively choose.

The report does not claim that addiction is irrelevant. Alcohol and drug dependency can cause profound harm and, for some people, contributes directly to housing loss. But the research strongly challenges the idea that dependency explains homelessness as a whole.

Addiction is one possible part of the story. It is not the story of every person without a home.

What Homeless Respondents Reported About Alcohol

Among the 250 people experiencing homelessness who participated in the detailed survey, 63 percent said they had never experienced alcohol dependency.

Seventeen percent reported that they were currently dependent on alcohol, while 20 percent said they had experienced dependency in the past but had overcome it.

These figures deserve careful attention.

They show that more than six out of ten respondents did not identify alcohol dependency as part of their experience at all. Another one in five said they had already overcome it. Although current alcohol dependency affected a significant minority, it did not describe the majority of the people surveyed.

The finding does not mean that every response can be treated as a clinical assessment. Substance dependency is highly stigmatized, and the figures are based on personal reporting rather than medical diagnoses. Some respondents may have interpreted the term differently or hesitated to disclose their experience.

Even with that limitation, however, the distance between the survey results and public perception is striking. Society commonly treats dependency as an almost defining feature of homelessness, while most respondents said it had never affected them.

Alcohol Dependency Does Not Follow a Single Path

Among respondents who had experienced alcohol dependency either currently or in the past, 53 percent said it had begun before they lost their housing. For these individuals, alcohol may have contributed to family conflict, unemployment, financial instability, exploitation, or other events that eventually resulted in homelessness.

But another 38 percent said their dependency began only after they became homeless.

This second figure changes the way the relationship must be understood.

For a substantial proportion of those affected, homelessness was not the consequence of alcohol dependency. Instead, dependency developed after housing had already been lost.

Life without a home can expose a person to severe psychological pressure: fear, cold, humiliation, loneliness, violence, interrupted sleep, and uncertainty about basic survival. Alcohol may become a way of numbing pain, coping with trauma, staying connected to a street-based social group, or temporarily escaping the reality of loss.

This does not make dependency harmless or inevitable. It means that treatment must address the conditions surrounding it.

When addiction develops after homelessness, treating the substance use while leaving the person on the street ignores a central cause of the problem.

When Dependency Contributes to Housing Loss

The experts interviewed for the study also described situations in which dependency clearly contributed to homelessness.

Alcohol use may intensify conflict between spouses, parents and adult children, or other relatives. A family may eventually decide that it can no longer live with the person. Divorce or expulsion from the family home then leaves the individual without housing.

Dependency can also weaken someone’s ability to maintain employment, manage money, or recognize financial danger. Experts described cases in which fraudulent property dealers exploited people with alcohol dependency, persuading or deceiving them into transferring ownership of their homes.

In such cases, addiction may not operate as a single isolated cause. It becomes connected with family breakdown, unemployment, fraud, poor mental health, and the absence of effective support.

A person may therefore lose housing after several systems fail at once. Family members may be exhausted and unable to cope. Treatment may be unavailable or rejected. Legal protections may fail to prevent property fraud. Social services may intervene only after the apartment has already been lost.

Recognizing this complexity does not remove personal responsibility. It places that responsibility within the social and institutional circumstances that shape what choices are realistically available.

Drug Dependency Was Far Less Common

The gap between public stereotypes and the study’s evidence is even more pronounced in relation to drugs.

Ninety-two percent of respondents said they had never experienced drug dependency. Approximately 5 percent reported a previous dependency that they had overcome, while only a very small proportion—around 1 to 2 percent, depending on rounding within the report—identified themselves as currently dependent.

Drug dependency was therefore present among only a small minority of the people surveyed.

The most vulnerable groups were former prisoners and younger respondents. Among former prisoners, 16 percent reported current drug dependency, while 12 percent said they had overcome it. Among respondents under 40, 11 percent reported current dependency and 14 percent previous dependency.

These differences show why services must be tailored to particular groups. Although drug dependency is uncommon across the overall sample, it may be a much more significant concern within specific populations.

A general public image based on the most visible or complex cases can distort understanding of everyone experiencing homelessness.

Did Drug Dependency Begin Before or After Homelessness?

Among the small group who had experienced drug dependency, approximately two-thirds said it had begun before they lost permanent housing. Around one-fifth reported that it developed only after they became homeless.

As with alcohol, the relationship runs in both directions. Drug dependency can contribute to housing loss, but homelessness can also create conditions in which dependency begins or worsens.

Street environments may expose people to new social networks, criminal exploitation, and substances they had not previously used. Someone coping with untreated physical pain or psychological trauma may also turn to substances as an improvised form of relief.

Experts described the formation of relationships with other people experiencing homelessness as one stage through which some individuals pass. These connections can offer companionship and protection, but environments centered around drinking or substance use may also reinforce dependency.

The report appropriately notes that peer relationships are not inherently harmful. Well-designed peer-support programs can be highly effective. The decisive question is whether the social environment supports recovery or deepens exclusion.

The Treatment Gap

Perhaps the most troubling findings concern what happens after dependency is established.

Among respondents who had experienced alcohol dependency, 87 percent said they had not received treatment after becoming homeless. Only 12 percent reported receiving treatment while without housing.

Access to drug treatment was somewhat better, but still limited. Three-quarters of respondents with drug dependency had not received treatment after losing their homes, while approximately one-quarter had.

These figures reveal a serious contradiction.

People experiencing homelessness are often judged for having a dependency, yet the overwhelming majority of those affected have not been able to access treatment while homeless.

Several barriers can stand in the way:

• missing identity or medical documents;
• lack of information about available programs;
• transportation difficulties;
• treatment costs or limited capacity;
• rigid appointment requirements;
• distrust caused by previous institutional rejection;
• the absence of a safe place in which to recover;
• programs that exclude people whose lives are not yet stable.

A person may be told to complete treatment before entering housing, while the instability of homelessness makes completing treatment extremely difficult.

The system can then interpret failure as unwillingness rather than as evidence that the assistance was poorly designed.

Recovery Is Harder Without Somewhere Safe to Live

Treatment does not occur in a vacuum.

Someone may attend counseling or detoxification and then return to a street environment where alcohol or drugs are readily available, personal safety is uncertain, and every day is organized around survival. Medication may be stolen. Follow-up appointments may be missed. The person may return to the same relationships and circumstances associated with substance use.

A shelter may offer more stability, but not every facility can accommodate people during treatment or after relapse. Strict rules may result in exclusion precisely when the individual is most vulnerable.

Permanent housing changes these conditions.

A stable home offers safety, sleep, privacy, continuity, and a place to store medication. It provides a predictable base from which a person can attend appointments, establish routines, and rebuild relationships. Housing alone does not cure dependency, but it makes sustained treatment more realistic.

This is why Housing First approaches do not require people to prove sobriety before receiving a home. Housing is treated as the foundation for recovery, not as a prize awarded after recovery has already been achieved.

The report stresses that international Housing First programs have demonstrated the value of maintaining housing and persistent support even through relapse or repeated episodes of homelessness.

Relapse Should Not Mean Abandonment

Experts interviewed for the study acknowledged that some people return to the street after entering assistance programs. Dependency can be one factor, particularly among the minority experiencing chronic substance use, but relapse is rarely explained by dependency alone.

Experts also identified the absence of supportive relationships, weak connections with social workers, prolonged homelessness, and difficulty adjusting to new responsibilities. Seasonal factors matter as well: some people seek shelter during severe winter weather and return outdoors during warmer months.

A relapse can easily be interpreted as proof that the person did not truly want help. The report suggests a different conclusion: long-term homelessness often requires sustained engagement rather than a single intervention.

A person who returns to substance use or leaves housing may still retain the desire for a stable life. Recovery is often uneven. Progress can include setbacks without becoming meaningless.

Programs that permanently exclude someone after a relapse may turn a health and social crisis into renewed homelessness. Housing First models instead seek to maintain contact, preserve access to housing whenever possible, and continue offering flexible support.

Relapse is a reason to adjust support, not a reason to withdraw human dignity.

Addiction Is Often Intertwined With Trauma

The report does not present a detailed clinical study of trauma and dependency, but its wider findings make the connection impossible to ignore.

The people surveyed include internally displaced persons, veterans, former prisoners, people with disabilities, and older adults living alone. Many have experienced bombing, occupation, bereavement, family breakdown, property fraud, violence, illness, or long periods of social exclusion.

Thirty-eight percent reported mental health difficulties, yet 77 percent had received no professional psychological support during the previous year.

Under these conditions, alcohol or drugs may function as an attempt—however damaging—to manage anxiety, depression, physical pain, traumatic memories, or isolation.

An effective response should therefore ask not only, “What substance is this person using?” but also:

What pain is the person trying to survive?

Treatment focused only on stopping consumption may miss the unresolved trauma beneath it. Psychological care, health treatment, supportive relationships, meaningful activity, and stable housing may all be necessary parts of recovery.

Stereotypes Can Become Institutional Barriers

The belief that addiction defines homelessness does more than shape private opinion. It can influence the behavior of institutions.

A person who appears unkempt, confused, or distressed may be assumed to be intoxicated even when the real cause is illness, disability, exhaustion, trauma, or lack of sleep. Medical complaints may be taken less seriously. Officials may speak impatiently or decide that assistance will be wasted.

The report’s experts describe concealed stigmatization within government services and medical institutions. People experiencing homelessness may be refused help or treated as a low priority because of appearance, odor, or difficulty navigating procedures.

The addiction stereotype can reinforce this discrimination.

Once the person is seen primarily as someone who drinks or uses drugs, housing loss is interpreted as self-inflicted. The public may become less willing to support social housing, medical care, or long-term assistance.

Yet denying services because a person has a dependency can deepen the very conditions that make recovery difficult.

Compassion does not require pretending that substance dependency causes no harm. It requires refusing to use that harm as a justification for abandonment.

Charity Must Avoid Reinforcing Dependency

People naturally want to respond when they encounter someone asking for help, but good intentions do not always produce helpful results.

Giving alcohol, unrestricted money in certain circumstances, or support that maintains someone indefinitely in a dangerous environment may unintentionally reinforce dependency. At the same time, refusing all assistance because the person might misuse it can leave someone without food, warmth, or medical care.

The report calls for broad public education about who people experiencing homelessness are, how homelessness occurs, and which forms of assistance are beneficial or harmful. It also encourages targeted support for organizations with professional experience.

Specialized organizations can assess individual needs and combine immediate assistance with treatment referrals, document restoration, psychosocial support, and housing.

The most responsible form of generosity is not always the most immediate or emotionally satisfying. It is the help most likely to protect the person’s life and support a path toward stability.

A Response Built Around the Whole Person

The evidence suggests that effective support for people experiencing homelessness and dependency should include several elements working together:

• accessible medical and psychological treatment;
• housing that is not withheld until sobriety has been achieved;
• trained social workers and sustained personal accompaniment;
• harm-reduction and recovery services adapted to life without housing;
• legal help and restoration of documents;
• meaningful employment or activity where appropriate;
• opportunities to rebuild family and community relationships;
• continued support after relapse.

No single program will be right for everyone.

Some people need intensive treatment. Others have already recovered and primarily need housing and employment. Most people surveyed reported no history of dependency at all and should not be directed toward services they do not require.

A person-centered approach begins with assessment rather than assumption.

The question is not, “What is wrong with homeless people?” It is, “What does this particular person need in order to recover stability?”

A Vincentian Vision Without Judgment

For the Vincentian Family, addiction presents a demanding form of service.

It can test patience. Recovery may be slow. Promises may be broken. A person may accept help and later return to alcohol, drugs, or the street. Those offering assistance can feel frustrated or powerless.

Yet the Vincentian tradition calls for an encounter that does not reduce a person to his or her most visible struggle.

Dependency may be part of someone’s history, but it is not the entirety of that person. Behind it may be a destroyed home, a lost child, untreated pain, military trauma, family rejection, loneliness, or years without anyone trustworthy nearby.

Authentic compassion neither denies the consequences of addiction nor uses them to justify rejection. It combines truth, responsibility, professional treatment, practical help, and persistent hope.

A home should not be withheld because a person is ill, and addiction should not be treated as evidence that someone is unworthy of a home.

The report’s evidence invites society to replace a convenient stereotype with a more honest understanding. Most homeless respondents did not report alcohol or drug dependency. Among those who did, the relationship with homelessness varied: sometimes dependency came first; sometimes homelessness came first; often both became entangled with other losses.

What people need is not judgment from a distance, but appropriate treatment, stable housing, supportive relationships, and the opportunity to begin again.

The evidence does not tell us that addiction is unimportant. It tells us that addiction must be understood accurately—and that no person should be abandoned because his or her road home is complicated.

Image © DePaul Group.