Housing support for Ukrainian refugees in receiving countries

 Reliance on private hosts and personal networks

At the end of 2020, according to Eurostat, 1.35 million Ukrainian citizens held a valid residence permit in an EU country, representing the third-largest group of third-country nationals in the EU after those from Morocco and Türkiye. Outside Europe, the largest migrant communities from Ukraine were registered in the United States and Israel. A large community of Ukrainian descent is also present in Canada.

Consequently, many Ukrainians arriving in OECD countries relied initially on personal networks, staying with friends and family of the Ukrainian diaspora. According to a survey conducted jointly by the OECD and the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), by 14 June, half of respondents reported either staying with local families (29%) or with family and friends (20%). Personal networks were an attractive and efficient option for initial arrivals, but it quickly became apparent that countries could not rely on such networks alone. Not only is it the case that later arrivals are less likely to have well-developed personal networks, the sheer number of new arrivals meant that broader housing solutions need to be found.

Already the early waves of arrivals at the EU-Ukraine border were sufficient to strain available publicly funded housing solutions, especially as other arrivals of asylum seekers did not diminish during the first half of 2022. In order to house the large number of individuals fleeing Ukraine as quickly as possible, more than half of EU and other OECD countries have relied, at least initially, upon the willingness of private citizens to host these refugees in their homes. Many European citizens have opened their homes to host displaced people from Ukraine, in an unprecedented show of solidarity. Poland has relied extensively on a system of volunteers, co‑ordinated through non-profits, to meet housing needs. The scale of this, however, varies between countries. Finland and Latvia estimate that the share of displaced persons in private accommodation is around two‑thirds, while in Belgium and Italy it is around 85%‑90%.2 There is significant variation also within countries. In Germany, the share of Ukrainians in private accommodation varies from 10% to 80% across municipalities.

Several non-EU countries have chosen to implement a sponsorship-based model for receiving Ukrainians, a decision that affects housing policy in addition to serving as a migration channel. Typically, sponsorship is arranged prior to entry, and new arrivals are housed in private homes (and the costs for this housing covered by the sponsor) in the majority of cases. For example, families have been able to use sponsorship under the United States’ Uniting for Ukraine policy and the UK Ukraine Family Scheme to bring family members who were unable to obtain a tourist visa. Canada and New Zealand have also pursued sponsorship programmes that foresee sponsor responsibility for housing, though arrivals may be eligible for an alternative status that provides different benefits. In the United States, refugees are eligible for housing support, and in Canada, arrivals under the newly created temporary protection status may be housed for two weeks in emergency accommodation.

Several challenges have emerged from the reliance on private hosts and personal networks for initial reception. These include the temporary nature of such accommodation arrangements, ensuring the suitability of accommodation, financial burden on hosts, and language barriers. Finland has also reported that providing reception services to those in private accommodation is more challenging than to those staying in reception centres due to accessibility. In the context of sponsorship schemes, the difficulties with matching have been a major concern. In the United Kingdom, for example, where sponsors and beneficiaries are supposed to make first contact together, often through informal channels, before applying under the Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme, reports have emerged of difficulty in successfully making matches (Box 1).

 Reception centres

To manage initial reception for those individuals unable to access private housing, several countries – notably Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malta, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Sweden – have relied on existing centres for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. However, in countries that do not have substantial past experience with hosting refugees, and in countries where places in existing centres have proved insufficient in number, specific temporary reception centres have been established to house arrivals from Ukraine (see Annex Table 1.A.1. Estonia also expressed a preference for using new centres along with private accommodation as much as possible and avoiding the use of existing centres for beneficiaries of international protection to ensure there is sufficient housing available also for non-Ukrainian arrivals. In February 2022, Poland opened eight new reception centres along the border to receive Ukrainian refugees, but they were quickly overwhelmed. With the support of civil society, the Polish government has since added additional centres across Poland, including Warsaw and Krakow.

In some cases, the stay in reception centres is intended to be truly temporary. The reception centre serves as a triage point that helps to identify needs, provide information regarding services, and refer BTPs to more secure housing solutions. Croatia outlines the intent that BTPs reside in such special centres for a period of 48 hours before beginning the transition to individual housing, while in France, the “first step” emergency housing is meant to be used for only 1‑2 days. Luxembourg provides 24‑hour access to an emergency reception centre that provides emergency shelter for a few days. In Iceland, needs are identified at the reception centre, which then allocates refugees to housing. In the Slovak Republic, temporary overnight shelter is provided in large‑capacity relief centres to displaced people who are able to prove their identity, after which BTPs may be transferred upon request to state centres, hotels, or private accommodation.

In contrast, other countries contemplate longer stays in the place of initial accommodation. The Czech Republic, for example, authorises 30‑day stays in temporary accommodation. Increasingly, several countries, including Poland and the United Kingdom, are anticipating for refugees to return to shelters and reception centres for accommodation after a period in private houses when that option is no longer available. Given existing housing pressures in receiving countries, there might be delays with moving people into permanent housing.

 Hotels and hostels

In some countries where reception centres were insufficient to host Ukrainian refugees, an additional source of accommodation has been found in the forms of hotels, hostels, and even schools. Where reception centres reached maximum capacity, some countries have even turned to emergency solutions, such as cruise ships, containers, tents, or mobile sheds. In the majority of cases, these locations are intended to provide only a brief stay, raising concerns about their liveability for families as they are rarely equipped to be long-term housing solutions, and the need to compensate the businesses. Canada has entered into shorter, two‑week arrangements with hotels in the event that new arrivals are unable to immediately join sponsors. The Czech Republic offers hotel stays for up to 90 days.

While some governments have co‑operated with the hotel sector, this solution is still relatively rare. In a recent longitudal survey of displaced persons, two weeks after having left Ukraine, the majority of 709 respondents were either staying in government-run shelters (34%) or with family and friends (31%). Only 15% reported living in a hotel or hostel (IMPACT, 2022[1]). Instability of hotel capacity has been highlighted as an issue by the Estonian government. The seasonal nature of bookings and the fact that private guests may already have reserved rooms for specific periods makes it difficult to rely on hotels beyond the short‑term.

 Assistance with search for accommodation

Finding individual accommodation shortly after arrival is challenging for Ukrainian refugees given their lack of familiarity with the specificities of the local housing market, the frequent lack of proper documentation and income, and in some cases, because of discriminatory behaviours and negative prejudice against foreigners by landlords. Notably, there is an information gap, as refugees need to navigate a new local market with unknown rules and regulations. Countries – such as France and Iceland, for example – have made housing information available at reception centres or on their dedicated online information portals. Spain has provided funding to BTPs who wish to hire a real estate agent to help with the housing search. Such third-party intermediaries can prove useful in mitigating these challenges.

Additionally, in some countries, refugees who arrange for independent accommodation after initial reception may be entitled to public financial support to help them bear the cost of housing. Austria, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands provide rent support and allow BTPs to decide whether to compensate private hosts where relevant. In Switzerland, cantons have authority to set the amount of housing support, which is compensated by the lump sum they receive from the federal government. In Slovenia, BTPs are entitled to monetary compensation for accommodation costs if they do not have their own means of support. In Belgium, where a BTP finds permanent personal accommodation, the public Centres for Social Welfare will provide an installation allowance that can be used to purchase furnishings, among other things. Where no other option is available, the Latvian government will assist Ukrainians in housing rentals not to exceed EUR 400 per month (including utilities). Compensation for private providers and private households.

 Compensation for private providers and private households

Acknowledging the financial burden of hosting arrangements, which in the case of private households rely primarily on public goodwill, some countries have announced accommodation support for hosting households (Table 1). This support measure is currently in place in only a minority of countries, notably the Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and the United Kingdom, but the feasibility of introducing such compensation is being examined in other countries. In Belgium, households are allowed to enter into modest rental agreements with BTPs once they are working or have integration income.

Some countries, including Poland and the Slovak Republic, report that the provision of compensation is increasingly becoming an important consideration for private hosts. The Slovak Republic has observed that as the need for accommodation becomes longer term and in light of tourist seasons, many private providers and households are looking to provide their facilities on a commercial rather than voluntary basis.

In countries that have relied on hotels and hostels to provide accommodation, the government frequently provides compensation to the providers. In Bulgaria, for instance, hotels that accommodate and feed Ukrainians receive BGN 40 (EUR 20) per person per day for a period of three months. Latvia finances hotel stays where necessary for a period of 90 days (at a rate of EUR 15 maximum per person per day). Romania provides a subsidy to the schools that are housing arrivals from Ukraine.

In addition to national and local measures, in March, the European Commission announced the “Safe Home” initiative to support Europeans who voluntarily hosted those fleeing the war, notably by mobilising dedicated EU funds and instruments for both initial housing solutions and long-term accommodation. As part of this initiative, in July, the Commission introduced the Safe Homes guidance, endorsed by the Solidarity Platform, advising EU countries how to provide safe and suitable accommodation for people fleeing the war in Ukraine. It outlines the key principles for supporting hosts, enabling matching and ensuring safe and suitable housing for those in need. The guidance also looks at sustainable housing solutions for the future, especially the possible role of community sponsors in welcoming newcomers.

 Housing capacity and dispersal

In many countries, including the Czech Republic, Germany, Latvia, and Poland, capacity problems are apparent, particularly in urban areas. First evidence from Germany indicates that, while all groups of protection seekers have historically preferred to take residence in bigger cities, this preference has been even more pronounced among BTPs from Ukraine. A strong preference among BTPs for accommodation in Vilnius and Klaipeda has been observed in Lithuania, owing to the presence of schools for Russian speakers and wider availability of jobs. In Poland, this has led to a rapid expansion of cities: the population of Warsaw has grown by 15% since the end of February, Kraków by 23%, Gdańsk by 34%, while the population of Rzeszów increased by 53% (Wojdat and Cywiński, 2022[4]). France has made an effort to balance the impact of the reception effort across the country, aiming for a smooth regional distribution of accommodation, but the government has observed that a large number of offered dwellings are in rural areas that are unattractive to the target audience.

Given the significant differences in employment prospects and availability of resettlement services between urban and rural areas, it is natural that certain regions would be more attractive to arrivals. However, this has placed strain on housing stock. Additionally, as with other refugee populations, housing Ukrainian arrivals in temporary reception centres may pose challenges for future integration.

These pressures require countries to think about how best to distribute refugees throughout their territory to minimise the potential for negative reactions, especially if the war in Ukraine continues through the months to come, leading to prolonged durations of stay. Countries have made some movements in this direction. Latvia announced that when a municipality reaches its capacity for accommodation set by the Cabinet of Ministers, the state will be entitled to transfer BTPs to other municipalities.

Some countries have used their existing dispersal policies to designate refugees to specific states or regions. Dispersal policies allow countries to distribute the up-front costs related to the provision of new housing more equally. While family ties and the presence of ethnic communities are important determining factors for dispersal in many of these countries, a key consideration is how to provide new arrivals with access to employment. Findings from Sweden indicate that migrants resettled through dispersal policies that take into account labour market conditions have significantly better earnings and less welfare dependency than refugees resettled based on available housing alone (OECD, 2016[5]). Several OECD countries, including Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, and Switzerland, have used dispersal policies to resettle asylum seekers or refugees, but little attention is typically paid to employment concerns, with some exceptions. In 2016, Norway developed a fast-track assessment procedure to help disperse humanitarian migrants from reception facilities to towns that match their professional profile. The Netherlands also attempts to consider employment in dispersal decisions.

Attention to dispersal concerns will be important the longer refugees from Ukraine remain in host countries. Germany is using its existing dispersal system to allocate places for BTPs across Lander and plans to condition access to social assistance on the BTPs presence in their designated location. In the Netherlands, arrivals from Ukraine are directed to a municipality with reception facilities and can register with the municipality to receive benefits and services. However, arrivals who had a previous registration may return to that municipality, and those residing with friends or relatives do not participate in the allocation. Ukrainians in Norway have the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the introduction programme and its accompanying municipal dispersal, but its assessment procedure could prove useful in meeting housing needs for those who do not choose to participate, as well. An additional challenge has been managing dispersal given the large reliance on volunteer hosting and hosting with the existing, and large, Ukrainian diaspora. In Switzerland, for example, the reliance on private hosts has bypassed the traditional cantonal dispersal system, but cantons are increasingly seeking to reclaim responsibility for dispersal, so they may better understand whether municipalities are capable of meeting other resettlement needs or may become overwhelmed.

 Co‑ordination

Many countries have centralised systems for placing new arrivals in short-term housing or reception centres, but when it comes to co‑ordinating the transition from emergency housing to longer-term accommodation, similarly to general social housing provision, responsibility for co‑ordination often falls to the municipalities or regions. This is the case, for example, in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and Switzerland. Italy co‑ordinates housing through a regional “expression of interest” system that relies on voluntary, religious and non-governmental organisations spread throughout the country. Regional commissioners co‑ordinate the creation of housing places based on territorial needs. Municipalities are fully involved in the process and engaged in the covering of costs once a partnership agreement is signed with the national government. A new law came into force on 1 July 2022 in Sweden that seeks to distribute the responsibility for arranging housing better between the Swedish Migration Agency and municipalities. In France, a framework of co‑ordination has been established to organise the offers and provide full visibility of available accommodation options. In Estonia, the local governments support accommodations for BTPs from Ukraine, but the national government has established information exchange platforms to ensure co‑operation (Box 3). Under the direct supervision of the national government, local authorities are in charge of co‑ordinating private housing initiatives and providing complementary reception offers. France has implemented a phased approach whereby state services identify available housing with support from associations so that housing may be provided for at least three months. Bulgaria has centralised co‑ordination of housing for Ukrainians, with an operational co‑ordination group, consisting of six working groups, charged with implementing the state response plan, including co‑ordination of civil and non-governmental organisations.

The non-governmental sector has been active, not only in liaising directly with refugees, but also in co‑ordinating the housing offer in some countries. In Luxembourg, non-profit organisations screen new arrivals for their accommodation preferences at the National Reception office. In Slovenia, the Government Office for the Support and Integration Migrants co‑ordinates rental offers, but it relies on the contacts of non-governmental organisations to identify suitable options. The Slovak Republic has both state‑run programmes through the Ministry of Transport and Construction and non-profit initiatives, but the various initiatives are not interconnected.

 Housing for specific populations

Developing housing solutions for unaccompanied children arriving from Ukraine has become an area of particular focus, given the need to guarantee these children are remitted to safe, legal guardians. Accommodation for unaccompanied children is co‑ordinated differently in different countries, owing to the need for additional oversight and the occasional involvement of the court system in declaring guardianship for separated children who may be in the care of distant relatives.

The existing EU policies and legislation require that unaccompanied minors be placed in suitable accommodation or reception centres adapted to their needs, unless adult relatives can care for them or a foster family can be provided. Taking into account the best interest of the child, accommodations options are considered in most EU member states in close consultation with the competent child protection departments and other relevant social services. In Italy, Sweden and in the Netherlands, the primary responsibility for housing unaccompanied minors lies with the municipalities. Available options in most EU countries include foster placements, safe houses and specialised centres for minors or private accommodations (of family friends or acquaintances).

Minors accompanied by adults other than their parents are referred to as separated children. They are usually housed together in dedicated reception facilities or suitable accommodations (e.g. as in the Czech Republic where food and specific assistance is provided). The same is true (in Belgium, Estonia, Germany, and Lithuania, for instance) for orphans who travelled from Ukraine in groups, accompanied by their Ukrainian guardian(s). In Poland and Germany, co‑ordination units, involving competent ministries, have been set up to arrange accommodation of larger groups of unaccompanied minors and orphans, mainly in facilities of youth welfare services, youth hostels or recreation centres. Greece and Ukraine have signed a co‑operation protocol on hosting and protecting unaccompanied children from Ukraine. In April 2022, first unaccompanied minors arrived in Greece and were housed in the premises of the “Home Project”, an NGO that cares for unaccompanied migrant children.

Other vulnerable groups of people, in particular those suffering from health conditions and disabilities, may receive specific housing support in OECD countries. However, despite the political will and the engagement of civil society, immediate solutions have not always been available. OECD work has shown that providing adequate, affordable housing support to people with disabilities is a major challenge (OECD, 2021[6]). Austria reports difficulties finding adequate housing and/or nursing places for persons with physical or mental disabilities and those requiring specialised medical care (e.g. cancer patients). Germany has faced difficulties to find accommodation for the populations of entire orphanages or homes for the elderly. To better identify and address the needs of vulnerable people, Lithuania has incorporated information on disability into its statistical database used to track migrants by their resettlement location. Local volunteer and non-governmental organisations in Ireland, Luxembourg, and Poland play key role in assisting Ukrainian families with disabilities in their search for suitable accommodation or taking part in vetting processes of host families who pledged accommodation for housing refugees fleeing Ukraine. Overall, meeting the needs of these groups remains a challenge across OECD and EU countries, which have nearly all emphasised the need for greater co‑ordination to create solutions.

 Safety and the risk of exploitation

Initially, action to house large inflows of refugees from Ukraine was a reactive process, where speed was essential. Increasingly, however, hosting countries have been attentive to the risks that inherent in a system that relies primarily on private homeowners and informal offers of housing. For instance, the UK’s Home for Ukraine scheme raised concerns as the matching tool led to increasing reports of Ukrainian women feeling at risk from their sponsors. To better co‑ordinate the private housing offer and reduce the risk of exploitation, OECD and EU countries are increasingly implementing different quality controls, focusing primarily on pre‑screening potential hosts and developing formal, government-supervised matching procedures, including comprehensive background checks, telephone interviews, on-site inspections and visits.

In Austria, the Federal Agency for Reception and Support Services evaluates offers of housing before providing the information on suitable options to the provinces. Germany requests that all individuals wishing to offer housing contact their local government’s Ukraine Refugees Task Force or apply through the federal state. Other hosting countries have relied upon non-profit organisations to play the necessary co‑ordination and supervision role. In Spain, volunteer families are vetted through the Caixa Foundation. In several countries, the Red Cross is active in matching refugees and housing, for example, by operating a national information point in Finland to compile information and provide help or by reviewing housing pledges for suitability and matching in Ireland. The Red Cross and Caritas also organise house visits in Luxembourg because of an identified risk of labour and sexual exploitation.

Trade‑offs have been observed in terms of efficiency and ease of matching arrivals to homes. Belgium’s centralised Housing Tool requires that private housing options offered to refugees must be verified for liveability and that the background of potential host families be verified. There has been some concern that Belgian municipalities might not always record private housing offers in the tool because of the amount of work associated with the process. In Austria, the federal government has developed a plan for clear, ongoing communication to counter the risk that the slow vetting processes, whereby local authorities conduct checks of the offered accommodation, may create the impression that the accommodation being offered is not needed or wanted. Vetting schemes may be sometimes inefficient, but they remain important to mitigate the risk of exploitation, particularly given the large numbers of women and children fleeing Ukraine.

In addition to minimising the risk of exploitation and gender-based violence, formal matching channels provide an important opportunity to inform refugees of their legal rights and available support. Hosting countries have observed with concern the risks associated with housing offers that are made outside of the co‑ordinated system, through third-party platforms (Box 1). In the Netherlands, for example, numerous private reception initiatives were developed beyond the supervision of the Ministry of Justice and Security and are thus not subject to screening through its RefugeeHomeNL system. Adequate safeguards and oversight are even more essential for housing provided for an extended period, and countries must find ways to verify that the housing provided is safe and suitable, while still ensuring that refugees have rapid access to it. The Netherlands has published a Guide to Private Reception of Ukrainians, while most countries have developed dedicated websites and applications to provide information on government initiatives and contact-points in case refugees experience problems with their housing.

 Additional challenges

Countries have also reported difficulties accommodating arrivals from Ukraine who were fleeing with their pets, given the need in some cases for quarantine or the unsuitability of housing options for animals. This is a particular issue in countries like Ireland, where arrivals are frequently housed initially in hotels, and it is an issue that has rarely been encountered in the past as asylum seekers have not typically travelled with animals. The European Union relaxed administrative requirements for pets arriving from Ukraine, and many countries now have a special procedure, mainly for dogs and cats (though Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, and Lithuania have specific provisions for ferrets). For BTPs not in private accommodation but arriving with animals, Finland has created a pet-friendly reception centre where animals may be quarantined for the required 30 days and receive veterinary treatment. Generally, however, authorities across Europe are restricting the number of animals allowed to enter their territory.

Countries have also experienced difficulty in tracking onward movements, which, particularly in the case of Europe’s free movement framework, can lead to challenges surrounding estimation of demand for housing in addition to the duration of the housing need. Countries such as Germany have emphasised the importance of co‑ordination arrangements and open communications with partner countries – in particular with Poland and with Ukraine itself. Better data and exchange – both between and within countries – will allow them to anticipate the arrival of vulnerable groups, assess the need for accommodation and placement in schools, and manage the transition from supported to independent housing.