Project Insights

What do Human Service Organisations say?

Interviews with key stakeholders in Ukrainian civil society based in Ukraine highlight the following key insights regarding the role of human service organisations (HSO). For a more extensive descriptive summary of insights and a summary of insights from stakeholders and Policy Recommendations, please access the project outputs. The illustration below aims to bring together key aspects and insights reflecting the project's aims. To protect the anonymity and identity of respondents, no direct empirical evidence is contained within this illustration. If you have questions about the research methodology, please get in touch.

HSO Activities During Conflict

The data shows that human service organisations (HSOs) are engaged in a range of efforts and activities. These have changed and expanded dramatically since the illegal full-scale invasion in 2022.

1. Frontline Service Delivery: Their main activities focus on directly providing aid. This involves complex procurement and logistics to deliver essential supplies to conflict-affected areas. They navigate a highly volatile environment, constantly adjusting to changing needs and security concerns on the ground. As the war continues, demands on HSO have been shifting towards dealing with its 'consequences' – supporting veterans, trauma care, or mental health support – and thus new areas of activity. HSOs feel that their experiences with responding to the full-scale invasion have equipped them with the ability (adaptability and resilience) to face such changes. They see it as a potential to demonstrate their 'professionalism', in particular towards local authorities (Hromadas), which in turn would contribute to addressing limiting/constraining factors. 

2. Back-end Administrative Labour: A large part of HSO's work involves securing and managing resources. This includes grant applications, detailed donor reporting, and navigating bureaucratic and legal "red tape." These administrative tasks are not minor; they are a central and time-consuming activity vital for operational survival. They are also a drain on individuals and their ability to expand activities or develop new ones. The uncertainty around resources also creates challenges around longer-term planning in terms of strategic direction and securing relevant human resources (either paid staff or volunteers).

The interviews highlight a significant tension between these two fronts, where the heavy burden of administrative requirements from donors often complicates and delays the delivery of aid or services.

Organisational Legitimation Processes

HSOs in Ukraine pursue legitimacy, focusing their legitimation activities on two main channels, often with conflicting demands.

1. Legitimacy with Donors: Organisations build their credibility with donors mainly through accountability and reporting. By meeting strict, often inflexible, reporting requirements, they demonstrate they are responsible stewards of funds. However, this process can be frustrating, as HSOs feel the rigid, project-based funding models do not recognise their local expertise and ability to adapt to real-time needs.

2.  Establishing Credibility with Local Communities: Organisations cultivate trust and legitimacy within local populations and local authorities through consistent presence and the efficient delivery of their services, activities, and projects. Overcoming logistical challenges to ensure aid reaches the most vulnerable is central to demonstrating their value to the communities they serve and as future collaboration partners. This provides HSO with 'on-the-ground' legitimacy, which is also reflected in their ability to engage with local authorities or local media outlets. 

The interviews emphasise HSOs' dual approach to gaining societal acceptance or legitimacy. They also reveal the overlap created by legitimation activities; therefore, transparency and accountability towards donors are equally valuable when engaging with local communities (both at the constituency/service user level and with local authorities).

Impact on Societal Issues

The HSOs' impact on broader societal issues during the war has been significant, particularly in regard to support for the frontline and supporting and addressing the needs at the local community level. However, from the HSO perspective, their ability to scale their impact is not yet fully maximised.

1 Positive Impact (Addressing Needs): Their primary impact is the mitigation of human suffering by providing life-sustaining aid and services. They are a critical part of the societal response, filling gaps that government or other actors cannot/were not able to do. They also have the ability to engage directly with those in need and access geographical areas that other organisations find more challenging. Further, some respondents highlight that their engagement with humanitarian relief also enabled them to be more impactful with their core mission and activities. 

2 Limited Impact (Systemic Barriers): The data from respondents suggests that they see their potential societal impact is being throttled. Respondent highlighted that sometimes there was poor coordination, particularly with larger international organisations, and information gaps (around resource availability) that led to a duplication of efforts in some areas, while other needs were neglected. Furthermore, inflexible funding arrangements and bureaucratic difficulties slow down their ability to respond more quickly as demands change during project implementation. Most of the respondents call for coordination platforms at the local level, which would help maximise their collective societal impact of all/their HSO.

Across these insights, what emerges is a picture of HSOs that has shown incredible resilience and adaptability (both in terms of adjusting what they do as well as how they do their activities). It also highlights that HSOs are very much place-based and even those that had to relocate due to war worked towards establishing local connections and roots (as well as maintaining old ones), showing an unwavering commitment to local communities. HSOs also saw the benefits and need for collaborative and cooperative approaches to solving the problems and challenges created by the continuing war. Thus, respondents aimed to work towards the formation and 'densifying' social networks, which not only help with the societal acceptance and legitimacy of HSOs, but could also provide a robust foundation for collaborative reconstruction efforts in Ukraine (for more guidance on policy recommendations, please look at the Policy Brief). In essence, HSOs in Ukraine are not merely providing services; they are actively shaping the social fabric, fostering resilience, and laying the groundwork for future recovery.

If you have any comments you would like to share, please get in touch.