UKRAINE 2019 UNHCR PARTICIPATRY ASSESSMENT and/or do not believe this option is available in their communities. IDPs proposed several possible solutions, including:        Simplification of access to social housing for IDPs through amendments to Resolution No. 682 of 2008 to be prepared by the MinTOT, MoSP and the Ministry of Regional Development; Diversification of programs aimed at helping IDPs to purchase housing such as low-interest loans with interest rates below 7 per cent; increased budget for 50/50 type affordable housing program, which would increase the number of subsidized households; creating rent-to-own housing schemes; programs to procure housing from private individuals with the support from the state; and leasing programs with the involvement of international donors; Construction of social hostels for the most vulnerable IDPs with the involvement of international and other donors; Replication of the best programs implemented in different cities (such as Mariupol); Compensation mechanisms for damaged or destroyed property, as well as for housing left behind in Crimea or NGCA, that would serve as a source to partially cover expenses related to purchase of housing (state buy-out mechanism); Use cooperatives of IDPs for housing construction; Raise awareness among IDPs on existing possibilities. Employment was another recurrent theme mentioned by IDPs as needed for local integration and economic sustainability of households. IDPs have been told by representatives of State Employment Center that they have plenty of vacancies. However, for most IDPs, the jobs available do not pay high enough salaries for them to meet their financial needs and, especially, to pay for rented housing. Many IDPs mentioned that they do not possess the necessary employable skills required in the oblast of displacement. IDPs made the following proposals regarding employment:    Employment and entrepreneurial programs combined with new skills building; Requalification and training programs by the State Employment Centers; Building networks of IDPs and host communities, where employers could be linked with prospective employees. Participants from eight focus groups (including community leaders and IDP students) feel integrated in host communities. For them, integration means own housing (6 groups); official employment (6 groups); social networking (5 groups) and voting in all types of elections (5 groups). Other criteria included children’s success in schools, participation in social and cultural events, support from international organizations and good knowledge of the city/town. IDPs say that since they cannot vote in local elections, the local authorities do not take account of their interests, and IDPs do not benefit from the resources available at local level as a result of the decentralization process. This impedes integration. To address this problem, IDPs suggested the following:     Register IDPs as members of territorial communities; Extend to IDPs the right to vote in local elections; Strengthen links with local self-government and executive authorities through IDPs engagement in civil councils, working groups, and through civil society; Local authorities and donor organizations to support IDPs in building capacities and skills to enhance integration through community mobilization. Living in displacement for a long time and facing numerous challenges in accessing services, employment, adaptation, socialization and experiencing distress, IDPs have begun to build initiative groups (which quite often turn into community-based organizations) to provide each other with mutual support. One of the main goal for IDPs using this approach is to take action in order to facilitate change in local community, as well as at central level. Displaced persons representing active communities state that they face difficulties in accessing financial support. Feedback mechanisms Focus group discussions revealed that not all IDPs are aware of the differences in mandates among the UN Agencies. Those participants who have received assistance from UNHCR partners (legal or individual) do not always remember the link between the partner and UNHCR. About half of the 25