Legal Problems and Needs in Ukrainian Communities (2018)

THE SURVEY OF LEGAL PROBLEMS AND NEEDS in Kherson (Kherson oblast), Sievierdonetsk (Luhansk oblast), Zhovti Vody (Dnipropetrovsk oblast) and Sosnivka (Lviv oblast)

TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Survey

2

Executive Summary

3

Prevalence and nature of legal problems

5

Ways of settling legal problems

16

Free legal aid

29

The most vulnerable populations

35

Methodology of the survey and technical recommendations

41

1

ABOUT THE SURVEY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The survey was conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology and by the expert group for the International Renaissance Foundation. The field survey took place from January to March 2018. Before that, the existing sources had been studied (desk reviews), and a questionnaire had been elaborated and tested in the field.

49%

respondents said that they had encountered at least one legal problem in the course of the last three years.

Legal problems are most common in the following areas (% of all respondents):

The survey aims to clarify the existing legal problems of the population of four cities and towns (Kherson, Sievierodonetsk, Zhovti Vody and Sosnivka) representing different regions of the country, and the means to settle them. The results of the survey can – with some reservations – be projected onto the urban population of Ukraine over 18 who reside in the cities smaller than one million people.

For the survey, the method of face-to-face interviews using the tablets was employed. More than 2,000 persons over 18 year old who reside in the mentioned four cities and towns participated in the interview. A multi-level stochastic selection that is representative for the population of the selected settlements was used.

The survey aims not only to establish the legal problems of the population and hurdles impeding its access to justice, but also to develop and test the tools that could be further used by the academics, survey agencies and providers of legal aid for their respective purposes. The survey is different to the previous surveys in this field, since it collected the detailed information about every problem that arose in the course of the last three years. It also differs in the options of settling a randomly selected problem. The respondents explained their experiences in the context of a defined situation (dispute, conflict). It helped reduce inaccuracies connected with cognitive processes of generalization, evaluation and explanation of one’s actions and conduct a more thorough analysis of the problems.

The methodology of the survey was developed on the basis of foreign methodologies piloted in different countries.

16%

Consumer rights

12%

Utilities issues

8%

Social payments and benefits

7%

Medical services / healthcare

6%

Employment

4O%

of the problems were qualified as the most serious/grave out of those that could happen (they scored these problems from 8 to 10 on a scale from 1 to 10 in terms of their gravity). The problems connected with offences, family relations, property right to real estate and debt payments were labeled the most serious.

86%

of those problems gave rise to undesirable effects such as financial losses (62% of the problems), stress (49%), health issues or trauma/injury (23%).

49%

problems that had not been settled at the moment of the survey had lasted for more than a year by that time.

5%

listed problems had the features of discrimination, first and foremost, on the basis of age, financial status and health.

40% of all problems were settled at least partially.

68% 52% 31% 2

of the problems, respondents tried to settle them

of the problems in which attempts to settle them were taken, were resolved at least in part. of the problems were settled in a way that fully or mostly satisfied the respondents.

23%

of all problems were settled in such a way that fully or mostly satisfied the respondents.

32% 15% 5%

of the problems, no attempts were made to settle them

of the problems in which attempts to settle them were not taken, were resolved at least in part.

of the problems were settled in a way that fully or mostly satissfied the respondents.

3

Top-10 sources reached out for help (% of respondents who tried to solve certain problem): Relatives, friends

37%

Professional lawyers and attorneys

29%

Public institutions and service providers

20%

Courts

9%

Police

5%

I did not reach out to anyone

26%

Key barriers that prevent from settling the problems (% of all problems that have not been solved): Disbelief that justice is possible

60%

Unwillingness to invest efforts in solving a problem

42%

Unwillingness to invest time in solving a problem

31%

Expecting high cost

21%

Not knowing whom to reach out to for help

13%

57%

30%

of the respondents who made attempts to solve a problem said they did not spend money on that.

9% of the respondents spent up to UAH 50, 11% – UAH 51-250, 8% – up to UAH 1,000, 9% – UAH 1,000-5,000, and 6% – more than UAH 5,000.

80% of those respondents who had consulted lawyers (whether on a paid or free basis) indicated them as those who helped the most to address a problem.

Key barriers for the population not to contact lawyers (% of the respondents who attempted to settle a problem): Believed that a problem can be settled by other means Lawyer’s services were too expensive Did not believe it would help bring justice Believed they would invest too much efforts Believed they would invest too much time

40%

respondents have at least one problem that was not settled or was settled in a way that they were not satisfied

4

of the respondents who tried to solve a legal problem are not ready to pay for legal aid at all, 22% of the respondents could pay up to UAH 100, 36% – UAH 101-500, and only 12% – more than UAH 500.

Key barriers that prevent from applying to court (% of the respondents who attempted to settle a problem):

29%

Unwillingness to invest efforts in solving a problem

Consumer rights

16%

Utilities issues

12%

Social payments and benefits

8%

Healthcare

7%

Employment

6%

Relations with neighbors

3%

Division of property and formalisation of property rights

2%

Relations with public authorities

2%

Education

1%

Money relations

1%

Land relations

1%

Unwillingness to invest time in solving a problem

45%

Bodily injuries, accidents, road accidents

1%

19%

Private accommodation

0,9%

Family relations during and after divorce

0,9%

Debt repayment

0,6%

38%

20%

Expecting high cost

19%

19%

Not knowing which authority to contact

17%

35%

49% residents of the four mentioned settlements indicate that they were affected by at least one legal problem during the last three years1. Violations of consumer rights are the most prevalent.

This problem was mentioned by 16% respondents. Other most common fields in which legal problems and disputes were observed are the utilities (12%), social payments and benefits (8%), medical services / healthcare (7%), employment (6%). From 1 to 3% respondents had legal issues with their neighbors, public authorities and local self-government bodies concerning the division of property and formalisation of property rights, money (failures of the bank to return the savings, refusal to pay insurance payouts, etc.), land relations and injuries caused by an accident or a car accident. Less than 1% of the respondents had problems with apartments they owned or rented, post-divorce family relations, debt payment, military service, custody/guardianship of children and non-legally capable persons, domestic violence, criminal offences, or they had their rights violated when they were held liable pursuant to administrative law or in the course of the implementation of court decisions.

For other sources of help, the share of those who indicated that it helped to settle a problem is as follows: lawyers who provide paid services – 59%, relatives, friends – 55%, social service providers – 46%, courts – 45%, police – 30%, consultancies and hot lines – 26%, public institutions – 14%.

Did not believe it would help bring justice

respondents have medium or grave disputes unsettled.

Legal problems faced by the respondents during the last three years

Categories of legal problems faced by the respondents during the last three years, top-15 categories (% of all respondents, multiple answers possible)

49%

23%

PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF LEGAL PROBLEMS

23%

respondents have medium or grave disputes unsettled and attempted to settle them

16%

of the respondents keep trying settle their problem

Half of the respondents had no legal problems whatsoever during the last three years. 29% respondents indicated one problem, 6% of them – two problems, 5% – three, 9% – four and more problems.

It should be stressed that the above calculations also include the problems from one field or category that repeated during the three-year period.

1

The question was worded as follows: “I will show you a card with a list of fields, in which people have problems and disputes in their everyday lives. Please indicate respective fields if you encountered such problems in these fields during the last three years starting from 2015. We are interested in settled and unsettled problems that you personally – not your relatives, friends, acquaintances, business or employer – have faced. They could start in 2015 or earlier, but they have to last for a while during the recent three years.”

5

Сertain categories of problems repeat Number of legal problems encountered more often than other. For instance, by the respondents during the last three 48% respondents who had utilities years (% of all respondents) problems during the last three years experienced them more than once.

9% The statistics of the respondents who 5% 51% encountered two or more problems in the respective field is as follows: 6% No 44% of those who reported the 1 problem violations of their consumer rights; 2 problems 29% of those who faced hurdles 3 problems with renting an apartment; 15% 4 problems of those who faced obstacles in or more education; 14% of those who had financial issues; 13% of those who had problems in the field of medical services; 12% of those having 29% problems in employment; 8% of those having issues with public authorities; 7% of those having tensions with neighbours; 5% of those who survived domestic violence.

The surveys concerning the prevalence of various legal issues have already been conducted earlier: for instance, a survey “Level of Legal Awareness and Capacity of Ukrainian Population: Accessibility and Effectiveness of Legal Services”2, was conducted in 2010; “The Demand for Justice in Ukraine”3 and “The Assessment of Performance of the Free Legal Aid Centres within the programme “The Development of Legal Opportunities for Low-Income Populations”” – in 2015. The indicators of prevalence of the problems that were calculated on the basis of the data obtained through different surveys cannot be compared directly due to the different architecture of the sample, formulation of questions, lists of options. At the same time, the list of the most prevalent legal issues can be drawn up. They include: Violations of consumer rights; Employment disputes; The issues of benefits and social support; Problems connected with property rights to and use of real estate and land (it often includes the formalisation of inheritance); Financial (for instance, the receipt and payment of debts); Utilities-related issues (those include miscalculations in the utility bills); Problems with public authorities (first and foremost – with the law enforcement and judiciary); Problems with neighbors; Medical services / healthcare.

The list of key legal problems generally corresponds to the findings of the present survey. It should be emphasized that the percentage of those who encountered certain legal issues is smaller than in other surveys. That could be probably explained by the differences in methodology, in particular, in a way a question is formulated. Even though the questions did not include the word ‘legal,’ the proposed examples of the problems could hint to a respondent that the survey concerned a narrow list of conflict situations of a legal nature.

More details concerning the problems in different fields for the categories that were mentioned by numerous respondents (at least 50) are provided below. These details concern the recent problem in the respective field encountered during the last three years.

As regards consumer rights, the most prevalent category of problems, the “buying food of poor quality” is the most widespread issue (75% of the respondents whose rights were violated encountered this problem).

2 The 3

report can be accessed at: http://pravo.legalspace.org/?news=741&lang=eng The report can be accessed at: http://www.hiil.org/data/sitemanagement/media/Justice%20Needs%20and%20Satisfaction%20in%20Ukraine_UA.pdf

6

Furthermore, 3% of the respondents had the most recent violation of their consumer rights when they bought expensive goods, clothes or shoes, household goods that turned out to be of low quality or when then received construction or renovation services of poor quality.

A recent problem from the category «Consumer rights» faced during the last three years: Top-5 (% of the respondents who encountered problems listed in the category «Consumer rights;» multiple answers possible) Buying food of poor quality Buying expensive goods (computer, major household appliances, etc.) of poor quality

7%

Buying clothes, shoes of poor quality

7%

Buying household goods of poor quality

7%

Renovation or repair works of poor quality

4%

A recent problem from the category «Social payments and benefits» during the last three years: Тоp-7 (% of the respondents who encountered problems listed in the category «Social payments and benefits»; multiple answers possible) Registration/violation of the right to state pensions

40%

Registration/violation of the right to subsidy to utilities

31%

Registration/violation of the right to child benefit

11%

Wrong calculation of state pensions

8%

Registration/violation of the right to state social benefits to persons who are not eligible to receive pensions and to the disabled

6%

Unjustifiedly protracted processing of requests for assistance/benefits

5%

Arrears in payment

5%

As regards medical services (healthcare), the majority of the respondents face the problem of the need to pay for medicines and services that are supposed to be provided free of charge (51%).

Other 27% respondents complained about health problems caused by poor quality of healthcare, 20% – about late or wrong diagnosis of their diseases, 19% – about being provided incomplete information about their diagnosis and treatment options, 8% respondents were denied hospital admission, and 8% said they were requested to pay a bribe.

75%

The recent problems concerning the receipt of social payments and benefits include the registration or violation of a right to state pensions and to the subsidy to utilities. These issues have been mentioned by 40% and 31% respondents respectively who chose this category of problems. Also, more than 5% respondents faced difficulties with the registration of the social assistance for newborns, people with disabilities, those who are not entitled for pensions, with calculation of pensions, as well as with arrears in payments and unjustifiedly protracted processing of requests for social assistance or benefits.

A recent problem from the category «Medical services» during the last three years: Тоp-6 (% of the respondents listed in the category «Medical services»; multiple answers possible) Request to pay for medicines and services that are meant to be provided for free

51%

Health problems caused by poor quality of healthcare

27%

Late or wrong diagnosis of their diseases

20%

Being provided incomplete information about their diagnosis and treatment options

19%

Denial in hospital admission

8%

Request of a bribe

8%

7

The problems from the category “Utilities” predominantly concern the provision of services of poor quality or even the absence of the services from housing and utilities service providers (“ZhKH” and “OSBB”) (51%), wrong calculations of the utilities bills (35%), problems with general renovation and maintenance of a house (19%) and the termination or regular interruptions in the provision of utility services (10%).

A recent problem from the category «Utilities» during the last three years: Тоp-4 (% of the respondents who encountered problems listed in the category «Utilities»; multiple answers possible) Poor quality of services provided by housing and utilities service providers (ZhKH or OSBB), or non-provision of services

51%

Wrong calculations of the utilities bills

35%

Problems with general renovation and maintenance of the house Termination or regular interruptions in the provision of utility services

19% 10%

Seriousness of problems The respondents were asked to use a 1-10 scale to assess the problems they listed in every field, with “1” meaning the least grave / serious problem and “10” – for the gravest / most serious problem one4. Out of all mentioned problems, 15% were characterised as the least grave (marked from 1 to 3), 45% – as moderately grave (marked from 4 to 7), and 70% – as the gravest (8-10).

27% of all projects were scored 10, i.e. were regarded as top grave / serious.

Gravity / seriousness of problems (% of problems in all fields that happened during the last three years according to the respondents)

The least grave problems (1-3 points):

Another 3% respondents who chose this category of problems suffered damage to their apartment caused by the emergency situation in adjacent territory, 4% had difficulties paying the debts for the utilities.

Within the “Employment” category, the majority of problems often concerned the violations in the remuneration arrangements (42%) and failure to formalise the employment through a contract (29%).

Other frequently mentioned problems include: unjustified refusal to hire a person (12%), pressure on a person to perform the tasks not envisaged by his/her employment contract (10%), violation by an employer of a collective bargaining agreement (9%) and unsatisfactory employment conditions (8%).

42%

Failure to formalise the employment through a contract

29%

Unjustified refusal to hire a person

12%

Pressure on a person to perform the tasks not envisaged by a contract

10%

Violation by an employer of a collective bargaining agreement

9%

Unsatisfactory employment conditions

8%

A recent problem from the category «Relations with neighbours» from the last three years: Тоp-6 (% of the respondents who encountered problems from the category «Relations with neighbours»; multiple answers possible)

8

15%

A recent problem from the category «Employment» from the last three years: Тоp-6 (% of the respondents who encountered problems listed in the category «Emlpoyment»; multiple answers possible) Violations in the remuneration arrangements

Day-to-day conflicts

60%

Regular and excessive noise Leaving

37%

rubbish in commonly used public space

13%

Damage to property or unauthorised occupation of an orchard or garden

12%

Spreading fake information

10%

Border disputes with neighbors

7%

Conflicts with neighbors usually were of a day-to-day nature (60%) or concerned regular and excessive noise (37%).

Other 13% respondents who reported issues with neighbors complained that such neighbors left rubbish in their commonly used public space, 12% – about damage to their property or unauthorised occupation of an orchard or garden, 10% – about spreading fake information, 7% – about border disputes.

Problems of moderate gravity (4-7 points):

45% 10

3

2

The least grave problem

Most grave problems (8-10 points):

11

14

9

40% 11

27

8 5

The most grave problem

In total, 10% of all the respondents had at least one problem assessed from 1 to 3, 25% – at least one problem assessed from 4 to 7, and 17% – at least one problem assessed from 8 to 10. It should be highlighted, though, that one person could have several problems of different gravity.

The average assessment of the level of gravity of problems from different categories is expectedly different. The problems connected with crimes and family relations were considered the gravest. Such problems concerned: criminal offences, custody/guardianship of children and non-legally capable persons, administrative responsibility, domestic violence, family relations during and after divorce, violations of rights in the course of implementation of court decisions.

Also, the problems with respondents’ apartments (property issues) as well as debt payment (excluding those concerning the utilities) were listed among the gravest.

The problems with neighbors, problems in education and consumer rights were labeled the least grave.

4

The question was formulated as follows: “Please, think about this problem and look at this scale. It has “10” on its right, standing for the gravest problem you have ever had. “1” on its left marks the least grave problem you have ever encountered. What is the most suitable number to describe the gravity of this problem? For example, “2” could be used to describe the defect of an inexpensive electric device you have just bought, whereas “9” would stand for a situation when you have lost your apartment and have to live on the street.”

9

Consequences of the problems

The average gravity of problems depending on categories (an average mark on a scale from 1 to 10 concerning all problems mentioned by the respondents)

8,7

8,5

8,2

8,1

8

8

8

7,9

7,9

7,6

7,3

7,2

7,1

6,9

6,9

6,8

6,7

6,6

5,7

5,6

5

Br in

ua

Negative consequences of legal problems (% of total number of listed problems; multiple answers possible)

Financial losses

62%

Stress

49%

Health issues or injury

23%

Loss of confidence or fear

9%

Damage to property

5%

Negative effects on family relations

5%

Loss of job

2%

Other

3%

Nothing of the above

14%

ad

m

in

y/ g

gi

ng

to

Cu s

to d

Cr im

in

al

of fe

nc es * ist rdia ra ns t h i ve Ow ip * lia n ac bi lit co y* m De o bt dat io re n* p Im ay Fa m pl m en em i l y t* en Dom re ta es lati tio on So tic n s ci vi of al ol * co be en ur ne ce t * fit de sa ci sio nd n* pa ym M ili e ta ry nts M on serv ey ice re * la t i Em on Bo s di pl Di ly oy vi m sio inju en H rie n t ea or s, lt Re ro la reg ad hca ist tio r e a ra ns tio ccid w en n ith of t s* pu pr bl op Re ic au erty nt th of or ac iti co es m od at io n* Ut Re L ili la tie tio and s ns re la w tio ith ns ne ig hb or s Co Edu ns c um atio n er rig ht s

8,9

The majority of legal problems that the respondents mentioned caused undesirable consequences such as financial losses (62% of the problems), stress (49%), health issues or injury (23%), loss of confidence or fear (9%), etc.

Only 14% respondents had no particular consequences of the listed problems.

*

Note: information is meager (thenumber of problems of a respective category is less than 20)

The respondents tend to mark as the gravest those problems that at the time of the survey were not settled / aggravated or that were not settled in a way satisfactory for a respondent. The problems that have lasted for a while also usually receive a higher mark on this scale. Apart from that, other factors impacting an assessment include: negative consequences of a problem, in particularly, loss of job, damage to property, persecution, threats and attacks, health issues, loss of confidence and fear.

The average gravity of problems depending on their features (an average mark on a scale from 1 to 10 concerning all problems mentioned by the respondents)

6,0

Problem was settled in full

6,6

Problem was settled partially

7,0

Problem was not settled or get worse

5,9

Decision is rather satisfactory

6,9

Decision is rather nonsatisfactory

7,3

6,2

5,3

6,9

Problem Problem Problem had Problem had started before started in no negative negative 2017 2017 or later consequences consequences

Prevalence of negative consequences of legal problems (% of the respondents who had at least one problem during the last three years; multiple answers possible)

Financial losses

70%

Stress

44%

Health issues or injury

24%

Loss of confidence or fear

11%

Damage to property

7%

Negative effects on family relations

5%

Loss of job

2%

Other

3%

Nothing of the above

As regards the prevalence of negative consequences, in cases of the respondents who reported at least one legal problem, 86% of them experienced something from the following: financial losses (70% of the respondents), stress (44%), health issues (24%), loss of confidence or fear (11%), negative effects on family relations (7%), damage to property (5%), loss of job (2%) and other consequences (3%). Only 14% faced nothing from the above as a result of their legal problems.

14%

Negative consequences depend on a field in which a legal problem was observed. For the sake of comparison, several categories of possible consequences were singled out: “material losses” – they include financial losses, damage to or loss of job; “moral damage” – stress, negative effects on family relations, loss of confidence, fear; “health damage” – health issues, injuries, alcohol or drug issues.

In more than 50% cases, material losses result from the problems in the following fields: debt repayment, financial issues, injuries and car accidents, criminal offences, employment, social

10

11

payments and benefits, consumer rights, utilities, owned and rented apartment, medical services and relations with public authorities. Moral damage is caused by a vast majority of problems in different fields. It is most prevalent in the situations of domestic violence, family or neighbor conflicts, custody/guardianship and some others. Interestingly, the conflicts concerning financial issues, apartment renting and land relations cause, first and foremost, moral rather non material losses. Expectedly, health issues mostly arise from the criminal offences, medical services / healthcare and domestic violence.

Duration of problems As noted above, the survey focused on the settled and unsettled issues that had lasted for a while, starting from 2015 or even earlier.

Of all problems listed by the respondents, 26% had already settled at the time of survey, and 14% had them partially settled. As regards the remaining cases, nothing had changed, or the things even had got worse.

Negative consequences of problems depending on category (% of all listed problems; multiple answers possible) Material losses

Moral damage

As regards the fully settled problems, the majority of them lasted for less than three months: 39% – less than one month, 32% – one to three months. 19% of the problems were settled during a year and the remaining 10% took more than a year to settle.

Health damage

100

Duration of problems that were fully settled (% of the listed problems that were settled)

9%

7%

3%

1-3 months

39%

10%

The tendencies of the problems that were unsettled during the survey were different. Only 13% of them lasted up to three months. 38% of the problems did not settle for four to 12 months, 23% – for 13-24 months, 26% of the problems lasted for more than two years.

pt Cr rep Re imi aym n nt en of al o t ac ffe * nc co e m Bo od s* di Do Hea atio ly n in ju mes lthc * rie ar t e s, ic v ro i Br ad ole in n gi M acc ce* ng on i ey den to t re So adm la s* c in Em tio Re ial n ist pl b la ra oy s tio en tiv m ns efi e e lia nt w ts a ith b n pu d p ility bl aym * ic au en Cu Fam tho ts st Im od ily r ritie pl s y/ el em a en Ow gua tio rd ns ta n tio ac ian * c n s of om hip o c ou da * Di vi rt tio sio de n* n ci or s E du ion* re gi c at st io ra tio Ut n n ili of tie Re la Con pro s tio s p ns um ert y w er ith ri ne ght s M ili igh bo ta r r La y se s nd rv re ice la * tio ns

De

13%

15%

20%

1-3 months 4-6 months 7-12 months 13-24 months

*

25-36 months

Note: information is meager (the number of problems of a respective category is less than 20)

Over 36 months

23%

7-12 months Over 24 months

Duration of problems that have not been settled yet (% of all listed problems that have not been settled)

11%

4-6 months 13-24 months

32% 0

Less then a month

18%

An average, the problems related to the implementation of a court decision, family relations, own apartment, money relations, military service, domestic violence stay unsettled longer (for more than two years).

Average duration of a problem depending on a category, including those that were already settled at the time of the survey (average duration by months of all problems listed by the respondents)

28

27

26

26

24

23

21

20 18

18

18 18

18

17

17

17

16 15

13

10

3

Im

pl

em

en

ta

tio

n

of

co ur td Fa ec m is io i Ow ly n* re n la ac t io co ns m * o M on da tio ey n re * M la ili ti Do tary ons Di vi Re mes ser si vi on nt tic ce of or * vi o a re le cc gi om nc st e* ra Re tio oda la tio n tio o n* fp ns r w ith ope r ty ne ig hb or De Ut s pt ili ti re pa es ym He ent * al Re th la ca tio r E e ns du c w ith Em atio n pu pl oy bl ic m e au th nt or La Bo iti n di es d Cr ly im rel in at ju i So io rie nal ci ns o s al be , roa ffen ce ne d ac s* fit Cu s an cide st d nt pa od s Br ym * y/ in gi gu en ng ar t s to Co dia ad n ns m um ship in * is er tra r tiv igh t e lia s bi lit y*

38

*

12

Note: information is meager (the number of problems of a respective category is less than 20)

13

Discrimination as part of the problems Only 5% of those who had at least one problem during the last three years believe that it had a discrimination component, namely: prejudiced attitude, humiliation, violence or unjustified restrictions to enjoyment of the rights on certain grounds.

On the other hand, the last four categories are relatively less prevalent. Therefore, among all problems that have a discrimination component, those that happen more often are also more widespread.

They include the problems with employment (29%), relations with neighbors (11%), social payments and benefits, utilities (10% each), consumer rights and healthcare (8% each).

The grounds that formed a basis for discrimination are as follows: age (24% of problems have a discriminatory component), financial status (19%) and health status (15%).

The problems that have a discrimination component are generally assessed as more serious (8.3 out of 10) compared to those that do not have discriminatory features (66.5 out of 10). Moreover, such problems are more likely to cause negative consequences. For instance, 73% of problems with a discrimination component caused stress, 47% – health issues; 34% – loss of confidence and fear. In cases of the problems without discriminatory features, the respective indicators are 47%, 22% and 8%.

Discrimination features: ТОP-8 features (% of reported problems having a discriminatory component; multiple answers possible)

Findings of the nationwide surveys indicate that the instances of discrimination based on age and financial status are the most prevalent and visible.

The same share was observed for the sample of the reported problems: 5% of all reported problems had a discrimination component.

Age

24%

Financial status

19%

Health status

15%

Family status

8%

Residence

6%

Sex

5%

Ethnic or social origin

5%

Language

3%

Other grounds

6%

Hard to say

24%

For instance, the survey “Ukrainian Landscapes of Discrimination”5 (2016) indicates that the residents of Ukraine observe the prejudice against and restriction of rights of the poor, elderly, people with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and the representatives of the LGBT-community the most often.

According to the nationwide survey conducted in 20136, more than a half of persons who faced discrimination themselves or heard about such experiences from their acquaintances link it to the financial circumstances of the discriminated person. According to the respondents, other common discriminatory features include age, affiliation with or sympathy for a certain political party, ethnicity.

Another survey “Human Rights in Ukraine”7 (2010) shows that Ukrainians feel discriminated against, first and foremost, on the basis of their financial status. According to the respondents, other common discriminatory features include age, place of residence, language, ideological beliefs and affiliation with or sympathy for a certain political party. As regards the society as a whole, the majority of the residents think that the elderly and the poor suffer from human rights violations the most often.

The list of the most discriminated groups compiled from the findings of every survey depends on the wording of a question and proposed list of options. However, the afore-mentioned two grounds for discrimination – age and financial status – are singled out as most prevalent by the respondents of every survey quoted above.

The problems that had a discrimination component most frequently are those concerning the relations with neighbors, family relations during and after divorce, domestic violence, military service, own apartment and criminal offences.

Problems that have a discrimination component most frequently (% of reported problems) Yes

Employment

17%

83%

Relations with neighbors

11%

89%

Family relations during and after divorce

11%

89% 33%

Domestic violence 13%

87%

Own apartment

12%

88%

All problems *

67%

Military service

Criminal offences

14

No

8% 5%

92% 95%

Note: information is meager (the number of problems of a respective category is less than 20)

* 5

The report can be accessed at: http://maidan.org.ua//wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Буклет_Ландшафти-Дискримінації_SocioLogist.pdf

6

The results of the survey can be accessed at: http://www.khpg.org/en/pda/index.php?id=1386546716

7

The report can be accessed at: http://www.ihrpex.org/upl/doc/report_rights_2010_extra_short_5.pdf

15

WAYS OF SETTLING LEGAL PROBLEMS Attempts to settle a problem and their results The first step in settling a legal problem is the actions undertaken by a person on his/her own.

Such actions include the attempts to negotiate with another party to a conflict or looking for necessary information or reaching out for advice. However, no attempts were made to resolve 32% of problems.

Certain attempts to influence the situation were made with respect to the remaining 68% of problems. 67% respondents who faced several problems tried settling at least one of them.

52

Attempts to do something to settle a problem (% of all listed problems)

4%

1%

26%

Did or tried to do smth to settle their problem Did nothing / did not try to settle their problems

Satisfaction with an outcome of the resolution (% вof the problems that were resolved fully or in part)

2% 2% 34% 10%

Problem is settled in full Problem is settled partially Nothing changed Situation got worse Hard to say

55%

14% 29%

Fully satisfied Rather satisfied So, so Rather unsatisfied Not satisfied at all Hard to say, refuse to answer

23%

77% of all reported problems were not settled at the time of the survey, or their resolution did not satisfy a respective respondent. That is true for 40% respondents and 81% of those who has reported at least one problem.

Notwithstanding the above, the respondents keep trying to change the situation only with respect to 36% of the problems that were not fully settled (which constitutes 27% of all reported problems).

16% respondents and 32% of those who had at least one such problem continue their attempts to settle such legal problems.

Findings of the survey confirm that in cases when attempt were made to settle the problem, it is more likely than it would be settled, compared to cases when no attempts were made. A half (52%) of the problems where resolution attempts were made were settled at least in part. The respondents find such resolution fully or partially satisfying in the case of one third (31%) of the problems.

The respective indicators for the problems where no attempts were made are as low as 15% and 5%. Therefore, a passive approach to problem solving is not justified because inactivity produces satisfying results far more rarely than attempts to do something.

16

Problem is settled at least in part

31

Respondent is fully or partially satisfied with solution

15

32%

At the time when this survey was conducted, 26% of the problems reported by the respondents were 68% resolved in full, 14% were resolved partially, 55% were not resolved and everything remained as it used to be and 4% of the problems aggravated even further. The respondents are fully or mostly satisfied with the outcome of 57% of problems that were settled fully or at least in part. A certain degree of dissatisfaction remained with respect to the rest of problems that were resolved in full or in part.

Status of the problem and its resolution at the moment of the survey (% of all reported question

Outcome of a problem depending on the steps taken to resolve it, if any (% of all reported problems)

Attempts were made to settle a problem

5

No attempts were made to settle a problem

The first step to settle a legal problem is to decide to take actions in this direction. However, as mentioned above, many respondents do not even try to settle a problem or give up any initiatives in this regard even if they are not satisfied with the outcome. The key barriers that emerge at this stage are the disbelief that justice can be reached and concerns that the settlement of the problem will require too much investment of money, time and efforts.

The disbelief that one can change something resulted in passive approach of the respondents in 60% cases when the problem was not solved; the unwillingness to invest efforts / ‘stress out about the problem’ – in 42% cases; the unwillingness to invest time – in 31% cases; and the expected financial costs – in 21% cases. At the same time, not knowing the sources of assistance, fear and little relevance of the problems became secondary causes of inactivity.

It should be highlighted that physical inaccessibility of the sources of assistance was almost not mentioned. It is not considered as a barrier in the present survey. All four cities and towns have, among other organisations, the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centres. At the same time, lack of aid providers in rural areas may constitute a problem.

Reasons for inactivity with respect to a problem (% of all reported problems with respect to which attempts were made to settle them; multiple answers possible) Did not believe I would be able to get justice / it would change smth Thought I would invest too much effort to settle this problem

60%

Thought I would invest too much time

31%

42%

Throught it was be too expensive

21%

Did not know which authority to reach out to settle this problem

13%

Did not know where to seek legal aid

6%

Did not know whom to reach out for information/advice

6%

Was afraid to do anything

5%

Believed the problem would settle by itself

4%

Problem was no important to me

4%

There is no legal aid provider in my settlement

0,5%

Other

2%

Hard to say/ Refuse to answer

3%

17

One can also suppose that inactivity is partially connected with a low level of gravity or priority of a problem. Unwillingness to allocate the resources, including efforts/emotions, may indicate that the problem is not worth such an investment. Findings of the survey support this hypothesis. The more serious the problem, the more likely steps will be taken to settle it.

For instance, the respondents did something in 58% of least grave situations, whereas for the gavest situations, action was taken in 78% cases. The respondents keep trying to settle the issue in 7% of the least serious instances and in 36% of the gravest.

When one compares different categories of problems (each of which has a list of at least 20 possible answers), the attempts to settle an issue are most rare in the fields of consumer rights (57%), employment (58%), healthcare (45%) and education (41%).

Attempts to settle an issue depending on its gravity and outcome of these attempts (% of reported problems)

Results of problem resolution pursuant to a category (% of reported problems)

The percentage of the problems that were not settled or the settlement of which was unsatisfactory is high in all listed categories. It is particularly apparent in such categories as healthcare (88%), employment (87%), education (86%), utilities (85%) and relations with neighbors (84%).

% problems in which solution was sought % problems that were not solved of solution is not satisfactory

% problems in which solution was sought % problems that were not settled or a solution is not satisfactory % problems in which efforts to seek solution continue

54

65

58

78

78

94

82

84

72

82

72

81 81

74

79 82

78

85

87

84

88

71 58

57

65 45

36

25

86

41

Notwithstanding the fact that there is a higher likelihood that attempts will be made to settle more serious problems, the respondent still remain inactive in 22% cases. The reasons of inactivity slightly differ depending on the level of gravity. For instance, a financial barrier is almost never an issue in case of the gravest situations Reasons of inactivity with respect to setling a problem (only in 9% cases). However, it depending on its gravity (% of all reported problems with can be a reason to proceed with respect to which no settlement attempts were taken; the resolution of 25% of less multiple answers possible) grave problems. At the same time, the lack of knowledge as Least grave problems Problems of moderate gravity to whom to consult and ask for Gravest problems help is a barrier in one third of the gravest cases and is not 53 Did not believe I would be able to get justice / it would 64 particularly relevant for other change smth 57 cases. Two key factors at the core of inaction are common 67 Expected the problem to get for all problems: the disbelief settled by itself, or unwillingness 57 in a possibility of justice with a to invest time and effort 49 chance to win a case and certain 26 passivity. The latter is manifested Throught it was be too 25 in the unwillingness to invest too expensive 9 much time and effort as well as in the expectation that an issue 11 Did not know whom to will settle by itself. Even though 14 reach out for help 30 the latter factor is less important for the gravest situations, it still 1 causes inactions in almost a half Was afraid to take any 10 action of cases (48%).

1

18

n tio ca Ed u

He

al

th

ca

ht ns

um

er

rig

oy m Co

pl

re

s

t en

s

ns

Re

la

tio

Re

la

tio

Em

hb ig ne w

bl pu ith w ns

or

s tie ili

ic

ith

th au

Ut

iti or

io at re l nd

an s fit ne be al

ci So

es

ns

ts en d

ey on M

La

re l

pa ym

at

pr op n tio tra is re g or on si

Notwithstanding the above, in case of the gravest problem, there is a higher likelihood that it won’t be settled or that an outcome will be unsatisfactory. In particular, the likelihood of such unsatisfactory outcome is 82% for the gravest problems and 58% for the least grave.

of

Gravest problems

vi

Problems of moderate gravity

Di

Least grave problems

io

er

ns

ty

7

Summing up the above, the unsatisfied demand for legal aid is 40% – this is the percentage of the respondents who have at least one unresolved legal problem or who are not satisfied with the way it was settled. If one does not take into account the problems which the respondents consider the least serious, there are 35% respondents who have pending problems of moderate and highest gravity, and 25% of them tried resolving those problems. As regards the pending problems, with respect to which the settlement attempts are also pending, only 16% of the respondents currently need help.

It is important to understand that not everyone comprehends the need in and are ready to reach out for legal consultancy. Findings of the survey show that many people, even when they have a problem, cannot take a first step towards its resolution and start acting. The reasons include disbelief, perception of the process of settlement of legal problems as a complicated, emotionally exhausting, protracted and often financially costly.

According to the survey “The Level of Use of Legal Opportunities”, 58% respondents took steps to settle their problems, whereas 42% remained inactive. Among those who did at least something to settle their issue, only 35% did not obtain a desired outcome. Whereas more than 50% of those inactive remained with an unresolved problem.

The respondents who did not take steps to address a problematic issue explain their choice by their disbelief that such steps could yield any result (56%). The second most popular reason for inaction is the emotional stress caused by the process of resolving a problem (27%). 18% hoped that a problem will settle by itself. 11% believed that the settlement would take too much time, 10% did not know whom to consult and 9% were afraid of the consequences.

The survey “The Demand for Justice in Ukraine” confirms that emotional concerns are a considerable barrier to taking steps to settle a problem. The disbelief in a fair resolution is the dominant reason for inaction (42%). Less prevalent are the arguments of not knowing what to do (11%), little relevance of a problem (10%), lack of time (8%), lack of money (5%), fear to aggravate the relations with an adversary (5%), the other party to a conflict having more influence (4%).

19

Findings of the previous surveys indicate that disbelief of the population in the resolution of their legal problems is the biggest hurdle to settling them. It is also considered that the resolution of legal issues is complicated and long. Financial considerations are also relevant: the respondents believe that legal aid (especially the aid provided by qualified private lawyers) will be too costly. Finally, public institutions are believed to be inefficient, and the judiciary enjoys little trust of the population8.

The process of settling a problem A problem from the list of those a respondent tried resolving was randomly selected for him or her. If a person had no problems or he/she took no effort to settle any of them, such respondent did not answer further more detailed questions about his or her attempts. Almost 700 problems and almost 700 respondents were selected. This means that around one third of all the respondents answered additional questions. 22% of them provided the details of the utilities problems, 18% – of consumer rights violations, 16% – of the difficulties with obtaining social payments and benefits, 7% – of the healthcare issues, 6% – of employment problems, 5% – of the problems with division or registration of property, 26% – about other issues.

The majority of the respondents (91%) settled a problem with the other party by peaceful means, 42% used only such means, not taking any other measures. In some instances, the parties tried to settle the issue informally, including by paying financial compensations, physical or moral pressure (15%). In 17% cases, the respondent was contacted by an official representative of the other party.

In every fourth case (25%) the problem was referred to a public authority or to a local selfgovernment body; lawyers or barristers were involved in almost the same amount of cases (23%). 14% respondents referred their dispute to a court, however, a judgment was rendered only in 10% of such cases. Furthermore, the police was involved in settling 9% disputes. In sum, the respondents turned to public authorities, courts, police or lawyers in 44% cases. 24% cases were addressed through purely legal means (lawyers and/our courts). It should be stressed that the suggestion to have the disputed settled legally could originate both from a respondent and from his or her counterpart.

Interestingly, almost no respondents reported resorting to bribes, whether by him/her or by the other participant to a conflict, to encourage public officials to rule in their favor. Consequently, the survey does not confirm the use of such negative informal practices of settling the problems as bribery, corruption, physical or moral pressure, etc. In fact, the attempts to settle a dispute through a dialogue are prevalent.

8

The report can be accessed at: http://www.razumkov.org.ua/upload/1423820786_file.pdf, http://www.razumkov.org.ua/upload/Sudova_reforma_2013.pdf, http://www.razumkov.org.ua/ukr/socpolls.php?cat_id=161

20

What happened in the course of settling the problems (% of the respondents who answered further detailed questions about the ways to settle a problem; multiple answers possible) You and other party tried/settled the problem in an amicable way

91%

Your or other party complained to a public authority or a local self-government body

25%

You or other party contacted a lawyer or a barrister

23%

You were contacted by an official representative of the other party (for example, a debt recovery officer) You and other party tried to settle the dispute informally

17%

You or other party applied to court

14%

You or other party were summoned to court

11%

The dispute was considered by a court

11%

A court took a decision on your dispute

10%

You or other party contacted the police

9%

You or other party gave a bribe/gift to an official

1%

15%

26% respondents who took steps to settle a problem did it by their own means, not reaching out to third parties. The rest sought the consultancy of their relatives, friends (37%). 11% reached out to public authorities, 8% – to public organisations and state officials, 8% – to consultancy services, 9% – to courts, 5% – to police, 6% – to the lawyers they know who provided their services free of charge, 5% – to paid lawyers, 4% – to barristers, 3% – to social services. Other options, including the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centres, NGOs, Administrative Service Centres (ASC), trade unions, etc., were chosen by 3% of the respondents each. Тоp-10 persons and organisations reached out for help (% of the respondents who answered further detailed questions about the ways to settle a problem; multiple answers possible)

Relatives, friends

37%

Public authorities and local self-government

11%

Courts

9%

Consultancy services or hotlines Public organizations, officials

8%

A lawyer they knew, free of charge

6%

Police

5%

Paid lawyer

5%

Paid barrister

4%

Social service provider, social worker

3%

Reached out to nobody

26%

8%

21

To summarise, persons that have legal problems usually settle them on their own or using their social connections. 20% of all the respondents consulted professional lawyers and barristers (both those who provide paid services and those who provide service free of charge). Considering that the consultancy services, hotlines and other organisations helping to settle the disputes also provide professional legal aid, the aggregate share of those who sought professional legal aid is as high as 29%. 20% respondents cumulatively reached to public service providers and institutions (including public authorities and local self-government bodies, public organisations, public officials, ASC, employment centres, social service providers, social workers as well as MPs, members of local councils and offices of political parties, candidates).

Findings of previous surveys indicate that attempts to settle a legal issue on their own is the most widespread. Other popular options include attempts to settle a problem using one’s personal connections and reaching out to public authorities as well as consulting professional lawyers, barristers and other providers of legal services.

The quantitative assessments differ greatly in different surveys due to the differences in the wording of questions and context. For instance, among the respondents of the survey “The Level of Use of Legal Opportunities” who took steps to settle their problem, 57% tried reaching an agreement with the other party, 38% contacted public authorities, 35% consulted their relatives, 21% sought legal consultancy, 18% search for information themselves and just 9% decided to go to court. Those who sought legal consultancy, reached out, first and foremost, to a professional lawyer or their acquaintances. 39% consulted a lawyer, 26% – their friends and relatives, 20% – public organisations, 18% – fellow lawyers, 9% – legal clinics, 8% – NGOs, 5% – an office of a political party. Only 2% respondents received the consultancy from free legal aid offices, 1% – from trade unions.

The survey “The Demand for Justice in Ukraine” also demonstrates the strategies the Ukrainians use to settle their legal problems. Among those who tried settling their issue, 47% reached out to the other party, 18% sought help from their relatives, 18% contacted public authorities, 15% – police, 9% looked for legal consultation.

In other words, the information of different survey about the sources of help used to address legal problems varies greatly. It can nevertheless be concluded that a minority of those affected seek help from professional lawyers or courts.

As indicated above, 29% respondents who attempted to settle their legal problem sought professional legal help, other respondents decided not to pursue this route. The key reason of not going to a lawyer is the belief that a problem can be settled by other means (according to 49% respondents). The respondents might be right and their problem, indeed, could be settled by other means; however the available data does not allow to verify the validity of this statement. The second barrier is connected with financial concerns. It was brought up by 29% respondents who did had not gone to a professional lawyer. The third most prevalent hurdle – disbelief that justice can be reached through such means (23%). The more serious the problem is, the more often this hurdle is brought up. Finally, every fifth respondent said that going to a lawyer would require considerable moral (20%) and temporal (19%) resources to settle an issue. Lack of information about the sources of such help hardly has any impact (7%) in comparison with other barriers.

The explanations as to why a respondent had referred a matter to a court were similar to the above. Only 9% of those who did not go to court still considered this option. Almost a half of the respondents (45%) believed that their problem was not of a kind to be taken to court. Financial considerations proved to be a considerable hurdle for 38% respondents. 19% did not believe in the possibility of reaching justice through courts, the same percentage did not want to invest their energy/effort in court proceeding and 17% expected it to take too long. Lack of information as to how to take a case to a court or a court’s remote location hardly played any role.

The more serious the problem is, the more often the lack of money to participate in court proceeding and disbelief in a possibility to reach justice through a court become barriers.

22

The reasons of not seeking professional legal aid (% of the respondents who answered further detailed questions about the ways to settle a problem; multiple answers possible)

Believed that a problem can be settled by other means Lawyer’s services were too expensive Did not believe it would help bring justice

49%

Believed they would invest too much efforts Believed they would invest too much time

20%

29% 23%

19%

Did not know where to receive legal aid

7%

Other

1%

Hard to say

3%

The reasons of not going to court (% of the respondents who answered further detailed questions about the ways to settle a problem; multiple answers possible)

Believed that my problem was not of a kind to be taken to court

45%

Court consideration is too expensive for me

38%

Did not believe it would help bring justice

19%

Were afraid that would require that too much effort Were afraid that would require that too much time

19% 17%

Did not know how to do it

3%

There is no court in my settlement/ courts are located far

1%

Other

2%

Hard to say

4%

The experience of turning to different persons and organisations with a view to settling a legal problem varies in its efficiency and results. When comparing top-10 sources of help in terms of the holistic nature and relevance of provided information and help, the lawyers, barristers and courts are the top options. At the same time, consultations of one’s close circle (of relatives, friends) are assessed as just a little less effective than those of professional lawyers. The help of social service providers, social workers and consultancies is assessed rather favorably, even though they provide relevant help or information in the full scale less frequently. The appeals to public authorities, public organisations and police are considered the least effective for settling a problem, first and foremost due to the lack or incomplete nature of information and advice they provide.

23

At the moment when a problem happened, 70% respondents fully or largely understood their legal rights in that situation, a third (30%) did not understand them at all or understood them partially or could not assess their understanding. A half of the latter category (52%) still lacked clarity about their rights when the survey was being conducted, whereas 37% of them had managed to increase their awareness about an issue. They largely managed to do so by discussing an issue with relatives and friends (44%), lawyers and barristers (32%) and the other party to aconflict (16%), as well as by doing a necessary research on the Internet (34%).

Assessment of the completeness and usefulness of help/information received from top-10 providers of services/advice (an average mark calculated of a scale from 1 to 4 among the respondents who contacted the respective persons and organisations*) Completeness of information or help

Usefulness of information or help 2,9

Paid barrister Paid laywer, professional consultant

2,8

A lawyear whom I know, free of charge

2,8

3,4 3,4 3,3

2,7

Court

3,3

2,6

Relatives, friends Social service provider, social worker

3,3

2,5 1,9

Police Consultancy service provider, hotline

3,5

4%

2,8

1,8

Public organization, official Did not reach out to nobody

3,2

1,6

2,9

1,5

2,7

*

Question А4 (for everyone who contacted a certain person or organisation): How did these people or organisations help you – would you say you received from them: 1 – no help or information, 2 – some help or information, 3 – almost full help or information, 4 – all help or information? * Question А5 (for those who received at least some help or information from a certain person or organisation): How would you assess the usefulness of help or information provided to you: was it: 1 – not useful at all, 2 – rather not useful, 3 – rather useful, 4 – very useful?

The advantages of consulting professional lawyers are supported by the answers to the questions as to who was most helpful. It is particularly apparent in comparison with the answers about public authorities and institutions.

80% respondents who had consulted lawyers (whether on a paid or free basis) indicated them as those who helped the most to settle a problem. Second most popular advisors are paid barristers (59% respondents satisfied with their consultancy), followed by relatives, friends (55%), social service providers (46%) and courts (45%). Less than a third of those who contacted police and consultancies or hotlines considered them useful sources of help (30% and 26% respectively). Only 14% respondents who tried settling an issue by going to public authorities indicated them as the primary source of help.

Public organisations received almost the same review.

Percentage of those who consider a certain assisstance provider most efficient (% of those respondents who reached out to respective persons and organisation)

Contacted, believes s/he helped the most Contacted, don’t believe s/he helped the most

A lawyear whom I know, free of charge

80%

20%

Paid laywer, professional consultant

78%

22%

59%

Paid barrister

Social service provider, social worker Court

45%

46%

54%

45%

55%

30%

Police

24

41%

55%

Relatives, friends

Understanding their legal rights when the survey was conducted (% of the respondents who did not understand their rights when a problem arose or who understood it partially)

Understanding their legal rights when a problem emerged (% of the respondents who took steps to settle their issue)

70%

Consultancy service provider, hotline Public authority, local selfgovernment body

14%

86%

Public organization, official

13%

87%

26%

5%

21%

5%

11% 7% Did not understand at all Understood partially Mostly understood Fully understood Hard to say

Did not understand at all Understood partially Mostly understood Fully understood Hard to say

39%

31%

32%

45%

Only one third of all the respondents who took steps to settle a problem sought information to improve their understanding of a situation or of the ways of settling it in printed media, Internet, other mass media. 20% respondents browsed websites and applications, 12% used TV, video and radio, 7% used books, information cards, brochures or leaflets for self-help, 6% used newspapers and magazines. Two thirds of the respondents used none of the mentioned sources.

Interestingly, the use of books, Internet and media hardly depended on the level of understanding by the respondent of his or her rights at the moment when a problem emerged. 65% respondents that did not understand their rights at all still did not receive information about a problem from printed media, Interned and other mass media.

As noted above, a perception of high cost of settling legal problems is one of the barriers to making any attempts to settle them and seek professional legal aid. Findings of the survey allow to assess how much different ways of settling an issue really cost to respondents.

57% of the respondents who made attempts to settle a problem said they did not spend money on that. 9% of the respondents spent up to UAH 50, 11% – UAH 51-250, 8% – up to UAH 1,000, 9% – UAH 1,000-5,000, and 6% – more than UAH 5,000.

The respondents with different levels of income seem to have no direct correlation between the expenditures paid to settle an issue and a financial situation of a family. It means that wealthier people not necessarily pay more than those who are poorer. In other words, the expenditures rather depend on the character of a person than on a financial status of a person.

74%

25

10% respondents paid up to UAH 100 for legal aid, 56% – from UAH 100 to 500, 13% – from UAH 500 to 1,000 , 18% – from UAH 1,000 to 5,000, 3% – more than UAH 5,000. The barrister consultancy cost up to UAH 100 for 17% of the respondents who paid for it, from UAH 100 to 500 – for 29% respondents, from UAH 500 to 1,000 – for 23% respondents, from UAH 1,000 to 5,000 – for 28% and the remaining 3% paid even more for such consultancy. These amounts concern only those respondents who paid for a certain service in the course of settling a problem and do not take into account those who received such services free of charge.

Money spent to settle a legal issue (% of the respondents who answered further detailed questions about the ways to settle a problem)

57

The major financial losses happened in the situations when a person lost his or her job due to the absence at work or suspension of his or her business. For 57% respondents, such financial losses exceeded UAH 1,000.

9 UAH 0

UAH 50

11

UAH 51-250

8

9

UAH 251-1,000

UAH 1,001-5,000

At the same time, should there be no free aid and should a lawyer certainly resolve an issue, an average amount that the respondents would be ready to pay for professional advice is UAH 413. 30% of the respondents who tried to settle a legal problem are not ready to pay for legal aid at all, 22% of the respondents could pay up to UAH 100, 36% – UAH 101-500, and only 12% – more than UAH 500.

6 UAH 5,001+

The most prevalent types expenditures include those on traveling to another city (mentioned by 18% of the respondents who took steps to settle a problem), preparation and collection of documents – 16%, payment for telephone calls and postal services – 14%, legal aid – 13%, barrister’s services – 11%, collection of information and evidence – 11%, other accompanying costs – 12%. Interestingly, the answers to these questions helped establish those 3% of the respondents who made informal payments or gave bribes to have their legal issue settled. However, the real number of such people is probably higher.

The most prevalent types of expenditures – travel, telephone, collection of documents – were usually cheaper than the rest. There is another relatively inexpensive activity – collection of information or evidence. At least half of those who paid something for this spent up to UAH 100 in total.

Expenditures for setlling a legal problem (% of the respondents who answered further detailed questions about the ways to settle a problem; multiple answers possible)

UAH 101-500

UAH 1,000-5,000

18%

Preparation and collection of documents

16%

Telephone/post expenses

14%

Legal aid

13%

Other related expenses

12%

Barrister’s services

11%

Collection of information or evidence

11%

Court fee

9%

Financial losses due to absence from job/ suspension of business Informal payments, bribes

26

7% 3%

An average amount the respondents are ready to pay for professional legal aid depending on how much they have already spent on resolving their problem (average for the respondents who answered further detailed questions about the ways to resolve a problem

1725

Amount of expenditures for settling a legal problem (% of the respondents who had a respective expenditure)

Up to UAH 100

Travel to another city

An average amount people are ready to pay depends on the amount of time they have already invested in the resolution of their issue. Those who paid nothing before, on average, are ready to pay to a lawyer UAH 212. Those who already paid up to UAH 1,000 are ready to pay UAH 300 more. In contrast, those who already paid more than UAH 1,000 to settle their issue are ready to pay more for further legal aid.

UAH 500-1,000

UAH 5,001+

60

28

48

34

7 10

13

34

17

9

29

19

44

28

27

16

32 11

3

19 3

35 38

8

18

16

23

51 15

UAH 0

10

56 22

212

11

88 10

1265

19

13

289

302

UAH 50

UAH 51-250

UAH 251-1,000

UAH 1,001-5,000

UAH 5,001+

Those respondents who invited professional lawyers to help settle their problems on average were ready to pay UAH 968. In contrast, those who did not use legal services, were ready to spend only UAH 239. The amounts that people are ready to pay for legal aid depend on the level of their income. Those with low income (up to UAH 2,000 per family per month) are usually ready to pay UAH 230. And those relatively well-off (with up to UAH 7,000 per family per month) are ready to pay UAH 589.

At the end, the respondents gave their answers at to what advice they would give to their friends in a similar situation, what strategies they would recommend as the most efficient.

11

25 24

316

8

51% respondents would recommend seeking legal assistance. This is slightly more than those who recommend coping on their own or with an assistance of their closest surrounding (45%) (as the strategies are not mutually exclusive, some respondents chose both variants). 12% respondents find informal agreements with another party to a conflict effective. And just 2% would suggest resorting to bribery and threats.

27

FREE LEGAL AID

Strategies of actions the respondents would recomment to their friends should their rights be violated (% of the respondents who answered further detailed questions about the ways to settle a problem; multiple answers possible

Receiving free legal aid Only count on yourself

37%

Seek help from close surrounding relatives, friends

11%

Seek professional aid from lawyers

47%

Go to court

7%

Reach informal agreement with other party Seek persons who can influence on other party Bribe an official who can settle an issue

7%

Threaten the other party

1%

Other

2%

Hard to say

11%

6% 1%

Settle a problem on your own or engage close people: 45% Seek professional aid: 51% Reach informal agreement: 12% Bribes and threats: 2%

A similar question about the most effective and prevalent ways to settle the problems was asked during the survey “The Level of Use of Legal Opportunities”. The results differ from those received in the course of this survey, in particular as regards the use of unlawful methods.

Among the most effective ways to resolve the problems the respondents listed going to court (33%) and making arrangements with the other party, directly or by using a lawyer (27% for each option).

The unlawful methods (bribes, personal connections, threat) were considered effective by every fifth respondent. Only 11% believed that turning to public institutions could be an effective way to resolve a problem. Instead, the most popular with the respondents were the unlawful steps (43% of the respondents chose this option), going to court (30%), direct arrangements with the other party (22%), legal assistance (21%). 8% supported the involvement of public institutions in the settlement of an issue.

Consequently, the general ideas of the respondents about the effective strategies of settling legal disputes differ from the practices they would recommend to use if an actual problem (such as their) arises.

It is important to understand how the action plans differed in the cases of resolved and unresolved legal issues: which strategies were more effective and which, not that much. Contrary to the expectations, the search for information in various sources, consulting lawyers or going to court, cooperation with others affected with a view to settling a join problem are not those practices that would make a difference between resolved and unresolved problems. On the contrary, 34% respondents that settled their issue at least in part did not reach out for external help at all. Whereas in the case of those who have not settled their problem, this share is 17%. 23% respondents from the former group and 36% of the respondents from the latter group cooperated with other affected persons.

The level of gravity of a problem is directly connected with a probability of asking various persons and organisations for help, using legal means of settling a dispute, amount of expenditures and readiness to spend more to settle a problem. However, it would be wrong to claim that there is a one-way causation. On the one hand, objectively, a more problematic situation is harder to resolve and, thus, it requires more resources for that. On the other hand, the assessment of a situation as a grave may depend on the amount of efforts invested into its resolution. In other words, if a problem is dealt with easily, it will likely be assessed as less serious compared to the one that has caused much trouble.

Therefore, as findings of the survey demonstrate, likelihood of positive resolution are higher for those problems in which settlement was sought irrespective of a specific strategy of action.

28

Ukraine has a number of organisations providing free legal aid to the vulnerable populations. In particular, Kherson, Zhovti Vody, Sievierodonetsk and Sosnika, where the survey was conducted, have Free Secondary Legal Aid Centres. However, according to the collected data, the level of awareness of the residents of the four cities and towns about the Centres could be improved. It is, therefore, important to single out the most convenient ways of updating the population about the options of legal consultancy.

The respondents would ask their relatives (57%) and friends (52%) for information about the providers of free legal aid. Internet is the third most popular way to look for such information (mentioned by 39% respondents). 9% respondents would ask their colleagues, 10% – local authorities. Only 8% respondents would use social media platforms for this purpose. 10% respondents indicated other options of those they would reach out for information, with each option favored by up to 3% respondents.

It should also be noted that male respondents are more reluctant to ask their relatives (51%) and friends (48%) than females (62% and 56% respectively). Young people resorts to searching on the Internet (61%) and social media (17%) more often that the elderly (9% and 1% respectively).

Who would you reach out to if you had to find out where you could receive free legal aid? TOP-6 (% of the total number of the respondents; multiple answers possible) Relatives

57%

Friends

52%

Search on the Internet

39%

Local self-government bodies

10%

Co-workers

9%

Social networks

8%

Other

10%

Hard to say

6%

As regards the channels to receive information, it is most convenient for the respondents to learn about free legal aid from the Internet (this option was chosen by 51% respondents), excluding social media (13%). Such methods of receiving information as printed ads dropped in post boxes and information on utility bills are favored by almost the same share of the respondents – 23% and 26% respectively.

22% respondents chose TV and radio broadcasts that provide the examples how a person can defend his or her rights. At the same time, only 13% respondents indicated TV commercials as the best way to learn about free legal aid. Such sources of information as hotlines (10%), articles in printed mass media (7%), emails (8%) and text messages (8%) are less convenient for the population. Other categories have received 7% votes in total, with no more than 4% each.

29

The younger a respondent is, the more it is likely that he or she will decide to look for the necessary information on the web and vice versa: the older a person is, the more it is likely that he or she will use any printed media or TV as a source of information.

People with incomplete high school education much more often than those with a university degree choose printed ads dropped in post boxes (56% and 17% respectively) and information on utility bills (52% and 18% respectively).

What is the most convenient way for you to learn about the opportunities to receive free legal aid, consultation or advice? TOP-10 (% of the total number of the respondents; multiple answers possible ) Website on the Internet

51%

Information on utility bills

26%

Printed ads dropped in post box

23%

TV or radio broadcasts explaining how to defend your rights

22%

Social networks

13%

TV ads

13%

Hotline

10%

E-mail

8%

Text message

8%

Article in a newspaper or magazine

7%

Hard to say

5%

The most acceptable way to receive legal aid – provided that all other options are physically hard to access – is consultancy over the phone (chosen by 53% respondents). Consulting via Internet is the second most popular option (29%); however, it is more suitable for people who are between 18 and 45 years old. The lawyers’/barristers’ visits to the communities to provide consultancies in situ is a convenient way to receive legal aid for almost a quarter of the respondents (24%).

Competent persons who can be reached out to for help and publications on legal issues in media received 18% and 13% respectively. Other modes of access to information about legal aid such as a TV educational broadcasts with examples how do protect your rights, a mobile app, special legal publications, etc., were chosen by no more than 8% of the respondents.

The most acceptable ways to access legal aid if all other options are physically too remote. ТОP-5 (% of those who said that legal aid was not easily accessible for them; multiple answers possible: three options maximum)

The awareness about the variety of providers of legal aid was checked by asking questions hinting at an answer and by those that did not. Spontaneously and without any hints, 81% responders named lawyers, 70% – barristers, 51% – courts. 21% recalled the consultancy offices at public authorities and local self-government bodies, 15% named the offices of MPs/members of local councils that also provide consultancy to citizens, 6% – legal consultancy services provided by universities. Other options were recalled by no more than 3% respondents each.

As regards the questions hinting at the answers, 56% respondents recalled the offices of MPs/ members of local councils, 11% – legal consultancy services provided by universities, 6% – NGO “Legal Development Network” and 3% – Charity Fund “Right to Protection.”

The elderly people, when giving spontaneous answers, rarely name lawyers among the providers of legal aid (59%). A certain correlation can be traced between mentioning barristers and lawyers and the size of a city or town. For instance, in Kherson, 94% and 78% mentioned lawyers and barristers when giving spontaneous answers, in Severodonetsk – 78% and 74%, in Zhovti Vody – 78% and 72%, in Sosnivka – 69% and 55%.

Do you know where, in case of need, you can turn for the help to defend your rights? (% of the total number of the respondents; multiple answers possible; comparison of spontaneous answers with answers with hints) Spontaneously With hint

Lawyers

81%

Barristers

70%

Court

51%

Consultancy offices in public authorities and local self-government bodies

21%

Offices of MPs/members of local councils

Legal consultancy providers at universities

«Legal Development Network»

«Right to Protection»

30

Consultation over the phone

53%

Consultation on the Internet

29%

Barristers’/lawyers’ visits to communities

24%

Availability of competent persons who can be reach out for help

18%

Legal publications in mass media

13%

Hard to say

24%

Other

15% 56% 5% 11% 3% 6% 1% 3% 1%

31

Knowledge about the Centre and experience of contacting it Not more than a fourth (23%) of the respondents know about the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre (hereafter – the Centre) in their city or town. 16% of such respondents have consulted the Centre at least once.

Did you know that your city / town has the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre? (% of the total number of the respondents)

Have you ever turned to the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre for advice? (% of those who know about the existence of the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre in their city or town)

1%

Yes, I do No Hard to say

16%

23%

The residents of Zhovti Vody are the most knowledgeable about the existence of the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre in their city or town (37%), followed by Sosnivka (26%), Kherson and Sievierodonetsk that demonstrated almost the same level of awareness (18% and 15% respectively).

Knowledge about the existence of the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre in a respective city or town (% of the total number of the respondents from the respective city or town) Yes, I know

37 26

Yes, I did No

18

15

Yes, I know Zhovti Vody

76%

84%

More than three fourths (77%) of the respondents know that the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre provides legal consultancy. Moreover, 43% respondents believe that the Centre helps to formalise applications and complaints. 36% of respondents who know about the Centre also know that it helps with collection and formalisation of documents. The least known types of activities of the Centre are the representation of interests in court (19%), intermediary services in settling an issue without going to court (12%) and representation of interests before public authorities (10%). At the same time, 18% of those who answered this question did not know that services the Centre provided.

Do you know what services the Centre provides? (% of those who know about the existence of the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre in their city or town; multiple answers possible)

32

Sosnivka

Kherson

Sievierodonetsk

The elderly are the least knowledgeable about the existence of the Centre (15%) compared to other age groups (25-26%).

Almost all the respondents (87%) that know about the Centre would ask it for consultancy or help should the need be. Only 6% would not do that and other 6% have not made up their minds on this issue yet.

70% residents of Sosnivka, 45% residents of Zhovti Vody, 39% residents of Kherson and 31% residents of Sievierodonetsk are fully sure that they will reach out to the Centre. 8% Sievierodonetsk residents are sure that they will not consult the Centre, whereas less than 4% residents of other cities and towns think so.

Also, almost all the respondents (89%) would recommend consulting the Centre to their relatives should they have such a need. Only 3% would not make such a recommendation and 8% have not decided on the issue.

If a problem that requires legal consultancy emerges, will you ask the Centre for help? (% of those who know about the Centre)

Would you recommend consulting the Centre to your relative? (% of those who know about the Centre)

Legal consultation

77%

Assistance in producing applications and complaints

43%

Assistance in collection and formalisation of documents

36%

Assistance in collection of documents for court

28%

Definitely yes

49%

Definitely yes

47%

Assictance in production of legal documents

25%

Rather yes

38%

Rather yes

42%

Representation of interests in courts

19%

Rather no

3%

Rather no

2%

Mediation in extra-judicial conflict resolution

12%

Definitely no

3%

Definitely no

1%

Representation of interests before public authorities, local self-government bodies

10%

Hard to say

7%

Hard to say

8%

No

18%

33

Some respondents would not go the Centre because of their disbelief that the it will be able to help (32% of those who would not reach out to the Centre for help). 28% answered that they had the proven method of resolving problems, 26% believe that free aid cannot be qualitative.

16% think that the lawyers of the Centre will not pay enough attention to their problems or will request some payment for their consultancy (12%).

Why won’t you go to the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centre? (% of those who would not reach out to the Centre for assistance; multiple answers possible)

I don’t believe they would be able to help

32%

I have other proven methods to settle a problem

28%

Free aid cannot be of high quality

26%

Believe the Centre lawyers won’t pay enough attention to my case

16%

Believe they would request money for their services

12%

I am not eligible to such aid

10%

My friends gave negative feedback on the Centre

8%

The Centre only provides consultancy rather than settles problems

5%

Other

8%

THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS To identify vulnerable groups that have limited access to legal aid or have more legal problems, an expert assessment is normally conducted. In other words, the legal needs and the access to legal aid are assessed for the previously defined groups of people that are potentially more vulnerable in this domain, namely: the poor, the elderly, people with disabilities, orphaned children, residents of rural areas, ethnic minorities, etc.

Summing up the information received during the previous surveys, the following populations can be qualified as vulnerable groups in terms of a higher need in / restricted access to aid: The poor (in particular those whose family income is hardly bigger than the minimum subsistence level); Persons with disabilities; Elderly people, especially those who are still employed (as regards the violations of their employment rights); Roma; People living with HIV; Women and children survivors of domestic violence; Internally displaced persons; Detainees and prisoners; Residents of rural areas.

There is no publicly available surveys stating the higher need in legal aid of the following groups, however, it can be presumed that there is, indeed, such need among: The participants of the ATO, Operation of Joint Forces (the ATO was transformed into the Operation of Joint Forces on 30 April 2018); The residents of the territories that are not under Ukraine’s Government control; The residents of the regions that are close to the contact line; Homeless people.

Apart from the mentioned groups, the nationwide surveys also indicate a high risk of discrimination for such groups as: women as a whole, representatives of the LGBT community, migrants, supporters of certain political ideas.

For the purposes of this survey, it was decided to take a vise versa approach, namely: to single out the vulnerability criteria in the context of a need in / access to the legal aid first and then to compare the more and less vulnerable groups pursuant to different social and demographic characteristics.

The following vulnerability criteria have been selected for an analysis: The number of legal problems that a respondent faced during the last three years: none, one, two and more. On the one hand, the emergence of certain problems often does not depend on a person or his or her social status. For instance, both more and less socially protected person can encounter a miscalculation in utility bills; The existence of a problem of moderate and high gravity in the last three years; The existence of a problem of moderate and high gravity that were not resolved or the resolution of which does not satisfy a respective person; The existence of a problem of moderate and high gravity that a responded attempted to settle (which can indicate the lack of material, moral and other resources).

Out of all the respondents of the survey, 51% had no problems at all, 38% had one problem, 11% had two and more problems. 42% had at least one problem of moderate or high gravity, 35% did not manage to resolve such an issue or its resolution did not satisfy them, 15% respondents did not take steps to settle at least one of such issues.

34

35

The social and demographic features used to compare the groups of persons singled out pursuant to the vulnerability criteria listed below: Sex; Age; Size of a city or town; Having a university diploma; Employment status; (Not) having children; Self-estimation of financial situation; Average monthly income per person in the household; Receiving social payments or benefits; Belonging to vulnerable categories: families with many children, ATO participants, persons with disabilities, the poor, etc.

Legal problems faced by various populations The comparison of different populations based on whether they faced legal problems during the last three years – and how much legal problems they faced – can help establish the following differences between such populations: The elderly usually have two and more problems (6% of all respondents of this age group) in comparison with younger respondents (from 10% to 15% in other age groups); More residents of Kherson have at least one problem (56%), especially in comparison with Sievierodonetsk (37%); Respondents who assess their financial status like “we are able to buy food, clothes, shoes and other more expensive things” report that they have no legal issues at all more often (68%) than poorer respondents (47%-55%);

There were 45% males and 55% females among the respondents.

The age groups are as follows: 18% respondents belong to an age group of 18-29 years old, 31% – 30-35 years old, 24% – 46-59 years old, and 27% respondents are 60 years and older.

Nevertheless, the comparison of the respondents based on the average monthly income of their households indicates the absence of direct correlation between the income and the existence of legal problems. The problems were reported more frequently by the people whose family monthly budget is less than UAH 2,000 (54%) and between UAH 4,000 and 9,000 (58%) compared the households that live on UAH 2,000-4,000 or whose income exceeds UAH 9,000 (43-44%).

35% residents of four cities and towns have underage children.

The respondents belong to the following professions: 15% of them are directors, qualified specialists or private entrepreneurs/self-employed persons, 13% – technical specialists or clerks; 20% are employed in the field of trade and services; 18% do not work (unemployed, running a household, on a parental leave, study), 32% are pensioners, 2% did not specify their employment status.

33% respondents have higher education.

As regards the financial status of a household, 20% have to save money on food; 38% have money only for food, 38% have enough money for food, clothing and shoes and only 4% can afford more expensive purchases. The income of 23% families does not exceed UAH 4,000 per month, 36% receive UAH 4,001-8,000 per month, and the income of 17% is higher than UAH 8,000 per month.

1% respondents do not have income at all, 23% refused to answer this question.

The respondents from vulnerable groups reported legal problems slightly more often (57%) than the others (48%).

The established differences are minor and do not allow to single out a group that is particularly vulnerable to legal problems.

A number of problems of different populations (% of all the respondents)

The majority (58%) of the respondents receive certain benefits or social payments from the state (it includes pensions and subsidies for the utilities). There are 11% vulnerable persons among the respondents, including: 5% – persons with disabilities, 2% – persons from families with many children, 1% – internally displaced persons, 1% – ATO participants, 1% – the poor, etc. Unfortunantely, the meager representation of these people in the sample does not allow to conduct a separate analysis for them.

0 problem 1 problems 2 problems and moreя

13

It was impossible to check the affiliation of the respondents with national minorities as less than 1% respondents indicated that they belonged to the ethnicities other than Ukrainians and Russians.

34

Therefore, the collected data allows to compare the wider population group. However, it is impossible to single out the narrow specific groups (for instance, Roma, internally displaced persons, ATO participants, etc.), because their representatives are hardly present among the respondents.

39

46

10 38

52

6

9

39

28

55

14 42

63 44

12

7

36

40

52

53

9

11

44

41

47

47

11

13

34

19

55

13 41

68 46

7

14

36

9

11

35

37

56

52

44

57

42

13 44

43

18 -2 9

ye ar 30 s -4 5 ye ar 46 s -5 9 ye ar s 60 + Si ye ev ar ie s ro do ne ts k Kh er so Zh n ov ti Vo dy Sa So ve Ha On sn m ve iv on ly Ha ka m ha ey ve on ve f or ey en m fo ou fo on od rf gh ey oo f m or d, on fo cl ey ot od he fo ro s, sh th oe er s pu rc Up ha to se UA s H UA 2, H 0 00 2, 00 0UA Do 4, H 00 n’ 4, tb 0 00 el 0on 9, g 00 UA to 0 Be H vu 9, lo ln 00 ng er ab 0+ to le vu gr ln o er up ab s le gr ou ps

53

15

36

37

Grave legal problems faced by various populations

The correlation between the existence of unsettled grave legal issues and sociodemographic groups (% of the respondents with at least one problem)

87

88

82

77

86

80

88

89

87

18

17

17

12

13

12

18

23

14

20

12

11

13

0+

0 H UA

07,0 0 H

H

Ha

ve

UA

UA

Up

9, 00

7,0 0 0-

H UA

4, 00

ca

4, 00

0

0

n tio

tio ca hi gh

er ed u

er ed u

hi gh

to

a So sn iv k

iV od ov t

Kh

er so n

s 60

46

Si ev ie ro

+

do

ye ar

s ye ar 9

ye ar -4

Zh

Have a grave problem solution to which was not sought

9,

00 0

+

Don’t have a grave problem solution to which was not sought

72

No

64

66

45

55

32

68

4,

00 04, 0

UA H

2, H

UA

to

UA

H

2,

ca ed u Up

he r

00 0

n tio

tio

34

00 07,0 UA 00 H 7,0 00 -9 ,0 00 UA H 9, 00 0+

69

36

00

61

n

y

63

ca

er s

iV od

Zh ov t

on

k

57

Kh

on

et s

s ye ar

er od

Si

ev i

60 +

ye ar s

46 -5

9

ye ar s 5

30 -4

9 18 -2

The elderly (88%) as opposed to younger age groups (82-83%); The residents of Sievierodonetsk (87%) and Kherson (88%) compared to Zhovti Vody (82%) and Sosnivka (77%); The respondents without higher education background (86%) compared to to those who have it (80%); The respondents whose monthly family income is less than UAH 7,000 (87-89%) compared to the households that earn more than UAH 9,000 (73%).

ye ar s

The comparison of different populations who had at least one grave problem based on the status of such problems and attempts to settle it has established the following trends. The problems of the following populations usually remain unresolved:

82

28

du

68

31

hi g

65

39

ve

67

37

ka

57

64

18 43

er e

32

gh

35

hi

33

sn iv

36

So

43

Ha

UA H

00 0

21

UA H

H

00 -9 ,

7,0

0 00

4,

4,

UA H

UA to

00 07,0 00

ka iv

The correlation between the existence of grave issues in which solution was not sought and socio-demographic groups (% of the respondents with at least one problem)

Unsettled grave legal problems faced by various populations

38

27

The representatives of a younger age group (43%) compared to the groups of older persons (33-36%); Residents of Kherson (43%) compared to Sievierodonetsk (32%) and Zhovti Vody (18%); People who have no higher education background (39%) compared to those who have it (31%); Qualified specialists and those employed in the field of trade and services (50%) compared to the persons from other groups involved in different types of employment (28%-41%); The respondents whose average monthly family budget is between UAH 4,000 and 9,000 (45%) compared to those who are poorer (28%).

79

20

12

8

sn So

er so n

80

88

92

21

5

Up

Si

Kh

ts k

rs

er od on e

ye a

15

4

79

95

iV od y

10 +

ye ar s 9

85

96

73

The following populations do not take steps to settle a grave issue more often:

Have a grave problem

Zh ov t

90

13

46 -5

5

ye ar s

15

30 -4

18 -2

9

ye ar s

17

87

ev i

85

60

83

30

No

The correlation between the existence of grave legal issues and sociodemographic groups (% of the respondents with at least one problem) Don’t have a grave problem

5

ye ar 9 -2 18

The increased number of people having grave problems among those less well-off and the elderly can be explained by the fact that these groups have less resources to cope with such situation and, therefore, assess them as more problematic.

n

88

y

83

ne ts k

83

s

At the same time, a likelihood of a grave problem decreases with the increase of an average monthly income of a household: 90% families with an income of up to UAH 7,000 have such problem compared to some 80% of the wealthier families.

82

s

The share of those who have grave problems gradually increases from the younger to the older age groups: 83% persons between 18 and 29 years old and 90% persons who are older than 60 years old.

-5

The residents of Sievierodonetsk (95%) and Zhovti Vody (95%) report grave problems slightly more often than in Kherson (85%) and Sosnivka (79%).

Have a grave unsettled problem

9, 00

Don’t have a grave unsettled problem

The comparison of different populations as to whether at least one legal problem they had was a moderately and highly grave has established only several differences:

The established differences have confirmed certain expectations but did not support the other ones. On the one hand, older persons are more likely to have grave and unresolved questions. However, they have slightly less problems and they are more ready to take steps to settle them compared to younger people.

39

People without higher education background remain inactive with respect to a grave issue more often and, consequently, such problem remains unresolved. At the same time, they do not differ from the others in terms of the very existence of the problems.

The family income exceeding UAH 9,000 is associated with lower likelihood have a legal issue (of any kind, including a grave and unresolved). At the same time, there is no direct correlation between the income and the vulnerability/passive attitudes of the respondents. The residents of Kherson turned out to be more vulnerable, even though, there should be more opportunities to receive legal aid in the oblast capital.

It should be stressed that the majority of established differences are rather minor. Therefore, singling out the most vulnerable groups based on the empirical data requires further study. It is particularly so in case of the smaller populations that do not make it enough quantitatively into the survey of the society at large.

Barriers that prevent various populations from settling legal issues Finally, a hypothesis about the existence of a correlation between the socio-demographic characteristics and reasons/barriers preventing people from taking steps to settle their legal issues was tested.

The disbelief in the possibility of justice is more prevalent among: Females (68%) compared to males (60%); Persons who are 30 years old and older (64-68%) compared to the youngest age group (52%); The residents of Kherson (72%) and Sievierodonetsk (68%) compared to the respondents from Zhovti Vody (61%) and Sosnivka (46%); Persons without higher education background (67%) compared to those who have it (56%); Those who do not receive social payments and benefits (72%) compared to those who do (57%).

A financial barrier was more often an issue for: The residents of Kherson (38%) compared to other cities and towns (up to 16%); The poorest households with a family income below UAH 2,000 (42%) and those who earn between UAH 7,000-9,000 (48%) compared to the others (19-29%); Those not belonging to vulnerable groups (29%) and not receiving social payments and benefits (32%) compared to those who belong (12%) and receive (23%).

Lack of knowledge about the sources of help was more often a hurdle for: People over 60 years old (27%) compared to those who are younger (16-23%); Residents of Sievierodonetsk (24%) and Sosnivka (27%) compared to Zhovti Vody (20%) and Kherson (17%); Those who do not have higher education background (24%) compared to those who do (14%); The representatives of vulnerable groups (26%) compared to those who do not belong to such groups (20%).

It should be noted again that in the majority of cases the differences are not significant.

METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY AND TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS The survey methodology was developed by an expert group taking into account the surveys that have already been conducted in Ukraine and the cutting-edge developments in the field of assessing legal needs. The questionnaire consisted of several parts and included: An introductory question about the fields in which a respondent encountered problems and disputes during the last three years; Blocks of questions providing more details about the most recent problem in each field; A block of questions about the sources of information about legal aid and knowledge about aid providers; Demographic information.

The questionnaire was designed to be used in the survey on a mobile device/tablet. Its printed version can also be used (with a modified algorythm of the random selection of problems to specify the way to resolve them). Both the full and abridged versions of the questionnaire can be used in future surveys depending on their aims and available resources. The visual stimuli were also used.

They were in a form of cards with options of answers to certain questions.

A pre-test was conducted before the main part of the survey. 104 interviews in total were conducted during a pre-test: 25 – in Sievierodonetsk, 27 – in Kherson, 26 – in Zhovti Vody and 26 – in Sosnivka.

80 interviews (20 interviews in each city/town) were conducted pursuant to a standard polling procedure, which is similar to the one used during the field stage of the survey. Other 24 persons (from five to seven in every city/town) provided their opinions through an algorithm with the elements of a cognitive interview.

Both standard and cognitive interviews were conducted by means of a face-to-face interviews with the use of a tablet. In both instances, all questions of the questionnaire were answered. These two methodologies differed in the following: The procedure of cognitive interview had additional questions aimed to check how a respondent understood key questions of the questionnaire and what he/she thought when considering an answer to them. The respondents were encouraged to explain possible difficulties and misunderstandings as well as to answer the questions in detail in a simple language. An interviewer was not strictly bound by the questionnaire and could ask additional questions if clarifications were needed. In total, a toolkit of the cognitive pre-test combined the elements of a standartised and profound interview and allowed to determine the problems that were not apparent such as the respondent’s misunderstanding of a question, information loss, irrelevant answers; Cognitive interviews lasted longer compared to the standard, the interviewees received a small remuneration.

Cognitive interviews, as opposed to the standard, were recorded. When the results of the pre-test were analysed, the recording was listened to again and the determined problems were noted and coded. The results of the standard pilot interviews were included in the reports of the interviewers instead. Such reports contained the list of difficulties that had been established during an interview and the recommendations as to how to deal with them.

The standard interviews were conducted by experienced interviewers residing in the respective oblast. The cognitive interviews were conducted by two specifically trained interviewers from the central office of Kyiv International Institute of Sociology who participated in the development of the questionnaire and/or in adapting thereof for the tablets.

40

41

The standard interviews were conducted at a respondent’s place of residence, whereas the cognitive ones – at a previously determined place (at a hotel, at the Free Secondary Legal Aid Centres). The respondents were selected during a pre-test pursuant to quotas to ensure the representation of people of different sex, age, education background, employment status.

Based on the pre-test, the expected duration of an interview was determined, the problems with wording of questions and alternative answers were established, etc.

A field stage of the survey lasted from January to March 2018. It was conducted by means of face-toface interviews at the respondents’ place of residence. To read out the questions aloud and record the answers, a tablet was used.

For the purposes of the survey, a certified thee-level random sample was elaborated. The random nature of the sample is ensured at every of the three stages. The sample represents the adult population that permanently resides in Kherson, Zhovti Vody, Sievierodonetsk and Sosnivka, is not enrolled in the military service and is not kept in prisons or medical istitutions (hotpitals, medical residential facilities).

First, in each city/town, the constituencies (electoral units) where the survey would take place were selected. In each city/town, around 70 territorial units were singled out. If the number of such unitswas smaller, they were divided into smaller areas (blocks, streets, parts of streets) and then the sample was made from such territorial units. On average, eight interviews were conducted in one territorial unit.

At the second stage, the initial address – street, house number and, in the cases of multi-storey buildings, a number of apartment, from which the interviewers started the polling – for each electoral unit was chosen.

At the third stage, the selection and interviewing of the respondents using the method of modified route sample were conducted. Starting from the initial address, an interviewer visited each next household, compiling a full list of their members and sorting list for each family according to the age and sex of its members. Every third person from the list was to be interviewed. If he or she was not at home when an interviewer came, the interviewer would have to return to this household when such person came back.

In total, 2,053 interviews were conducted in the course of the survey: 510 – in Sievierodonetsk, 522 – in Kherson, 510 – in Zhovti Vody, 511 – in Sosnivka.

A statistical margin of error (with the probability of 0.95 and subject to the design-effect of 1.5) does not exceed:

3,3% 2,8% 2,0% 1,4% 0,7%

for the indicators close to 50%

42

for the indicators close to 25 or 75%

for the indicators close to 12 or 88%

for the indicators close to 5 or 95%

for the indicators close to 1 or 99%

A post-stratification rate was calculated for the received data. Such rate helps align the sex and age structure of the sample with the general sampled population. Also, the number of Ukraine’s population residing in the urban-type settlements and cities or towns with the population up to 20,000 people, in the cities or towns with the population between 20,000 and 49,000 people, in the cities with the population between 50,000 and 199,000 people and in the cities with the population more than 200,000 people was considered (the cities with the population of more than 1 million are not taken into account). The first type of settlements was represented by Sosnivka, the second – by Zhovti Vody, the third – by Sievierodonetsk and the fourth – by Kherson. Therefore, the data was evaluated in a way as to ensure that the ratio of respondents from each city/town in the sample correspond the ratio of every type of a city/town in the totality of urban population of Ukraine.

The survey also included control over the quality of performed work: for 22% interviews, the data was checked to verify whether it had logical mistakes and control over the telephone was also employed.

The process of the survey and the analysis of received data helped define both the strengths of the used questionnaire and methodology as well as certain restrictions and limitations to be taken into account in future: The questionnaire used for the interviews helps collect a large amount of factual data about the legal problems prevalent during a certain period of time. The strength of this approach is the possibility to analyse the data in different dimensions: depending on the fields in which problems emerged, given their current resolution status and many other characteristics both of the problems and of the persons reporting them. The use of factual data instead of perception of the respondents makes the analysis more profound and allows to draw conclusions from the real features of the problems instead of the generalised and reconsidered experiences of the respondents. On the other hand, this approach requires a respondent to recall the events that happened in the course of several last years and to describe them more or less accurately. However, in practice, people often forget even the recent events. Because of this particularity of human memory, there is a higher likelihood to hear about less legal problems than actually happened. On yet another hand, such approach allows collecting the data about the problems that are more serious and are, therefore, were remembered better. It can often be compensated by giving the respondents some visual stimuli (for instance, giving them the cards listing the problems) or reading the lists of problems out aloud to them. Such actions should help the respondents recall the necessary information. The received data should, nevertheless, be treated with some caution. The difficulties in recalling the information should be taken into account when interpreting the data received during an interview; Apart from the recollection problems that do not depend on an interviewee, a respondent might also be unwilling to spend much time on an interview. A respondent might also dislike an interviewer or the whole setting of an interview. Because of that, the respondents might choose not to explore their experiences thoroughly and not to provide full answers.

Therefore, the context of an interview and the motivation of a respondent are very important for receiving all-encompassing data. For instance, a standard interview conducted at a respondent’s home by a professional interviewer differs from an interview conducted by an NGO representative or provider of legal aid at the office where a respondent came upon his or her own wish. In the latter case, there are more reasons to expect that a person concerned will go through an interview diligently and will invest a proper effort in recalling things. It should be taken into account that if two interviews pursuant to one questionnaire were conducted – but the contexts of the interviews differed – the determined differences in the results can actually be explained by the differing contexts and not by the objectively existing differences. Also, the provided example also differs in the method of selecting the respondents and, probably, in the target group. These factors also directly impact key indicators;

43

The survey is rather demanding on an interviewer and motivation and cognitive abilities of a respondent. If the latter is generally out of the scope of control of the organisers of survey, the former is an important component of the preparation for a survey. The preparation must be organised based on a standard scenario and include the explanation of methodology of selecting the respondents, key principles of conducting interviews to minimize the impact on the contents of answers of the respondents, as well as the careful study of a questionnaire, in particular of a list of legal problems. An interviewer must be able to masterly code any problem, including in cases when a respondent describes it with his or her own words, not choosing it from a list prepared in advance. If a survey is going to be repeated, especially more than once, it is worth developing a unified instruction for those who will conduct such a survey.

The next key question is “Did you or somebody else acting on your behalf reach out for help or information about the problem to the following persons or organisations?”. It should be pointed out to a respondent that the question refers not only to effective assistance but also to consultations. Indeed, an answer to this question has a long list of options. It is suggested that it be supplemented with a visually friendly card with hints. If an answer option hints at a free consultancy from a fellow lawyer, an interviewer has to code an answer wisely;

More detailed recommendations concerning specific questions from a questionnaire that require particular attention of the organisers of surveys are provided below:

The question “Let us try to calculate your expenditures on the attempts to settle the problem.

We cannot calculate precisely. But could you come up with an interval? So, summing up different costs you bore trying to settle your problem, what particular expenditures did you have?” should differentiate the answers “Free of charge” and “There were no such expenditures” clearly. The first option means that a respondent took certain steps, received services, etc., but did not have to pay for them. The second option describes a situation when a respondent did not take such measures at all or did not receive a certain service.

The most important question in the questionnaire is the following: “I will show you a card with a list of fields, in which people have problems and disputes in their everyday lives. Please indicate respective fields if you encountered such problems in these fields during the last three years starting from 2015. We are interested in settled and unsettled problems that you personally – not your relatives, friends, acquaintances, business or employer – have faced. They could start in 2015 or earlier, but they have to last for a while during the recent three years.” Even though the question is slightly difficult to comprehend, all of its components are important and must be explained to a respondent. It is necessary to stress the time period relevant to the question, personal relation of a person to a problem, necessity to indicate both settled and unsettled problems. After a person has selected one or several answers, it is worth asking him or her again whether he or she marked all problems meeting the above requirements; To make it easier for a respondent to give answers, she or he are given a card. The card lists the fields and examples of problems that can happen in each of them. It is necessary to stress that such list of examples in not exhaustive, and that a respondent can provide her or his own options. For the purposes of futher surveys, it is recommended to design a standartised card. Such a card should be visually attractive and clear, it should draw the attention of a respondent. It is also worth reconsidering the titles of problem categories.

They should be as simple and clear as possible. At the same time, such titles should be unambiguous in explaining it to a respondent that the survey concerns the disputes and violations of rights, not life hardships in general. For instance, the category “consumer rights,” “employment,” “relations with public authorities or local self-government bodies” implicitly hint at certain rights or the other party to a conflict. The categories “money relations,” “education,” “healthcare” are broad enough and, thus, provide more room for answers that are unrelated to legal problems;

The question “Can you indicate what situations listed in this card happened during the resolution of the problem?” is important for a thorough analysis. However, the respondents can miss out certain relevant answers for a number of reasons. To address this, an interviewer might read the options out aloud. An interviewer can also ask a respondent to describe what happened during the resolution of a problem, followed by coding of his or her answers;

We have listed only certain moments that require attention in the questionnaire. The instruction must specify all the details and contain real-life examples.

Wrapping up, it is recommended to also develop a standartised methodology for analysing the data of the survey and for presenting such data. It will ensure uniformity in the calculation of key indicators by all implementors. Moreover, it will further enable comparisons of the findings of different surveys based on the proposed methodology.

An interviewer must filter the problems which are irrelevant for the current survey himself or herself. For instance, lack of money is not a problem from a category “money relations” and health issues are not a problem under a “healthcare” category, unless both of them resulted from unlawful actions of third persons; It is important to stress that in the first question, all fields in which problems occurred during the last three years must be indicated. At the same time, in all further specifying questions, only one – chronologically the most recent – situation must be pointed out. For instance, the question “Could you, please, recall the last problem or conflict that affected you in the last three years when your consumer rights were violated? What situation from this list describes this problem/conflict the best?” allows multiple answers. However, a respondent must not indicate all consumer rights issues he or she faced during the last three years. Instead, it is necessary to describe chronologically the last situation falling within this category;

44

45