Ukraine's Deinstitutionalisation Reforms: Strategy, Legislation and Implementation Towards 2034

For a child living in a Ukrainian residential institution, deinstitutionalisation is not simply a decision to close a building. It means establishing where the child can live safely, who will provide consistent care, how family relationships will be maintained and what specialist assistance will be available outside the institution. For an adult with a disability, a similar transition raises questions about housing, personal support, legal rights, income and participation in community life.

Ukraine's approach to these questions is undergoing significant development. The government's Strategy for Ensuring Every Child's Right to Grow Up in a Family Environment for 2024–2028, alongside the longer-term Strategy for Reforming Psychoneurological Institutions and Other Institutions for Persons with Disabilities and Older Persons for the Period up to 2034, places the transformation of institutional provision within a wider agenda of rights, family support and community-based services. These reforms form an important part of the policy developments examined through the Ukraine Social Care Legislation, Reform and Community Support Knowledge Hub.

The two strategies address related but distinct populations and institutional systems. They should not be treated as one programme with identical responsibilities, timelines or service models. Both nevertheless confront a shared operational challenge: reducing reliance on institutional care requires alternatives that are sufficiently accessible, funded and capable of supporting people with different levels of need.

The central question is therefore not how quickly institutional places can be reduced. It is whether Ukraine can develop a system in which people receive appropriate support, exercise meaningful choice and remain protected as services change.

Understanding Ukraine's Deinstitutionalisation Agenda

Deinstitutionalisation describes a process of moving away from systems in which people are routinely accommodated in large residential institutions because of disability, family circumstances, poverty or a lack of community support. Its purpose is broader than physical relocation. It involves changing how assistance is organised, how rights are exercised and how public resources are directed.

Ukraine's institutional landscape has historically included residential establishments for children, boarding institutions, psychoneurological institutions and other facilities serving people with disabilities or older persons. These settings differ in legal status, population, administration and the types of assistance provided.

Some children have lived in institutional settings despite having living parents, reflecting combinations of disability, poverty, educational arrangements, family difficulties and limited access to support. For adults, institutional placement may arise where an individual requires extensive daily assistance and suitable alternatives are unavailable locally.

These circumstances require different policy responses. A child separated from their family needs protection of their rights, family support and appropriate alternative care where necessary. An adult who has lived for many years in a psychoneurological institution may need accessible housing, ongoing personal assistance, healthcare coordination and support to make decisions.

Ukraine's reforms therefore need to distinguish between child protection, disability services, mental health support, older people's services and broader social assistance. The institutions involved are not interchangeable, even where they share historical patterns of residential provision.

The organisation of responsibilities and accountability becomes particularly important when several public bodies have roles in financing, managing or transforming institutional services.

A credible reform programme must also recognise that institutional provision cannot be replaced merely by transferring responsibility to relatives. Families may offer essential relationships and continuity, but they require practical support, accessible services and protection from unsustainable caring demands.

Two Reform Strategies With Different Time Horizons

Ukraine's policy architecture includes distinct strategic commitments for children and for adults living in particular institutional settings. Understanding the separation is essential for accurate analysis of the reform programme.

The government's strategy for ensuring every child's right to grow up in a family environment covers 2024–2028. Its central direction is to strengthen family-based care, prevent unnecessary separation and develop support that enables children to grow up in family environments wherever safe and appropriate.

This agenda involves the development of services for children and families, family-based alternative care and changes to the role of residential institutions. It requires coordination between child protection, social services, education, healthcare and community-level provision.

The strategy extending to 2034 concerns reform of psychoneurological institutions and other institutions serving persons with disabilities and older persons. Its focus is the transition towards arrangements that better support autonomy, community participation and appropriate individual assistance.

The distinction between a strategic commitment and a completed reform is fundamental. Approval of a national strategy establishes policy direction, but does not demonstrate that every institution has been transformed, that community alternatives are available throughout the country or that all necessary legislative and financial changes have been implemented.

Implementation depends on subsequent action plans, institutional responsibilities, budget decisions, service development and monitoring. Specific activities may progress at different speeds, particularly where infrastructure, workforce capacity or regional circumstances affect delivery.

For international observers, Ukraine's approach illustrates the importance of connecting a long-term reform horizon with shorter implementation periods. A strategy running to 2034 provides direction, but meaningful accountability requires evidence of what has actually changed during each phase.

The Legislative Foundations of Community-Based Reform

Ukraine's Law On Social Services provides a central legal framework for the organisation and delivery of social services. It establishes responsibilities concerning assessment of needs, access to services, provider arrangements and the role of public authorities.

The Law On the Fundamentals of Social Protection of Persons with Disabilities in Ukraine and other disability-related legislation contribute to the broader framework for participation, accessibility and social protection.

Ukraine is also a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 19 of the Convention recognises the equal right of persons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community, including access to necessary support services.

The Convention provides an important rights-based foundation, but international obligations and domestic operational arrangements should not be confused. Delivering community living requires practical legislation, financing, housing and service capacity within Ukraine's own institutions.

For children, the Family Code of Ukraine, child protection legislation and relevant administrative procedures form part of the framework governing parental responsibilities, alternative care and protection.

Reform must therefore be understood through several legal relationships rather than a single deinstitutionalisation law. These include the rights of children and adults, the responsibilities of public institutions, the organisation of social services, legal decision-making arrangements and the regulation of providers.

There is a particular need to distinguish formal rights from actual access. A person may have a recognised right to support and participation while living in a community where accessible accommodation, specialist assistance or transport remains limited.

The practical significance of choice and control in person-centred support is that decisions about future living arrangements should be informed by the person's own preferences and circumstances, not simply by the availability of an institutional place or a predetermined relocation programme.

Why Reform Requires More Than Institutional Closure

Institutional systems often combine accommodation, personal assistance, meals, healthcare access and daily supervision within one organisational structure. The model may provide continuity of basic provision, but can also limit individual choice, privacy, family relationships and community participation.

Replacing such a system requires the separate components of support to become available in ordinary community settings.

Housing is one requirement. A person leaving an institution may need accommodation that is affordable, accessible and appropriate for their mobility or sensory needs. Personal assistance is another. Some individuals require support at particular times, while others need extensive assistance throughout the day and night.

Healthcare remains a separate responsibility. People with complex physical or mental health needs may require specialist treatment, medicines, rehabilitation or regular clinical review. Community social services cannot automatically assume these healthcare functions.

Social participation is equally significant. Living in a small residence does not by itself establish inclusion if the person has little influence over daily routines, cannot access transport or remains isolated from the surrounding community.

A genuine transition therefore involves several interconnected conditions:

• Individual assessment and planning that reflects the person's needs, rights and preferences.
• Accessible housing and appropriate community infrastructure.
• Reliable personal assistance, social support and relevant healthcare.
• Workforce capacity and clear responsibilities for service continuity.
• Safeguards against neglect, coercion, isolation and inappropriate restrictions.
• Funding and governance arrangements that remain sustainable after relocation.

These requirements explain why institutional transformation can take many years. Reducing institutional capacity before establishing adequate alternatives risks transferring unmet needs to families, local communities or other residential settings.

The more credible measure of reform is whether people experience greater independence, meaningful relationships, reliable assistance and stronger protection of their rights.

From National Strategy to Territorial Community Delivery

Ukraine's territorial communities, or hromadas, are central to the development of local social services. Their responsibilities under the relevant legislation include identifying needs and organising provision within their powers. However, not every institution affected by deinstitutionalisation is owned, financed or managed by the territorial community in which it is located.

Some residential institutions have operated within regional administrative structures, while community services may depend on local budgets and providers. This creates a practical challenge when responsibility for an individual's support moves between institutional and community arrangements.

An oblast-level institution may have established staffing, accommodation and expenditure arrangements. A territorial community receiving a former resident may need to organise personal assistance, housing support or access to specialist services without having previously provided that combination of support.

The reform therefore requires coordination between national ministries, oblast-level authorities, territorial communities, institutions and providers. Each has different powers and financial responsibilities. Agreement on the principle of community living does not automatically establish which body will fund a particular service.

Local planning must also account for where people wish to live. An individual may have been accommodated in an institution far from their original community. Returning to that community could support relationships and familiarity, but only if appropriate services exist there. Another person may prefer to settle elsewhere.

Effective implementation should distinguish an administrative transfer from a genuine choice about residence and support.

For communities, the first requirement is to understand the potential demand. This includes the number of people who may need community alternatives, the intensity of their support requirements and the availability of housing, healthcare and accessible transport.

Planning should also recognise existing residents whose needs are not being met. A community that develops services only for people leaving institutions may overlook families already providing extensive unpaid care.

The stronger approach is to treat deinstitutionalisation as part of wider social service development rather than a separate relocation exercise.

Operational Scenario: An Adult Leaving a Psychoneurological Institution

A 46-year-old woman has lived for many years in a psychoneurological institution in a Ukrainian oblast. She has a psychosocial disability and requires assistance with some daily activities, but expresses a consistent preference to live in a smaller community setting where she can prepare meals, maintain friendships and choose how to spend her time.

Her transition cannot responsibly begin with the selection of an available apartment alone. The institution and relevant authorities need to establish her support requirements, preferences and applicable legal decision-making arrangements. Any existing restrictions on legal capacity require particular attention under Ukrainian law, alongside the country's obligations concerning disability rights.

A potential community provider identifies accommodation, but it is unclear whether sufficient support can be funded during evenings and weekends. The territorial community has some social service capacity, although it has not previously organised this particular combination of housing and intensive assistance.

The responsible bodies therefore need to clarify who can make the relevant service decisions, which funding arrangements are available and how healthcare will continue. Staff also consider whether the woman has opportunities to visit the proposed accommodation, meet potential support workers and understand her options.

A transition plan includes arrangements for medicines, access to healthcare, personal assistance, contact with people important to her and an appropriate response if the initial support model proves insufficient.

After the move, the evidence of success should extend beyond the absence of serious incidents. It should consider whether she exercises greater choice, develops community relationships and receives dependable assistance.

If she experiences repeated isolation or inappropriate restrictions, the new arrangement may have reproduced institutional practices in a different building. The responsible organisations must therefore review both safety and the substance of community inclusion.

Financing the Transition Without Creating a Support Gap

Financing is among the most difficult elements of deinstitutionalisation because existing institutions already absorb public expenditure through accommodation, staffing, maintenance and other operating costs.

Moving people into community settings does not immediately release an equivalent amount of funding. Buildings may remain open during phased transitions, staff may require redeployment or retraining, and new services may need to operate before institutional capacity can be reduced.

This creates a period of overlapping expenditure. The financial challenge is not simply to compare the average cost of an institutional place with the estimated cost of community support. It is to understand the full cost of developing and sustaining an alternative system.

Ukraine's social services are financed through arrangements involving public budgets and other lawful sources, depending on the service and circumstances. Territorial community budgets have important responsibilities, while particular national programmes, transfers and institutional funding arrangements may also be relevant.

The precise financing pathway must be established for each service. It would be misleading to suggest that Ukraine has one universal personal budget mechanism through which institutional funding automatically follows every person into community provision.

Community alternatives may require investment in accessible housing, specialist equipment, workforce training, transport and administrative systems. Some costs are transitional; others recur for as long as the person needs support.

For people requiring extensive assistance, community living may not be cheaper than institutional care. The policy rationale should not depend on a promise of universal savings. Rights, quality of life and appropriate support are independent considerations, although financial sustainability remains essential.

Public bodies also need to distinguish expenditure on accommodation from expenditure on personal assistance and healthcare. Combining these into one undifferentiated cost can conceal gaps in responsibility.

Organisations considering the wider community benefits of service redesign can use the Social Value Report Builder to structure thinking about participation, local employment and measurable community outcomes. The framework is not a Ukrainian public-finance model and cannot determine statutory funding responsibilities.

A sustainable transition requires budgets to reflect actual support needs, including those that emerge after a person begins living in the community. Financial planning should therefore remain connected to individual reviews and evidence of service performance.

Children's Deinstitutionalisation and the Right to Family Life

Ukraine's child-focused reform agenda requires a different operational model from the transformation of adult residential institutions. Its primary concern is ensuring that children can grow up in safe family environments and receive appropriate assistance without unnecessary separation.

Preventing institutional placement may involve practical support for parents, accessible healthcare, inclusive education, disability services and timely intervention when families experience difficulties.

Financial hardship alone should not be treated as proof that a child needs institutional care. Equally, family preservation cannot override the child's safety where serious harm is present.

The relevant Ukrainian child protection authorities and services have responsibilities for assessing circumstances, responding to protection concerns and arranging alternative care where legally necessary. These functions must operate within domestic law and applicable procedures.

Family-based alternatives may include support from relatives, guardianship arrangements, foster care or other legally recognised forms of care. These arrangements are not interchangeable, and their suitability depends on the child's circumstances and the relevant legal framework.

Children with disabilities may need substantial additional assistance. Without accessible services, families can experience intense financial and emotional pressure, particularly where specialist provision is geographically distant.

Effective family involvement and advocacy should therefore be supported by practical resources rather than an assumption that relatives can absorb every caring responsibility.

The reform also needs to recognise the circumstances of children who cannot safely remain with their birth families. A commitment to family-based care requires suitable alternative arrangements, careful assessment and continuing oversight.

For children approaching adulthood, continuity is especially important. Leaving a children's institution or alternative care arrangement should not result in the sudden disappearance of housing, personal assistance or educational support.

Operational Scenario: Preventing an Unnecessary Institutional Placement

A family in a Ukrainian territorial community cares for an eight-year-old child with significant physical disabilities. The child attends school irregularly because transport is difficult, and the parent providing most daily assistance has reduced their employment.

The family begins considering residential placement because the combination of caring responsibilities, financial pressure and limited access to specialist support has become difficult to sustain.

A social service assessment identifies several distinct needs. The child requires assistance with mobility and participation in education. The parent needs practical relief from continuous caring responsibilities. The family also needs information about available social protection measures and relevant rehabilitation services.

The territorial community cannot resolve every issue through one service. Coordination may be needed with education providers, healthcare professionals and bodies responsible for particular forms of social assistance.

The responsible professionals work with the family to establish which services are available under the applicable arrangements and whether additional support can be organised. Any decision affecting the child must respect the child's rights and take account of their views in an age-appropriate and accessible way.

A combination of improved school access, appropriate social services and family support may make it possible for the child to remain at home safely. The arrangements require review because the child's needs and the family's circumstances may change.

The outcome should not be recorded simply as an institutional placement avoided. It should include the child's participation, wellbeing and relationships, together with the sustainability of the family's caring arrangements.

If similar cases arise repeatedly, the community has evidence of a wider gap in accessible services. That information should influence future service planning rather than being treated solely as a series of individual family difficulties.

Workforce Transformation and the Risk of Reproducing Institutional Practice

Deinstitutionalisation changes the purpose, location and organisation of work. Staff who have spent years working in large residential institutions may possess valuable experience supporting people with complex needs, but community-based services require different professional routines and relationships.

In institutional settings, work may be organised around shared schedules, group activities and centrally managed facilities. Community support places greater emphasis on individual preferences, flexible assistance, ordinary housing and participation outside the service organisation.

Training therefore needs to address more than new procedures. It may involve communication, supported decision-making, positive approaches to risk, professional boundaries and the rights of people receiving assistance.

Staff should also understand that supporting independence does not mean withdrawing necessary help. A person may exercise greater control over daily life while continuing to require extensive practical assistance.

Workforce transition can involve uncertainty about employment, location, professional identity and future responsibilities. Some institutional workers may move into community roles; others may require substantial retraining or may not be able to transfer directly.

The workforce planning challenge includes developing new roles while retaining relevant expertise. It also requires realistic attention to travel time, supervision and staffing continuity across dispersed services.

Organisations exploring these pressures can use the Predictive Workforce Risk Module as a general way to examine turnover, vacancies and continuity risks. Its assumptions and outputs would need appropriate adaptation and should not be presented as predictions about Ukraine's national workforce.

The quality of leadership will influence whether new services genuinely operate differently. Moving workers from an institution into smaller buildings does not automatically change attitudes towards privacy, autonomy or participation.

Supervision and feedback from people receiving support should help identify practices that remain unnecessarily restrictive. Workforce reform is successful when professional skills are redirected towards supporting ordinary lives rather than maintaining institutional routines.

Housing, Accessibility and the Practical Meaning of Community Living

Housing is one of the most consequential elements of Ukraine's deinstitutionalisation programme. Without appropriate accommodation, even well-designed social services may be unable to support a person's transition from residential care.

Community living requires more than a smaller residential building. The location, physical accessibility, security of accommodation and relationship between housing and support all influence whether a person can exercise meaningful control over daily life.

A person with mobility limitations may need an accessible entrance, adapted bathroom and suitable transport. Someone with a psychosocial disability may require flexible support, continuity of healthcare and an environment in which they can develop confidence and relationships.

Ukraine's housing circumstances also reflect significant regional differences. Some communities have limited accessible housing stock, while others face additional pressures arising from population displacement and damage to residential infrastructure.

These factors make the sequencing of reform particularly important. Identifying people who could benefit from community living is necessary, but it does not establish that suitable accommodation can be secured immediately.

The relationship between accommodation and personal support also deserves scrutiny. If a person can remain in a home only while accepting services from one particular provider, their practical freedom to change support arrangements may be limited.

For people with disabilities, the objective of independence and community inclusion should be reflected in decisions about housing, personal assistance and access to ordinary community facilities.

Different models may be appropriate for different individuals, but their quality should be assessed through the person's experience rather than the label attached to the accommodation.

Housing policy, social service planning and accessibility requirements therefore need to develop together. Otherwise, progress in one area may be constrained by the absence of practical arrangements in another.

Operational Scenario: A Rural Community Plans a Small-Scale Transition

A rural territorial community is considering how to support several adults who currently live in a residential institution elsewhere in the oblast. Some have expressed an interest in returning to the area where they previously lived, while others have established relationships near the institution.

The community has a small social service workforce and limited accessible accommodation. It would be administratively convenient to develop one shared residential arrangement, but the individuals concerned have different needs and preferences.

Officials begin by working with the relevant institutions and responsible authorities to understand each person's circumstances. The process must respect applicable consent and legal decision-making requirements, including any restrictions or support arrangements established under Ukrainian law.

One individual may be able to live in an ordinary apartment with scheduled assistance. Another may require more extensive support and regular access to healthcare. A third may prefer to remain near existing friends rather than return to the community.

The community examines available housing, transport, staffing and financing arrangements. It identifies which services it can organise directly and which require cooperation with other public bodies or providers.

Rather than proceeding with a single relocation date, the transition is phased according to individual readiness and the availability of reliable support. Plans include arrangements for emergencies, workforce absence and changes in need.

After each move, the responsible organisations review whether the person's living arrangements are working in practice. They consider participation, safety, satisfaction and continuity rather than simply recording the transfer as completed.

If the community repeatedly encounters difficulties securing accessible housing or specialist staff, those findings become evidence for wider planning discussions with the relevant authorities.

The scenario illustrates why a person-centred reform may require different pathways within the same locality. Consistency of rights does not mean uniformity of living arrangements.

Safeguarding, Legal Capacity and the Right to Make Decisions

Deinstitutionalisation must be accompanied by safeguards that protect people during and after transition. Changes in accommodation, support workers and daily routines can create uncertainty, particularly for individuals who have spent many years in institutional settings.

Ukraine's domestic legal framework includes provisions concerning legal capacity, guardianship and representation. These arrangements have significant implications for how decisions are made and whose consent is required.

The country's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities create an important rights-based context, including the recognition of legal capacity and the importance of support in exercising rights.

There may be tensions between existing domestic arrangements and the Convention's approach to autonomy and supported decision-making. These should not be obscured by assuming that all legal and practical reforms have already been completed.

For service providers, the immediate requirement is to understand the law applicable to a particular decision while recognising the person's rights, wishes and preferences.

Safeguarding risks may arise where a person is moved without adequate preparation, becomes isolated, loses access to healthcare or experiences inappropriate control by a new support provider.

Conversely, excessive restrictions imposed in the name of protection can undermine the purpose of community living.

A proportionate approach to positive risk-taking and risk enablement considers how people can exercise ordinary choices while receiving the assistance necessary to manage foreseeable risks.

Organisations examining these decisions can use the Positive Risk-Taking Planner to structure discussion of individual preferences, potential harms and proportionate support. It is not a substitute for Ukrainian legal requirements concerning capacity, guardianship or consent.

Safeguarding should also include accessible complaints routes, appropriate external oversight and opportunities for people to speak independently about their experiences.

The central test is whether community living strengthens both autonomy and protection, rather than requiring one to be sacrificed for the other.

Measuring Reform Through Outcomes Rather Than Institutional Numbers

Institutional reform programmes often generate measurable administrative indicators, including the number of facilities transformed, places reduced or people relocated. Such information is useful for understanding implementation, but it cannot demonstrate the full effect of reform.

A person may leave an institution without gaining meaningful independence. Another may remain in institutional accommodation while receiving improved individual support during a transitional period. Neither circumstance should be assessed through a single numerical indicator.

Ukraine's implementation arrangements need to connect structural measures with evidence of people's experiences and the availability of sustainable alternatives.

A proportionate evidence framework could distinguish:

• Service development, including accessible housing and community support capacity.
• Individual outcomes, including choice, relationships, participation and continuity.
• Protection, including safeguarding concerns, complaints and appropriate responses.
• Financial sustainability, including the recurring costs of community support.
• System learning, including whether identified gaps influence subsequent planning.

These are analytical dimensions rather than a claim that Ukraine already operates one uniform national dashboard covering every aspect of deinstitutionalisation.

National ministries and other responsible institutions can use implementation information to understand progress against their assigned responsibilities. Oblast-level authorities and territorial communities need evidence that supports decisions about services, infrastructure and funding.

Providers should contribute information about delivery and outcomes without being required to collect unnecessary personal data.

People receiving support and their families must also have opportunities to explain whether changes have improved everyday life. Their experiences can reveal issues that administrative records do not capture, including loneliness, loss of familiar relationships or a lack of genuine choice.

The quality of performance data and outcome measurement therefore matters as much as the quantity of information collected.

Monitoring should support improvement, not simply demonstrate that scheduled activities have occurred. Where outcomes remain poor, responsible bodies need to understand whether the cause lies in service practice, insufficient resources, inaccessible housing or weaknesses in the design of the reform itself.

International Learning and the Direction Towards 2034

Ukraine's deinstitutionalisation programme offers internationally relevant lessons because it combines rights-based objectives with complex administrative, financial and operational responsibilities.

Other countries have also sought to reduce reliance on large residential institutions, but their experiences cannot be transferred directly. Housing markets, welfare entitlements, legal capacity frameworks, workforce systems and the responsibilities of local government differ substantially.

The transferable principle lies in treating community living as a system of support rather than a change of address.

Ukraine's reform horizon to 2034 creates an opportunity to develop community services progressively while learning from implementation. However, the effectiveness of this approach will depend on whether national ambitions are matched by funded local capacity and clear responsibilities.

Several areas warrant particular attention as implementation develops. The first is the relationship between institutional expenditure and the recurring cost of community support. The second is the availability of accessible housing and suitably trained workers. The third is the protection of individual choice where existing legal arrangements may constrain decision-making.

The fourth is the development of evidence that reflects people's actual experiences. Institutional numbers alone cannot establish whether reform has improved dignity, independence or participation.

There is also a wider strategic opportunity to connect deinstitutionalisation with prevention. Communities that provide effective assistance to families, older people and persons with disabilities may reduce avoidable demand for institutional placements while improving support for residents who have never entered residential care.

Such development will not be uniform across Ukraine. Regional circumstances, displacement, infrastructure and local finances will continue to influence the pace and design of services.

The appropriate response is not to abandon consistent rights-based expectations, but to recognise that implementation pathways must be realistic and responsive to local conditions.

Conclusion

Ukraine's deinstitutionalisation reforms represent a substantial change in how the country intends to organise support for children, persons with disabilities and older people. The child-focused strategy to 2028 and the longer-term institutional reform agenda to 2034 establish related but distinct directions for strengthening family life, autonomy and community participation.

The central challenge is translating these ambitions into practical alternatives that people can rely upon. Institutional places cannot responsibly be reduced without appropriate housing, personal assistance, healthcare coordination, workforce capacity and sustainable financing.

National legislation and strategies provide the framework, but the experience of reform will be shaped by decisions made across oblast-level authorities, territorial communities, institutions and service providers. Clear responsibilities and effective coordination are essential where existing institutional expenditure and new community services involve different administrative arrangements.

Rights-based reform also requires attention to legal capacity, safeguarding and individual choice. Community living should not reproduce institutional restrictions in smaller settings, nor should it transfer unreasonable responsibilities to families without adequate support.

The strongest measure of progress will be whether people experience greater control over their lives, maintain meaningful relationships and receive assistance that is both reliable and appropriate to their circumstances.

For Ukraine, the period towards 2034 provides an opportunity to establish a more sustainable relationship between national policy and local service delivery. Success will depend less on the formal completion of institutional restructuring than on the development of community support that genuinely advances dignity, independence and inclusion.