Ten things to bear in mind when working on communication, community engagement and accountability in Ukraine and beyond. Explore our interactive graphic above, or read the list in full below.

People on the move set the pace of information flows. Recognise that people in Ukraine are already sharing information transnationally, both through social media and through personal contacts. Respect and work with these self-organisation mechanisms, and support them with timely, relevant and actionable information. Providing information too sporadically or slowly poses a risk as it may rapidly go out of date and could mislead people.
Information-sharing is a two-way street. Remember that people on the move from Ukraine have information that may be essential to programming. In a context of rapidly changing information needs, two-way communication is especially important. People on the move may have extensive, up-to-date information drawn from the personal experiences of others who have already travelled a similar route. That information in turn may give rise to new questions and rumours. Ensure you have ways to listen and interact consistently.
Hire affected people to design and lead community engagement efforts. Instead of relying on (sometimes slow-moving) humanitarian design processes, put a diverse group of community representatives or local partners with community engagement and the right language and culture in the driver’s seat when designing interventions. This is the fastest way to build trust and skip a lot of trial and error.
Use technology but don’t reinvent the wheel. There are existing communication platforms and likely no new ones are needed. Use tools and apps that affected people are already using — don’t ask them to adopt new technology to get in touch or access information. Don’t spend money on developing new tools when you could spend it on Ukrainian staff who can engage in information- and feedback-gathering instead. The most important factor in choosing which communication channels to use is whether people already use them and trust the information they find there. Learn how people get essential information and work with those channels and/or public figures to leverage trust people already have in them. Identify groups that you will reach with certain technologies and those who you won’t, and consider ways to bridge the known digital divide.
Stay in your lane. Ukraine is a functioning state, and it is the state’s responsibility to ensure people can move safely. Instead of creating generic ‘key messages’ on safety, focus on supporting and (where you have the capacity) producing dynamic, specific communications related to interaction with the aid system. Connect state and civil society information with humanitarian information, but don’t attempt to supplant it.
Transnational information needs require transnational coordination. People need to know not only how to move more safely in Ukraine but what to expect at a border and beyond. Humanitarians should provide information about accessing shelter and services across borders. Meeting these information needs requires transnational coordination among organisations at all levels — and beyond the countries bordering Ukraine.
Language matters. Ensure information is available in languages beyond Ukrainian. This includes Russian, the second-most spoken language, as well as minority languages like Roma and sign languages. Budget for language diversity among staff as relevant in the area where you are working.
Local actors may be best placed to engage communities locally. Local organisations and service providers may best understand local communities and how to build trust. Understand how they are coordinating, seek to engage them in coordination and respect their particular expertise.
Understand the full spectrum of channels people trust and use — and who controls them. To engage strategically with media organisations, humanitarians should analyse media channels — from television broadcasts to social media groups to online personalities with a large following — and understand who uses and trusts which channels. They also must understand who controls those channels and the perspectives they represent. But to use this analysis to engage with only a few channels would be a mistake, as each represents a segment of the public that relies on that information to make important decisions. It also compromises the public’s perception of humanitarian actors’ neutrality. Refusing to engage with the media poses a greater reputational risk than engaging with the ‘wrong’ media does.
Humanitarian engagement with the media is critical. Humanitarians may be reluctant to engage with the media because they cannot control the content journalists produce. But that independence is precisely why people often trust media channels over ‘official’ or one-sided channels. Entering into open and transparent dialogue with diverse media channels can help humanitarian actors to build understanding and trust with local populations. In third countries, it can help keep host populations engaged with refugee issues and draw support for humanitarian action. Meanwhile, humanitarians can gain valuable information from a two-way exchange with media channels that have a close relationship with their audiences. That information can help inform humanitarian programming.