The publication of the draft State Budget for 2027 prompted me to take another look at how the state invests in young people. The draft budget allocates UAH 201.5 million to creating conditions for young people’s self-fulfilment. Of this, UAH 140 million is earmarked for youth grants – UAH 50 million more than in 2026. The number of such grants is set to increase to 1,800, which is 2.5 times the figure for 2026.

For me, these figures are not important in and of themselves. What matters is the direction of progress and the fact that the state is gradually increasing the resources that enable young people not only to take part in existing activities but also to implement their own initiatives. This then raises a much broader question: what does the country gain from such investments?

The results of youth policy are not always visible in the same financial year. Part of its impact becomes apparent much later: in whether young people remain in their communities, whether they have jobs, whether they set up their own businesses, whether they trust institutions, whether they are able to unite around common issues, and whether they are prepared to tie their future to Ukraine. In this sense, the discussion about young people is far broader than a discussion about a single sector of public policy. It directly concerns the country’s resilience.

We are used to talking about Ukraine’s resilience primarily in the context of defence, energy, the economy, and the functioning of state institutions. But there is another dimension to it – the human one. A bridge, a school or a power station can be rebuilt. It is far more difficult to restore the human capital of a community from which young professionals have left, to re-establish lost social ties, or to persuade someone to commit the next ten years of their life to Ukraine once again. For me, therefore, the question of state investment in young people ultimately comes down to this: how are young people already influencing the country’s ability to withstand the crisis, adapt to change and recover?

Resilience is the ability to adapt

Resilience is often thought of as the ability to withstand a blow and return to one’s previous state. For a country living under conditions of protracted war, this is not enough. Equally important is the ability to adapt, to restructure processes, to forge new connections, to respond to new needs, and to find solutions where previous ones no longer work.

Ukrainian communities do this every day. They have welcomed internally displaced persons and relocated businesses, adapted educational and social services, set up support services for veterans, and responded to destruction, staff shortages and demographic changes. Young people are part of these processes.

According to the nationwide study “The Impact of War on Young People in Ukraine – 2025”, 53% of young people in Ukraine have experience of volunteering. This figure represents more than just helping others. Volunteering is often an experience of self-organisation, resource mobilisation, coordinating people, communication, accountability, and quick decision-making (the study was conducted by the “Rating” Sociological Group on the initiative of the Ministry of Youth and Sport and with the support of UNDP and the Government of Denmark).

These skills are particularly important for a society that is constantly forced to respond to new challenges. I see similar processes at work in my work with youth councils. Where a council is not merely a formal advisory body, its work gradually extends beyond simply organising events. Young people analyse local programmes, address issues of accessibility, education, transport, housing and employment, and propose changes to decisions made by the authorities.

One such example is Mykolaiv community in Lviv region. The youth council, together with its partners, worked on the issue of accessibility as part of the LevelUp Prostir advocacy campaign. In April 2026, Mykolaiv City Council adopted the Programme for Creating an Accessible Community Environment for 2026–2030. Its aim is to ensure the accessibility of public spaces and municipal facilities, particularly libraries, for people with diverse needs: those with disabilities, people with reduced mobility, young people, older people and other residents.

What makes this example significant to me is the scale of the change: young people worked on a specific problem, but the result was a decision that affects the entire community and shapes its policy for several years. The value of such an experience is not limited to a single decision made. The community gains people who have practical experience of tackling problems, who can articulate them, gather evidence, identify those responsible, and propose solutions. This is a thoroughly practical contribution to the community’s resilience.

Reconstruction does not begin with buildings

After the war, Ukraine will need roads, housing, schools, hospitals, and energy facilities. But the mere existence of restored infrastructure does not in itself mean the recovery of the community. We need people who will use this infrastructure, work, set up businesses, pay taxes, educate their children, and work in hospitals, local governments, and community organisations. Therefore, the reconstruction of Ukraine will have not only an infrastructural but also a demographic dimension. And here, a young person’s decision about where to build their life is already becoming important for the state.

This decision consists of entirely practical matters: work, housing, education, transport, healthcare, safety, the opportunity to start one’s own business, to develop professionally, and to have an environment in which one wants to live. Therefore, it is difficult to consider youth policy in isolation. Housing policy affects young people. So does employment policy. Education, mobility, entrepreneurship, accessibility, healthcare, and regional development – all of these ultimately influence a person’s decision to stay, return or leave. When a young person moves away due to a lack of work, that is a personal decision. When hundreds of young people leave a community, it loses workers, entrepreneurs, specialists, taxpayers, and the potential for further development. Therefore, investing in opportunities for young people is, at the same time, an investment in communities’ ability to retain their people.

From “we were asked” to real impact

There is another dimension that is important for the sustainability of a democratic state. Recently, in my work with young people, I have become increasingly interested in the shift from asking “what concerns you?” to asking “what exactly needs to change?”. Consultations, surveys, and focus groups are necessary. They help us see the problem through the eyes of those directly affected by it. But the mere fact that a consultation takes place does not mean the problem will be solved. It is far better when the life experiences of young people become part of the process of developing a specific government decision.

One example I have observed closely is the work of the “DIIMO” Office for Children and Young People, under the Ministry of Social Policy, Family and Unity of Ukraine, on the topic of mentoring. For children and young people growing up without parental care or living in difficult circumstances, mentoring can mean having an adult by their side who helps them navigate their education, career choices, and the transition to independent living. The Office’s team, together with other stakeholders, has consistently raised the issue of developing mentoring at the national level and advocated for it. Today, this issue has moved beyond advocacy to legislative regulation and practical implementation. For me, this example is important not only because of mentoring itself. It shows that the experiences of children and young people can serve as a basis for shaping public policy, and that their participation can lead to concrete decisions.

Strong institutions are not just those that make decisions quickly. They are also institutions capable of gathering information from the people affected by these decisions and using it to adjust policy. At local and regional levels, this influence does not always take the form of a regulatory decision. Sometimes it all starts with a very specific need, around which young people are able to rally others and mobilise resources.

In Rivne, the Youth Council, together with the Centre for Student Development at the National University of Water and Environmental Engineering and the non-governmental organisation “Regional Centre of the European Integration Projects”, joined the charitable project “Healing Emotions”. They collected books, educational board games, stationery and arts and crafts kits for patients at the regional hospital – items that help make children’s stay in hospital psychologically more comfortable. This example illustrates the social dimension of resilience and the ability of young people to identify the needs of vulnerable groups and mobilise resources and community support around them.

In Vinnytsia region, a youth initiative addressed the community’s basic infrastructure. The NGO “League of Youth Councils”, in cooperation with the Vinnytsia Region Youth Congress and the Youth Council under the Hnivan City Council, implemented the project “Heat for the Primary Health Care Clinic – Heat for the People” in the village of Demydivka. The primary health care clinic was partially renovated, and more comfortable and safer conditions were created for patients and staff, with particular attention paid to accessibility. The practical impact of this work is clearly illustrated by another figure: every day, between 15 and 50 people use the services of this primary health care clinic – children, young parents, older people, veterans, and residents with chronic conditions. In other words, this youth initiative has delivered a result that benefits residents of all ages every day. For me, this is a good example of why young people’s contribution to community development should not be measured solely by the number of activities organised for young people themselves. These examples vary in scale. But they share a common logic: youth activities go beyond work “for young people” alone and address the specific needs of the community.

There is a clear practical link between youth policy and sustainability: the community has people who are ready to identify a problem, organise themselves around it, engage partners and resources, and work towards resolving it.

Human capital is not rebuilt in a single financial year

There is a reason to take an even more pragmatic view of investment in young people. Physical infrastructure can be rebuilt in a matter of years. Training a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, a social worker, a manager, or a skilled worker takes considerably longer.

The war has already changed the educational and professional trajectories of an entire generation. Some young Ukrainians are studying abroad. Some have moved to a different place, changed universities, or altered their career plans. Some are combining their studies with work or volunteering. Therefore, the human capital needed for recovery is not formed after the war ends. It is being formed right now.

Whether a young person has access to quality education today will determine Ukraine’s workforce potential in five years’ time. The opportunity to gain initial professional experience will influence the economy’s productivity. The conditions for youth entrepreneurship will determine whether we will have new businesses and jobs. Following this logic, investments in young people have a long-term impact. Not every effect will be visible next year. But the consequences of missed opportunities also accumulate – in the form of a skills shortage, an outflow of people, and a weaker local economy.

Resilience has its limits

When discussing young people’s contribution to Ukraine’s resilience, it is important not to romanticise the very ability to survive a crisis. Young Ukrainians are studying during air-raid alerts, working after being displaced, volunteering, setting up businesses, changing professions, and supporting the army. According to UNDP data, in 2025, 78% of young people surveyed remained optimistic about their own future. At the same time, the study “How war affects young people in Ukraine – 2024” showed that 25% of young people cited mental health as one of the issues that concerned them most, whereas in 2021 the figure was 11%. These figures are not contradictory. A person can continue to work, study, volunteer, and plan for the future, while simultaneously feeling the effects of prolonged stress. Therefore, resilience should not mean expecting people simply to endure even more.

If a country relies on young people for its recovery, economy, and community life, part of this policy must include access to psychological support, safe education, healthcare, social connections and environments where people can restore their own resilience.

What, then, does investment in young people mean?

For communities, this raises a very practical question: what exactly does it mean to work with young people as a resource for development, rather than merely as a specific target audience?

Firstly, it means recognising young people’s role in different local policies. When developing programmes on housing, employment, transport, regeneration, accessibility, or support for entrepreneurship, it is worth analysing separately how the proposed solutions will affect young residents and whether they provide reasons for them to remain in the community.

Secondly, involving young people not only in discussing problems but also in developing solutions. A youth council, consultation, or survey is of greater value if, once the problem has been identified, it is clear who will work on the proposals, which body has the authority to implement them, and how young people will be informed of the outcome.

Thirdly, providing resources to enable young people to make their own decisions. These could include local project competitions, youth grants, participatory budgeting, access to communal spaces, support for social entrepreneurship, or partnerships with businesses. The experience of Mykolaiv and Hnivan communities shows that a youth initiative can lead to a decision or outcome that benefits a much wider range of residents.

Fourthly, assessing youth policy not solely on the basis of the number of events. Other changes are no less indicative of a community’s resilience: whether opportunities for first-time employment are increasing, whether youth initiatives are supported, whether young people are involved in addressing local issues, whether they have access to spaces and services, and whether they see opportunities for professional development and a fulfilling life in their community.

Finally, working with data on the community’s own young people. Nationwide surveys provide an important overview, but decisions about a specific community are best based on its own data: who is leaving and why, what opportunities are lacking, where young people are working, what barriers they face, and what influences their decision to stay.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of youth policy is difficult to measure solely by the number of initiatives or their participants. It is no less important for a community to know whether young people stay in the community, find work, set up their own businesses, can afford housing, and see opportunities for professional development.

These personal decisions have far-reaching societal consequences. The demographic, economic, social, and institutional stability of regions depends on them. And ultimately, they determine the answer to a very practical question: will there be anyone left to live in and develop these communities in five, ten, or twenty years’ time? Ukraine needs money, technology, strong institutions, and international support for its recovery. But people will be the ones to turn these resources into functioning businesses, schools, hospitals, services, and new solutions. Therefore, investment in young people should not be viewed merely as funding for a specific area of government policy. It is an investment in the ability of communities to retain human capital, adapt to change, and develop.

The conditions for young people’s lives, development and fulfilment that we create today will, to a large extent, determine Ukraine’s resilience tomorrow.

The column reflects the opinion of its author only. The author is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information. The views expressed in the column may not coincide with those of the editorial staff of the Decentralisation Portal