Accessibility in the Community: What the Regulations Require and What the Experience of Three Countries Shows

When a community rebuilds a school, a clinic, or a service center, accessibility is usually the last thing considered—once the design is already finalized. As a result, a ramp becomes an afterthought rather than an integral part of the entrance. Below, we outline what Ukrainian standards require, at what stage this is verified, and three working models from Ukraine, the UK, and Finland.

Where did this experience come from, and who shared it?

Since 2024, this issue has only become more pressing: communities are transitioning from emergency repairs to reconstruction projects, and right now they are making decisions that will determine the accessibility of facilities for decades to come.

The meeting was titled “International and National Experiences in Building Accessibility and Inclusion During War.” The event was organized according to the very principles discussed: participants were provided with Ukrainian Sign Language interpretation and simultaneous Ukrainian-English interpretation. Our foundation participated jointly with the “Ukrainian Refugees UAPT” Association from Portugal.

Organizers: Abilis Foundation, a Finnish foundation established in 1998 by people with disabilities themselves, and the Technical Working Group on Age and Disability, which has been operating in Ukraine since December 2015 as part of the Protection Cluster.

What does a sign language user need to access services in the community?

The Ukrainian segment was presented by Olga Burlaka, chair of the NGO “Educational Assistance” and a candidate of pedagogical sciences. The organization operates in the Khmelnytskyi territorial community and brings together teachers with hearing impairments to provide educational assistance, counseling, rights advocacy, and educational programs. Among those she works with are internally displaced persons and community members with hearing impairments: children, adults, and seniors.

Barriers identified:

• insufficient social services;
• a limited number of sign language interpreters in the communities;
• obstacles to employment and education;
• inequality of opportunity.

The proposed solutions focused on training people rather than purchasing equipment:

1. Train sign language specialists and equip them with knowledge about the developmental characteristics of people with hearing impairments.
2. Provide the community with interpreters through training and fair compensation.
3. Create opportunities forvocational training leading to employment.
4. Conduct courses, lectures, and workshops involving people with both hearing impairments and normal hearing.

The legal framework for this already exists. Article 4 of the Law “On Ensuring the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language” defines Ukrainian Sign Language as the language of the sign language community and guarantees everyone the right to freely use it in public life, as well as to study and learn it. The law is in effect; the current version is dated June 27, 2026, verified on September 16, 2026.

Does a well-developed social protection system solve the problem?

This case study was presented by Dr. Ruslan Vasyutin—on the integration of Ukrainian families with children with disabilities in the United Kingdom, drawing on personal experience and potential solutions.

The British example illustrates that such a family’s needs are not limited to a single service but encompass an entire system: primary healthcare and diagnostics, rehabilitation, specialized equipment, social and financial support, education, parental support, and a community where the family is not left on its own.

At the same time, the existence of such a system does not mean that a family will receive everything immediately: they often have to wait a long time for certain services. The materials from the meeting do not specify the names of particular programs or waiting times, so we do not list them here.

Practical takeaway for Ukraine: it is not a single service that works, but rather the interaction between the medical, social, and educational systems, local authorities, and civic and charitable organizations. Where this coordination is lacking, families end up coordinating their own care pathways—and expend energy on this that they already lack.

Who decides exactly how a person receives assistance?

The Finnish panel was presented by The Threshold Association and Assistentti.info.

The Threshold Association, known in Finnish as Kynnys ry, was founded in 1973 by students with disabilities at the University of Helsinki. The impetus came from physical barriers that prevented them from attending classes on an equal footing with others. Today, the organization has branches in several cities across Finland and is run entirely by people with disabilities—from decision-making to day-to-day operations.

The key principle of the independent living movement is simple: barriers are created by the environment, not by a diagnosis. Therefore, it is the environment that must be changed. This same logic is described by the terms used in Ukrainian documents—universal design and reasonable accommodation.

Personal assistance in Finland is provided under the Act on Services for Persons with Disabilities and extends beyond daily living:

How the service is organized matters. According to the European Social Network, the most common model is one in which the person hires an assistant directly and acts as their employer: about 64% of cases. Another quarter or so consists of services provided by local authorities or purchased from a vendor, and a small proportion involves vouchers.

This changes the person’s role in the system: they are not a recipient of a ready-made solution, but rather the one who makes decisions about their own life.

What regulations require accessibility to be incorporated into a project?

The framework consists of three documents, each covering a specific area.

The most practical point is the second one. The review examines the project, specifically “regarding compliance with standards for creating conditions for unimpeded access for people with disabilities and other mobility-impaired groups.” The wording is taken verbatim from the procedure approved by Resolution No. 560 (in effect, as amended on June 10, 2026; verified on September 16, 2026).

In other words, accessibility in the project is not a client’s preference but a subject of review. If it is not incorporated, this issue will arise not at the facility’s opening but earlier—and at a higher cost.

Why is a ramp not enough to make a community barrier-free?

The National Strategy for Creating a Barrier-Free Environment by 2030 identifies six areas of accessibility. I’ll list them all here, because in communities, the term “accessibility” is usually understood to refer only to the first one:

1. Physical accessibility—buildings, transportation, streets, and entrances to facilities.
2. Information accessibility—access to public information, public announcements, and information during judicial and electoral processes.
3. Digital —access to the internet, quality of electronic communication services, and accessibility of websites and electronic services.
4. Social and civic —participation in community life on an equal footing with others.
5. Educational —equal access to education and lifelong learning.
6. Economic —access to employment and economic independence.

This breakdown explains why the three case studies from the roundtable do not overlap. The Ukrainian example focuses on information and educational accessibility: a person needs an interpreter to access a service. The British case focuses on social inclusion: a family should not be left to figure out its path on its own. The Finnish case addresses both economic and social inclusion: individuals manage their own assistance and work.

For the community, this implies a simple test. The renovated entrance to the service center addresses the first aspect. But if the community’s website doesn’t offer accessible versions of documents, and you can’t schedule an appointment without a phone call, the barrier has simply moved from the porch to another location.

What can be applied from this experience to a Ukrainian community?

The three case studies are structured differently, and a comparison reveals exactly where the line lies between what can be adapted and what relies on a foreign system:

The people for whom solutions are created must be involved in the process of creating them. A Finnish organization began when students with disabilities themselves identified a barrier that was hindering them. A Ukrainian organization began when teachers with hearing impairments organized themselves around their own needs.

For a community preparing a reconstruction project, this means simple things. Accessibility is included in the technical specifications, not just a list of wishes. Organizations of people with disabilities are involved in discussions during the needs assessment phase, not just at the facility’s opening. The event budget must account for sign language interpretation if there will be sign language users in attendance.

Ukraine ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities through Law No. 1767-VI of December 16, 2009; the law is currently in effect. The framework isn’t new—the question is always how it reaches a specific community.

What should be checked at every stage of a rehabilitation project?

The sequence in which accessibility is not lost:

1. Needs Assessment. Who in the community faces barriers, and what specific barriers do they encounter? Here, we involve organizations of people with disabilities—not to rubber-stamp a ready-made solution, but to identify exactly what isn’t working.
2. Technical specifications. We formulate accessibility as a requirement with reference to the current version of the State Building Standards (DBN), rather than as a vague statement such as “ensure convenience for people with limited mobility.”
3. Project Documentation. We verify that the requirements specified in the brief have been incorporated into the drawings: entrances, interior pathways, restrooms, tactile elements, and parking spaces.
4. Expert Review. This is where accessibility standards are officially verified. If issues arise at this stage, corrections can be made during the design phase rather than during construction.
5. Construction. We monitor precisely those elements that are most often overlooked on-site: ramp slope, clear door opening width, threshold, and equipment installation height.
6. Acceptance. The facility is accepted together with the people who will use it. There is one practical criterion: whether a person can use the service independently.
7. Post-Opening. Information and digital aspects: accessible document formats, appointment scheduling not limited to phone calls, and clear on-site navigation.

Why is this a matter of reconstruction, and not just social policy?

Our foundation works with communities on “Recovery”: needs assessments, data collection, project development, and partner outreach. In the “LIVING WATER” project, this involves assessing communities’ water systems; in the collaboration platform, it involves working on development plans.

Here, inclusion is not a separate area alongside others, but a criterion by which decisions are evaluated. If a community has restored a facility that a person in a wheelchair cannot access independently, it has restored the building, not the service.

We wrote about why reconstruction shouldn’t simply restore things to the way they were in our article on the “better than before” principle. Accessibility is one of the things that makes “better” measurable: either a person can use the service independently, or they cannot.

Participating in international forums provides the foundation with two things. First, models that are already working in other countries. Second, contacts with organizations that work with these models on a daily basis and can be consulted when a specific issue arises in a particular community.

This material is for informational purposes only. Legal regulations are subject to change—please check the current version on official resources.