What people on the move told us about life in Lesvos - Summer Needs Assessment Findings

Introduction

Collective Aid's Summer 2026 needs assessment highlights continued gaps in essential items, food, accommodation, education and psychosocial support for people on the move living in or around the Lesvos Closed Controlled Access Centre (CCAC). It also provides practical guidance for strengthening Collective Aid's free-shop services and feedback mechanisms.

In July 2026, Collective Aid conducted a needs assessment with people on the move accessing Parea Community Centre in Lesvos, Greece. The assessment explored immediate material needs, living conditions, access to services, advocacy priorities and experiences of Collective Aid's clothing and hygiene free shops.

The findings offer a snapshot of the situation during a period when the Lesvos CCAC had approximately 200 residents. Since the assessment was completed, the number of people living on the island has increased considerably. Lesvos has also increasingly functioned as a temporary processing hub, with people transferred to the island for screening before being moved elsewhere. The results should therefore be understood as an important account of conditions at the time of data collection, rather than a comprehensive picture of the current population.

How the assessment was conducted
The assessment was designed to understand whether Collective Aid's existing services continued to respond to the needs of people on the move and to identify gaps requiring programmatic or advocacy action.
Data collection took place over three weeks, from 13 to 31 July 2026, inside Parea Community Centre. Parea was selected because it is approximately a 20-minute walk from the Lesvos CCAC, where most people on the move on the island were residing at the time. It is also where Collective Aid operates its clothing and hygiene free shops and has established relationships with service users.
The assessment used a structured questionnaire combining quantitative and qualitative questions. The questionnaire was administered online through KoboToolbox and was available in nine languages: English, Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, French, Turkish, Amharic, Tigrinyan and Somali.
Participants were aged 16 or over and took part voluntarily after providing informed consent. Volunteers were trained on ethical data collection, informed consent and the purpose of each question. Participants could complete the questionnaire on their own devices or on one of two tablets provided by the team. Volunteers also circulated through Parea with tablets and displayed a QR code at the registration desk and in the free shops.
The survey covered four main areas: immediate material conditions, including clothing, shoes, hygiene items, food, water and accommodation; access to services, including healthcare, education, legal support and recreational activities; human rights and advocacy priorities identified by respondents; and access to, satisfaction with and feedback about Collective Aid's free-shop services.
A total of 20 people provided consent and submitted questionnaires. However, response rates varied considerably by question. While all respondents answered the consent and core demographic questions, many left open-text questions unanswered. This is an important limitation when interpreting the findings.

Who participated
The sample primarily reflected the people accessing Parea during the assessment period. Most respondents were Arabic-speaking men aged between 19 and 30. The largest groups by country of origin were from Yemen, Sudan and Eritrea.
The majority of participants were living in the Lesvos CCAC, and many had arrived recently. Around 55% had been in their accommodation for less than one month. This profile was consistent with the arrival patterns observed at the time, particularly the increase in newly arrived Yemeni men.
Women were significantly underrepresented: only five respondents were women. The sample also largely excluded people living independently in Mitilini because data collection took place exclusively at Parea Community Centre. The findings therefore cannot be treated as representative of all people on the move living in Lesvos.
The assessment results document the experiences of 20 people who chose to participate. They should not be generalised to the entire population of the CCAC or to all people on the island.

Material needs and living conditions

Shoes, clothing and hygiene items
The most frequently identified urgent needs were shoes, clothing and hygiene products. Shoes accounted for 29% of selections, followed by clothing at 27% and hygiene products at 18%.
These findings are closely connected to the experience of arrival. Of the 15 respondents who answered the relevant question, nine said they had arrived with nothing and five said they had only the clothes they were wearing. One person reported arriving with a phone.
The results point to a particularly urgent need for suitable footwear. At the time of the assessment, Eurorelief was the only organisation consistently distributing shoes on the island, and the footwear available was often limited to sliders. Maintaining a reliable stock of practical shoes could therefore be an important area for Collective Aid's material-support work.
Access to essential items was also inconsistent. Among the 19 respondents who answered the question, 53% said they sometimes lacked essential items and 21% said they lacked them often. Respondents reported receiving needed items at different points after arrival, ranging from within one day to approximately one month.

Accommodation and extreme heat
Several respondents described serious problems with their accommodation. These included rodents, overcrowding, poor room conditions and inadequate ventilation.
One respondent reported that there was a mouse in their room. Another described rooms containing approximately six people, only one fan and conditions that were having a serious effect on their psychological wellbeing: "The situation is disastrous for me because I am suffering psychologically."
These concerns were particularly significant during the Greek summer, when temperatures can become extremely high. The absence of adequate cooling and the concentration of several people in small rooms raise concerns for both physical and mental health.
Respondents also highlighted the need for air conditioning and improvements to the wider living environment. Although the survey did not measure indoor temperatures or accommodation conditions systematically, the testimonies indicate that heat, overcrowding and poor maintenance should remain areas for monitoring and advocacy.

Water, sanitation and hygiene
Responses about toilets, showers and drinking water were more positive than responses about other living conditions.
Among those who answered, 89% reported having access to a toilet and 83% reported no problems with toilet facilities. Ninety-four per cent reported having access to a shower and 94% reported no problems with shower facilities. Ninety-four per cent reported access to clean drinking water and 89% reported no problems with drinking water.
However, the qualitative responses suggest that access may not be adequate throughout the year. Respondents mentioned a lack of warm water, including during winter: "There is no warm water, even in winter." Another respondent said: "In the winter, I used to shower with cold water."
This distinction is important. A facility may technically be available while still failing to meet people's needs if it lacks hot water, is difficult to use or does not function reliably during colder months.

Food and nutrition
Food access was less positively assessed. Of the 18 respondents who answered the question, 22% said they did not have access to sufficient food and nutrition.
The concerns related not only to the amount of food but also to its quality and distribution. Respondents described food as inedible or unappetising, while another reported receiving only one meal per day and missing their portion if they did not arrive at the designated time: "There is food, but not edible." "They give us one meal a day, and sometimes it tastes bad. If I do not arrive at the designated mealtime, I do not get my portion."
These responses suggest that food provision should be assessed in terms of quantity, nutritional value, quality, cultural appropriateness and flexibility of access. A meal system that is technically available but missed because of strict collection times may still leave residents without sufficient food.

Gaps in services
The assessment did not identify one single service gap that was consistently reported across the sample. This was partly because many respondents did not answer the service-related questions, particularly the open-text questions asking which services were most important or what restricted access.
Nevertheless, responses about available services point to a reduction in holistic support. Education, safe spaces for rest and privacy, and recreational activities were among the least available services reported. Education was reported as available by 7% of respondents. Safe spaces for rest or privacy were reported by 5%. Recreational activities were reported by 5%.
Respondents also identified education and studying as priorities. One person said that obtaining a home and continuing their education would improve their life. Another identified education as one of the most important services.
Healthcare access was also uneven. General medical care was more commonly reported than specialist services, but access to dental care, optician services and support for vulnerable people was reported by only 4%, 3% and 3% of respondents respectively.
These gaps are concerning because access to basic healthcare does not necessarily mean that people can obtain the specialist or preventive services they need. The findings also underline the importance of maintaining safe, non-medical spaces where people can rest, participate in activities, learn and receive information.

Advocacy priorities
The advocacy section produced fewer responses than the material-needs section. Only six respondents answered the question asking what the public should understand about their experience, and five responded to the question about what change would improve their lives most.
The answers nevertheless point to several themes. People on the move have already experienced difficult and potentially traumatic circumstances. Arrival on Lesvos does not mark the end of uncertainty or suffering. Living conditions, weather and the physical environment affect people's wellbeing. Education, legal stability and access to a normal home are central aspirations. Some respondents wanted residency or a passport, reflecting the importance of secure status and a predictable future.
The responses also included a positive account of an efficient process and respectful treatment. This variation demonstrates that experiences are not uniform. Needs assessments and advocacy work should make space for both positive and negative experiences while examining the structural conditions shaping people's lives.
When asked how best to raise awareness, media attention was the most frequently selected option, at 43%. Legal accountability, NGOs and other approaches each accounted for 19%. This suggests that respondents saw public communication and media coverage as important tools for bringing attention to conditions on Lesvos, alongside legal and institutional accountability.
Any advocacy based on these findings should avoid presenting individual testimonies as representative of everyone on the island. Instead, testimonies can be combined with service monitoring, direct observation and additional data collection to identify recurring patterns and support evidence-based advocacy.

Lessons for future assessments
The assessment generated useful findings, but it also highlighted several methodological lessons.
First, the sample size was small. Twenty usable questionnaires are insufficient to support major programmatic changes on their own, particularly in a rapidly changing context. This was partly due to the number of residents in the CCAC and hence visitors in Parea being significantly lower than usual summer numbers, at around 250 residents at the time of survey. Future assessments should seek a larger and more diverse sample, including more women, families, people with disabilities, people living outside the CCAC and people who do not regularly access Parea.
Second, participants were more likely to complete closed questions than open-text questions. The survey should therefore balance the need for qualitative detail with the practical realities of completing a questionnaire in a busy community-centre environment. Shorter open questions, carefully designed response options and optional follow-up conversations may generate more useful qualitative data.
Third, the advocacy questions required particular care. Open questions can allow people to share in their own words, but they may also be difficult to answer or may unintentionally create emotional pressure. Future advocacy sections should be developed through participatory review, with clear prompts that help respondents share safely and voluntarily.
Finally, data analysis should begin soon after data collection. Delays caused by staff transitions and limited MEAL capacity meant that the findings were finalised after the context had changed substantially. A dedicated MEAL focal point or continuity plan would help ensure that assessment results remain relevant to operational decisions.

Continuing the work
The Summer 2026 assessment shows that people on the move in Lesvos continue to face overlapping needs. Clothing and shoes remain immediate priorities, while food quality, heat, overcrowded accommodation, education, psychosocial support and specialist healthcare require sustained attention.
The findings support continued provision of essential non-food items through Collective Aid's free shops, particularly shoes, clothing and hygiene products. They also point to the need for stronger monitoring of accommodation and food conditions, improved referral pathways, more consistent access to education and safe spaces, and advocacy that centres the experiences and priorities of people on the move.
The assessment is not an endpoint. It is a starting point for improving services, strengthening accountability and ensuring that future advocacy reflects the realities of people living in and moving through Lesvos.