_Figure 19: Coping strategies applied by vulnerable and non‐vulnerable population, % of the respondents_ <!-- Start of picture text --> 40%<br>35%<br>30%<br>25%<br>20%<br>15%<br>10%<br>5%<br>0%<br>vulnerable non vulnerable non vulnerable non vulnerable non<br>vulnerable vulnerable vulnerable vulnerable<br>2014 2015 2016 2017<br>income increase expenditure reduction nothing help from relatives help from the state other<br><!-- End of picture text --> Note. Only those respondents who reported deterioration of their well‐being where interviewed about coping strategies.

Source: Authors’ estimates based on HSS data.

There are some differences in the choice of the coping strategies by type of residence or household composition (see Annex, Table A8). For instance, active search for additional income was typical for residents of large cities in 2015 that were affected more than other territories at the onset of the crisis. Another consequence of the negative effects of the crisis in large cities early on was the rapid increase in the share of urban population in large cities cutting expenditures (in small cities this is more pronounced in 2016). In contrast with the urban population, rural households report less well‐being deterioration during the crisis and therefore cut expenditures less often.

Across household types, presence of children in the household increases the likelihood of searching for additional income, especially among households with 3 or more children, while at the same time reducing the frequency of relying on cutting expenditures. This could be due to the fact that poverty and vulnerability rates among households with three and more children leave them with only limited possibilities for expenditure reduction and pushes adults towards a more active search for additional employment income. Single parent households are another vulnerable group that tend to rely more on search for additional earnings, and on help from relatives, compared to other households. Retirees, on the other hand, predominantly rely on cutting expenditures, as other strategies are often not available for them. In the next section we explore self‐reported coping strategies in detail, exploiting micro data on incomes and expenditures.

# 5. Effects of Separate Coping Strategies

## 5.1. Non‐labor income: Role of public transfers and in‐kind income

As we have noted before, the vulnerable and the lower‐income population groups were among the most hurt by the crisis. By default these groups are the target for social policy. However, they do not report that they can rely on the state when their financial well‐being deteriorates and data on households’ income in the form of government transfers supports this thesis. It appears that government transfers did not help mitigate the effects of the crisis.

Over 95 percent of the average decline in cash income in 2014‐2016 can be explained by the decline in earnings – wages, entrepreneurial income and other earned income. Government transfers and other types of income (including capital income like rent income and dividends) account for less than 5 percent on average, although they may be more important for certain groups. For those vulnerable to poverty, the drop 17