COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT IN UKRAINE

The results of sociological research

«Evaluation of the impact of community based development approach to local development implemented by the UNDP Projects

in Ukraine financed by the European Union and other donors»

Kyiv – 2011

2

This publication was prepared with financial support from the Community Based Approach Project which is financed by European Union, co-financed and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine.

All thoughts, conclusions and recommendations belong to the authors and editors of this publication and do not necessary reflect the opinions of international donors of the Community Based Approach Project. For more information on the Project activities see www.cba.org.ua

AUTHORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Project team

Volodymyr Paniotto, director general, KIIS

Natalya Kharchenko, executive director, KIIS

Dmytro Khutkyy, research fellow, KIIS

Anton Grusheckyi, junior research fellow, KIIS

Vitaliy Kisil, junior research fellow, KIIS

Kateryna Skrypka, head of fieldwork department, KIIS

Olga Zhykhoruk, junior research fellow, KIIS

Natalia Sevekina, head of a control department, KIIS

Oleksiy Gorbachyk, head of data processing department, KIIS

Andriy Androsiuk, junior research fellow, KIIS

Authors of report

Volodymyr Paniotto, director general, KIIS

Dmytro Khutkyy, research fellow, KIIS

Anton Grusheckyi, junior research fellow, KIIS

Vitaliy Kisil, junior research fellow, KIIS

Partners and acknowledgements

We would like to express gratitude to all participants of this research - members of the communities, representatives of bodies of local self-governance, local and central authorities, businessmen and external experts.

We also want to express gratitude to the experts of the UNDP Projects, who offered valuable advice and consultations concerning the methodology of the community based approach to local development and specifics of its application in Ukraine, and assisted in organisational work on the field stage: Kurtmolla Abdulganiyev, Dzvinka Kachur, Olga Osaulenko, Oksana Remiga, Galyna Smirnova, Iryna Skaliy, Tetyana Diyeva, Denis Poltavets, Olena Ruditch, Jaysingh Sah, and Ganna Yatsyuk. We are also grateful to the UNDP experts who extended important contributions to the report: Danylo Bilak, Antonina Ishchenko, Tetiana Matiychyk, and Ayder Seytosmanov.

3

TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACMH – Association of Co-Owners of Multi-Apartment House BSP – Body of Self-Organisation of Population CBA – Community Based Approach (UNDP Project) CBDA – Community Based Development Approach (approach to local development) CC – City Council CDP – Community Development Plan CIDP – Crimea Integration and Development Programme CM – Communities Members CO – Community Organisation1 CO-MT – Community Organisation Management Team CRC –Community Resource Centre CRDP – Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme EU – European Union FG – Focus-Group Discussion II – In-depth interview KIIS – Kiev International Institute of Sociology LDF – Local Development Forum MCSD – Municipal Council of Sustainable Development MCSDF – Municipal Council of Sustainable Development Forum MGSDP – Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme MSU – Municipal Support Unit OC – Oblast Council OCC – Oblast Coordination Council OSA – Oblast State Administration OIU – Oblast Implementation Unit RC – Rayon Council RCRC – Rayon Community Resource Centre RE – Regional Experts RSA – Rayon State Administration UNDP – United Nations Development Programme VC – Village Council

1 According to CBA manual, Ukrainian law allows inhabitants of a given territory to assemble and discuss on development agenda pertaining to their community (territory). They may decide and declare the formation of their organization through a protocol. Such organisation is recognised as a CO. The inhabitants may register this CO under a particular legal framework (such as BSP, cooperative, ACMH, NGO etc.) and may acquire a specific legal name/recognition as defined by the law of the country. Therefore the generic name “CO” will be used to designate all the forms mentioned above.

4

CONTENTS

Information about the research…………………………………………………………………...6 Resume of research results……………………………………………………………………….8 Section 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………… ...11

1.1. Methodology of community based approach to local development………………...11 1.2. Community based development approach implemented by UNDP Projects in

Ukraine…………………………………………………………………………………….12 1.3. Expected results of approach impact and efficiency…………………………………15 1.4. Research goal and objectives …………………………………………………………15 1.5. Report structure ………………………………………………………………………….16

Section 2. Research methodology………………………………………………… ………..18 2.1. Spheres and components of evaluation of the approach effectiveness and impact............................................................................................................................18 2.2. Focus groups discussions with citizens and local authorities…………………........19 2.3. In-depth interviews with regional experts……………………………………………..20 2.4. In-depth interviews with national experts……………………………………………..21 2.5. Survey of regional experts……………………………………………………………...21 2.6. Survey of community members ……………………………………………………….22 2.7. Methodology of data analysis…………………………………………………………..23 2.8. Research operational hypotheses…………………………………………………….24

Section 3. Evaluation of the approach methodology e ffectiveness…………………… 27 3.1. Involvement of population……………………………………………………………...27 3.2. Pattern of priorities setting……………………………………………………………...29 3.3. Effectiveness of co-financing scheme…………………………………………………30 3.4. Conclusions about the effectiveness of the approach methodology……………...33

Section 4. Evaluation of the approach impact on loc al self-governance……………..34 4.1. Appropriateness of support organisations created ………………………………….34 4.2. Level of transparency, accountability and equality…………………………………..43 4.3. Quality of the strategic planning, bottom-up planning……………………………….45 4.4. Access to information about activities of local authorities…………………………..46 4.5. Role of local business…………………………………………………………………..48 4.6. Citizen- authorities relationships……………………………………………………..48 4.7. Conclusions concerning influence of approach on local self-governance………54

Section 5. Evaluation of approach impact on service delivery in sectors, which are supported by the UNDP Projects……………………………………………………… ……..56

5.1. Cost of service creation or rehabilitation………………………………………………56 5.2. Cost of service delivery…………………………………………………………………56 5.3. Quality of service delivery………………………………………………………………57 5.4. Sustainability of social infrastructures created…………………………………….....60 5.5. Conclusions concerning services delivery in sectors, which are supported by the UNDP Projects………………………………………………………………………………..60

Section 6. Evaluation of influence of approach on l iving quality of target groups............................................. ...................................................................................61

6.1. Changes in material conditions………………………………………………………...63 6.2. Changes in economic conditions………………………………………………………64 6.3. Changes in health……………………………………………………………………….64 6.4. Changes in the psychological self-feeling……………………………………………65 6.5. Changes in the social cohesion………………………………………………………..66 6.6. Conclusions concerning impact of approach on quality of life of the target groups………………………………………………………………………………………….69

Section 7. Evaluation of dissemination of experienc e, factors of success of the approach, possibilities of improvement of public po licy concerning local development……………………………………………………………………………………...70

7.1. Dissemination of the gained experience……………………………………………..70

5

7.2. Factors of successful approach implementation…………………………………….70 7.3. Possibilities of perfection of public policy concerning local development…………75 7.4. Conclusions concerning dissemination of experience, factors of success approach, possibilities of improvement of public policy concerning local development…………..77

Section 8. Conclusions, recommendations and discuss ion…………………………….79 8.1. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………79 8.2. Recommendations concerning perfection of approach and public policy concerning local development…………………………………………………………………………….83

Appendix A: Spheres and components of evaluation of efficiency and influence of the approach.............................................................................................................................86 Appendix B: Detailed information on research realisation……………………………………88 Appendix C: Guide for realisation of focus groups discussions……………………………..92 Appendix D: Guide for realisation of in-depth interview with regional experts……………..96 Appendix E: Guide for realisation of in-depth interview with national experts……………100 Appendix F: Questionnaire for survey of regional experts………………………………….103 Appendix G: Questionnaire for survey of community members …………………………...107

6

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCH The research «Evaluation of the impact of community based development approach to local development implemented by the UNDP Projects in Ukraine financed by the European Union and other donors» lead by the UNDP/EU Project "Community Based Approach" was conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

The goal of the research was to assess the impact and evaluate the effectiveness of the community based development approach to local development that had been implemented in the four UNDP Projects in Ukraine: "Crimea Integration and Development Programme", "Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme", "Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme" and "Community Based Approach to Local Development Project".

In order to attain this goal, the following objectives were determined:

– To collect the opinions of the representatives of involved parties on the efficiency of the methodology of the community based development approach to local development;

– To collect the opinions of the representatives of involved parties on the impact of approach on local self-governance;

– To collect the opinions of the representatives of involved parties on the approach’s impact on the service delivery in the sectors, supported by the projects;

– To collect the opinions of the representatives of involved parties on the approach’s impact on the living quality of target groups;

– To detect the factors of effectiveness of the approach implementation and to develop recommendations concerning dissemination of the study results, improvement of the approach and political initiatives.

Initially, a literature review was made. It helped to form a stronger understanding of the community based development approach to local development and infer about prospective results of the approach implementation among the population by the UNDP Projects. The UNDP experts consulted with the KIIS team, whose assistance facilitated qualitative research implementation. They explained the specifics of the functionality of the project, advised how to form the sample and helped in the organisation of fieldwork. A conceptual scheme of the research was developed, the structure of collection and analysis of sociological data determined, and the approach effectiveness and impact evaluated.

11 Focus group discussions were conducted, lighting up different partners’ attitudes towards the impact of community based development approach to local development. 27 In-depth interviews that were conducted with the regional experts (community members, village and rayon authorities, and oblast project staff) opened up possibilities to improve the understanding of different aspects and local peculiarities of the approach realisation. 206 Regional experts were interviewed: the data on these interviews represents the local rayon and oblast authorities involved in the UNDP Projects; they helped to adopt the approach in the MGSDP and CBA projects. The survey of 855 communities' members provided important information about the impact of the approach on the lines of direct beneficiaries. 9 In-depth thematic interviews conducted with the national experts were a valuable source of the information regarding the dissemination of experience gained by these UNDP Projects, the integral vision of propositions concerning further improvement of the community based development approach to local development, and the recommendation about desirable political executive initiatives that might help to replicate this approach in Ukraine.

As a result, reports regarding the results if the research by each method were prepared. The final published report accumulates and synthesizes the main results of the research and recommendations.

7

RESUME OF RESEARCH RESULTS We have sufficient grounds to conclude that overall the methodology of community

based development approach to local development can be evaluated as effective. Partners adhere to the requirements of approach methodology and are ready to assist in its dissemination.

There is a high level of involvement of the population in activities of community organisations.

Community members participate in activities of community organisations in a number of ways. Almost all community organisation members (93.9% of surveyed community organisation members) participated in community general meetings at least once. The majority of community organisation members (86.8% of surveyed community organisation members) are involved in the decision-making process of the community organisations on the basis of consensus, vote or questionnaire. Members of the community organisations (88.5% of surveyed community organisation members) are widely informed about the activities of community organisations. Almost all members of community organisations (95.1% to 100% of surveyed community organisation members depending on UNDP Project) pay their membership fees. The majority of community citizens (76.6% of surveyed community organisation members) reported that they know of cases when non-members of community organisations participated in community projects through voluntary contributions in the form of money or work. 29.9% of surveyed community organisation members also reported that members of community organisations made additional contributions on voluntary basis.

Priorities of community development are identified taking into account interests of the majority of community organisation members and are mainly independently from influence of authorities.

The majority of community organisation members (63.2% of surveyed respondents) agree that priorities were set solely or mostly by the influence of community members.

The current co-financing sample is generally considered by partners as an effective one, the stakeholders want and sometimes do invest more than is required.

The majority of stakeholders recognise the co-financing scheme as rather or very effective (75.7% of regional experts and 81.8% of community organisation management). 71.4% of regional experts recalled cases when community members, local business or local authorities made larger contributions than the specified minimal proportion.

It was discovered that the community based development approach has a manifest positive impact on local self-government in terms of self-organisation of communities and local authorities. This conclusion is supported by evidence regarding the general appropriateness of the established support structures to the set objectives, their transparency, accountability and equity, working strategic bottom-up planning, increased access to information on activities of local authorities, participation of local business as sponsors and improved citizen-authorities relationships.

The research demonstrates that the support structures established (CO, ACMH, RC, MSU, LDF, MCSD, MCSDF and OCC) fully correspond to the established objectives. They sometimes implement additional functionalities.

The established support structures contribute to the local development and cooperation between citizens and authorities. 84.9% of all surveyed regional experts assess community organisations as rather or very effective for the local community development process. In CBA Project LDFs were valued by 92.7% of surveyed CBA regional experts as rather or very effective. RRCs, ORCs and OCC were qualified as rather or very effective by at least 80% of surveyed CBA experts. In MGSDP Project MSUs were characterized as rather or very effective by 91.1% of surveyed MGSDP regional

8

experts. While MCSDFs were rated as rather or very effective by 73.3% of surveyed MGSDP regional experts.

Community organisations favour cooperation between communities and local authorities – this is recognised by 92.7% of all surveyed regional experts. LDFs, OCCs and MCSDFs have been rated as rather or very effective by 93.3%, 85.3% and 69.6% of regional experts respectively.

These organisations are widely used beyond the UNDP Projects. The support structures disseminate information materials, approach methodology and acquired experience to other communities. 70% of all surveyed regional experts recalled cases when communities not participating in UNDP Projects utilized the available resource centres. The model of community based development approach is replicated by other communities. 75.4% of surveyed regional experts reported they were aware of communities which self-organised following the examples of communities participating in UNDP Projects. 86% of surveyed members of the community organisations reported that their community organisations implement their initiatives outside the UNDP Projects at their own expense. 71.4% of COs apply for other grants or competitions beyond UNDP Projects, and 60% of the COs which applied won at least one grant or competition.

The stakeholders are eager to support established support institutions in the future and have a positive outlook for high sustainability. 70% of all surveyed regional experts predicted that the institutions will rather or very probably function after cooperation with UNDP Projects. Local authorities and UNDP Project staff expressed readiness to assist them personally: 90% of all surveyed regional experts think it is rather or very probable that they will support community organisations in the future.

There is an explicit increase in quality of human resources and mutual learning of community leaders and representatives of local authorities. Accumulation of knowledge and application of skills by community leaders and local officials has been promoted. It should be mentioned that at least 97% of all surveyed regional experts report growth of their knowledge of local governance and 98% – of skills in cooperation with communities.

The established support structures are characterized by a high level of transparency, accountability and equality in their activities.

Activities of community organisations are virtually transparent. At least 59% of surveyed members of community organisations are rather or fully informed about tendering procedures, public auditing, at least 76.2% – about priorities setting, reports on usage of CO funds, works on objects, and 90% – about decision making process. Only 0.6-8.8% of surveyed members of community organisations are completely unaware of CO activities. Members of communities have relatively equal access to benefits created by community projects. 95.7% of surveyed community members are confident that all community members have potential access to the established or rehabilitated services.

The model of strategic planning with the mechanism of bottom-up planning is widely disseminated. The interests of communities are accounted in the strategic plans of rayon development and interests of urban communities - in the strategic plans of urban development.

75.7% of all surveyed regional experts confirm that the priorities of community development are rather of fully accounted in a rayon or city development plan. Only 1.5% of the experts say such priorities are unaccounted. 67.8% of all surveyed regional experts believe the community development priorities are literally implemented. Only 2.5% think that they are not implemented.

It was revealed that there was improvement in access to information on activities of local authorities, which indicates an increase in its transparency.

At least 80% of all surveyed regional experts have noticed an increase in the amount and quality of informing of citizens regarding activities of local authorities. Among

9

community members from the main (beneficiary) group comparing to control (where UNDP Projects were not introduced) there are 26.5% more than those who have recognised an increase in accessibility of necessary information about activities of local authorities. The analogues difference in awareness of activities of local authorities is 25.4% for the benefit of the beneficiary group.

Representatives of local businesses have expressed a desire to sponsor local development by making contributions to the projects of community organisations.

There is a manifest improvement of democratic character and efficiency of co-operation between citizens and authorities. As a whole the result of approach implementation is a strong improvement of relationships between the citizens and local authorities.

There are positive dynamics of transparency of the local government activities. At least 89.8% of all surveyed regional experts note some or great increase in the level of accessibility of the local officials and openness to dialogue. Simultaneously, 50.6% of the community members from the main (beneficiary) group, in comparison to the 23.3% from control group that believe that openness to dialogue has rather or very increased. Local authorities in their activities more often take into account opinions of citizens. As much as 91.7% of all surveyed regional experts remarked that there was some or great increase in consideration of citizens’ opinions. At the same time, 46.7% of community members from the main (beneficiary) group, in contrast with the 20.8% from the control think that such consideration rather or very increased.

There is a marked difference in the level of citizens’ trust towards local officials amongst the communities who have participated in UNDP Projects and those which have not. On a scale from 0 (“Absolutely do not trust”’) to 10 (“Completely trust”) the level of trust towards local authorities differs from 6.4 in main (beneficiary) group to 4.9 in control group. It can be seen that there are positive dynamics in citizens’ trust towards local officials. It was found that in the main (beneficiary) group 41.2% admit their trust to local authorities has rather or very increased, while in the control group only 20.8% responded in such a manner. Furthermore, 71.3% of CO management feel confident in communication with authority officials, while only 7.4% of them feel diffident.

Clearly, there is an increase in cooperation between communities and local authorities. 53.8% of community members from main (beneficiary) group, in contrast to 19.5% from control group have noticed that cooperation between citizens and authorities has rather of very increased.

The positive dynamics in satisfaction of citizens with work of local officials, should also be mentioned. 47.9% of surveyed community members in main (beneficiary) group have noticed that they are more satisfied with the work of local authorities in comparison with 20.9% in the control group. Similarly, community members of the main group are more satisfied with the current work of local authorities than the community members of the control group.

From the study results it can be adequately stated that there was in increase in satisfaction with quality of services that were covered by the projects. The creation or rehabilitation of services is cost-effective. There is an increase of relative economy in the use of these services. Moreover, the created or rehabilitated communal infrastructures are certainly and potentially sustainable.

Some national experts remarked that the creation and delivery of services using the community based development approach is cheaper than that by most local authorities or other organisations without community involvement.

Community projects have an ambiguous influence on relative cost of service and delivery. From the one hand, the cost of services is smaller compared to communities where there are no community projects with the community based approach. However,

10

while some community members see an increase in energy consumption, others see decrease. The CO management claim that they apply efforts to save gas (77.9%), heat (84.7%), electricity (91%). 79.8% of CO managers reported their communities try to save water.

Community projects undoubtedly increase quality of community services. An increase in quality of heating observe 65.2% of surveyed members in communities where energy-saving projects of heating were introduced, compared to 36.3% in communities with other projects and 39.2% in control group. Similarly, it is 66.4% in contrast with 32.7% and 35% for street light projects. An analogues improvement was seen in the water supply. An increase in quality of water supply observe that 75.9% of the surveyed members in communities where projects of water supply were introduced, compared to 38.6% in communities with other projects and 38.5% in the control group. Similarly, it is 67.5% in comparison with 45.8% and 36.9% respectively for waste management projects. The greatest difference in quality is for school transport and healthcare. For school transport the difference is 32.6-37.7%, and for healthcare it is 42-42.4%. Members of community organisations express eagerness to support established or rehabilitated communal infrastructures.

As a result of this data analysis it is relevant to admit an increase in economic conditions, psychological self-feeling and considerable increase of social cohesion of communities.

Positive changes in life during recent years acknowledge 32.3% of community members in the main (beneficiary) group compared to 22.3% in control group. There are some reasons to suppose improvement in material conditions, however because of the small sample, positive qualitative results are not supported by the quantitative data. Due to community activities, the employment rate has increased in the main (beneficiary) group, whereas it has not in the control group. One might pose certain considerations to suppose improvement in health, but because of the small sample, positive qualitative results are not supported by the quantitative data. As a result of community self-organisation there is an increase in self-confidence of members of community organisations implementing community projects. There is a marked difference between main (beneficiary) and control groups in level of trust to members of their own community. On a scale from 0 (“absolutely do not trust”) to 10 (“completely trust”) citizens from main group have a level of trust of 7.7 while citizens from control group have one of 6.1. 50.9% of members of communities participating in UNDP Projects are sure that during the last years unity of their communities has increased when only 18.8% of communities not participating in UNDP Projects observe such an increase.

Community members from the main (beneficiary) group are more satisfied with the social life in their village or town than from control group (on a scale from 1 (“do not satisfied at all”) to 5 (“completely dissatisfied”) difference is 3.3 compared to 2.6 respectively). Similarly, community members from the main (beneficiary) group are more satisfied with future prospects of community development than from the control group (the difference is 3.8 compared to 2.7 respectively).

The impact of community based development approach differs in the four UNDP Projects. We might imply several factors which positively influence the result.

Community based approach to local development has a stronger positive impact if there is: a longer duration of institutional support, more intense financial and human resource inputs per territory or per community, more intense involvement of partner local authorities, work in initially more coherent rural communities.

11

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Methodology of the community based development approach to local development

According to the projects’ documents of UNDP Projects, the overall objective of the approach is to create an enabling environment for long-term self-sustaining socio-economic and community development at a local level by promoting local self-governance and community-based initiatives that would contribute to overall human development and attainment of Ukraine’s Millennium Development Goals.

By stimulating people’s participation in local debates about priority needs of their communities, and by helping them find and implement solutions to local problems, UNDP Projects aim to build a sense of confidence in citizens, enhance their role in local decision-making, and facilitate the dialogue between citizens and the Government. Community mobilisation and improved dialogue and cooperation between citizens, their associations, donors and local government are aimed to lay the ground for local long-term development planning.

This provides opportunities to ensure consistency of national policies and the way the EU implements its own local development policies concerning local development. The UNDP and the EC play its role in disseminating the community-based development methods at a time where it is most needed for (a) supporting the government’s efforts to deal anew with local development issues in an EU-compliant manner; and (b) preparing ground by delivering immediate results for the longer-term regional development projects.

Specific objectives of the approach are listed as the following:

1. Improve living conditions in rural, semi-urban and urban communities throughout Ukraine by promoting sustainable rehabilitation, management and operation of basic social and communal infrastructure and services through community-based self-help initiatives.

Community organisations, relevant local (village and municipal), rayon and regional authorities carry out the rehabilitation of basic social infrastructure and municipal services within major national MDG-based priority:

• Health (local health posts network) (UMDG 4) • Energy (energy conservation measures at local level, etc) (UMDG 3) • Environment (UMDG 3) • Water management (UMDG 3) • Local transport systems (UMDG 1)

During the introduction of community projects, each participating community is guided through the following steps of participatory community development:

• Sensitization and community self-assessment • Formation of community organisations • Community development planning • Project identification, prioritization and implementation • Follow-up (community progress review mechanism established so that

community members can codify past achievements and build on them)

2. Demonstrate effective participatory local governance and decentralized management mechanisms throughout Ukraine for public service delivery by promoting inclusive, self-governing community organisations undertaking self-help initiatives in partnership with local authorities, private business entities and other stakeholders.

The dialogue between community organisations and local authorities is formalized through the establishment of Local Development Forums (in case of CBA Project) and the like. Such forums are composed of representatives of local authorities and community organisations, private business, public utilities companies, and local NGOs.

12

3. Enhance relevant professional skills and knowledge of community organisations and local authorities to initiate and maintain participatory local development process on social economic development and public services delivery.

UNDP Projects develop institutional capacities of community organisations and local authorities to identify community needs and priority, to manage and monitor participatory local process for a sustainable social-economic development and efficient public service delivery. UNDP Projects provide training and support to ensure that efforts are carried forward to implement community development plans. Various village, municipal, rayon and oblast resource centres are created for community mobilisation.

For communities to become self-confident and raise their self-esteem, the approach provides a transfer of previous positive achievements demonstrated by UNDP Projects in a significant number of settlements in 24 regions of Ukraine and in Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

According to the approach methodology, the interested communities gather general meetings and create community organisations which might take various legal forms (NGOs, BSPs, ACMH etc.). To form a community organisation, it must be formed by at least 80% of households of the corresponding community. The priorities of community development are settled in a democratic way (by vote or survey).

1.2. Community based development approach implement ed by UNDP Projects in Ukraine

In response to the acute challenges that Ukraine is facing, with the objective to achieve sustainable development, UNDP applies the community-based approach to the local development in Ukraine. UNDP supports the sustainable social, economic and environmental development mainly through the introduction of the four projects in Ukraine in close cooperation with international organisations and development agencies. The community based development approach to local development mobilizes communities to take responsibility for the improvement of their own life.

There are four UNDP Projects in Ukraine that have applied the community based development approach to local development: Crimea Development and Integration Programme (CIDP); Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme (CRDP); Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme (MGSDP) and Community Based Approach to Local Development (CBA). All of them employ the social mobilisation approach, but they each have specific objectives, target populations and institutional arrangements.

Crimea Integration and Development Programme is a joint initiative of the international donor community: Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), governments of Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and Turkey. The Project goal is sustainable social and economic development of Crimea taking into account its national and cultural diversity.

To reach this goal it was essential: (1) to facilitate the development of democratic governance and to invite members of multiethnic communities to take an active part in solving current issues in partnership with the local authorities. To accomplish this CIDP encouraged the villagers to unite into population bodies of self-organisation of population (BSP) – a specific legal form of community organisation, which define problems, develop and implement projects aimed at overcoming these problems, while the emphasis is on making the residents themselves the initiators of the change. In the course of the programme realisation such direction as (2) economic development in the rural areas is implemented. Thus, CIDP stimulates the establishment of the agricultural cooperatives, while this form of self-organisation provides to the farmers joint problem solving. Another

13

important programme direction is (3) encouraging tolerance and social cohesion within the Crimean society through education and culture. Realisation of the set goal also envisages (4) speeding up responsiveness to potential conflict zones through the human security monitoring system.

Since 1995 and within the budget of USD 4.4 million over 629 community organisations with 400 villages (approximately 200 thousand CO members), where 419 community projects for 143,000 beneficiaries which were implemented with a total cost of 11.9 million dollars, were supported in Crimea. For CIDP each party’s contribution in community project was specified depending on the project. The community organisation and community project activity of CIDP was closed by 2008.

More information about the CIDP project is available at http://www.undp.crimea.ua/

Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme was initiated by the UN and is implemented with the aid of the donors, such as: UN Trust Fund for Human Security and the Government of Japan, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). The project goal is to support the Government of Ukraine’s efforts in mitigating long-term social, economic and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, creating favourable conditions of life and providing sustainable human development in regions affected by Chernobyl.

Achievement of this goal includes work in the following areas. Firstly, this involves promoting improvement of the state policy. Secondly, it requires assisting citizens in self-organisation and self-governance, increasing their potential for defining, developing and implementing priority programmes of social, economic, and ecological recovery and development. Thirdly, strengthening the capacity of organisations and institutions that should promote socio-economic development and ecological recovery of Chernobyl affected areas.

The programme has been operating since 2002 in selected regions of Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Chernihiv and Rivne regions. During this time, based on the USD 6.6 million budget 279 community organisations in 192 villages (more than 20,000 members), where 190 community projects were implemented with a total cost of UAH 18.5 million for some 200,000 beneficiaries, were supported in these four regions. For CRDP the co-financing scheme is the following: local authorities’ part – by 45%, CRDP – by 40%, local business – by 10-15%, community – approximately 5%.

More information about the CRDP project is available at http://www.crdp.org.ua/

Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme is implemented by UNDP with the support from donors, such as: Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and Royal Norwegian Embassy. The programme's goal is to build capacity of local communities and municipalities to participate in joint decision-making and use this ability for multilateral cooperation and activities aimed at strengthening of the local socio-economic and environmental governance for sustainable development.

Implementation of this goal includes the following tasks. First, capacity building of the central government concerning fiscal and administrative decentralization has to benefit the local communities. Second, capacity building of the local authorities in defining, developing and implementing strategies for sustainable local development needs to occur. Thirdly, the capacity of communities in improvement of local social, economic and environmental conditions through self-organisation should be increased. The main approach is social mobilisation, which includes promoting the establishment of local community organisations (Associations of Co-Owners of Multi-Apartment Houses and their Federations, Civil-Society Organisations of schools and kindergartens and their Networks, Service Cooperatives). These institutions are founded on the principles of self-help and good governance. Through the Programme interventions, the institutional capacity of these

14

organisations builds up so that they were able to plan, mobilize resources and identify priorities to address their social, economic and environmental problems in a sustainable way. This is supported by the respective city councils and other national / international development agencies.

The programme has been operating from 2004, currently it operates in 24 towns and 5 villages of 12 regions of Ukraine. During this time, based on the USD 6.6 million budget 550 community organisations in 29 cities (more than 56,000 members of community organisations) were created in these cities, and 272 community projects for about 167,000 beneficiaries were implemented with a total cost of UAH 30.8 million. For MGSDP the co-financing scheme is the following: local authorities’ part – by 45%, UNDP – by 45%, community part – not less than 10% (each year municipal authorities’ part increases by 5% and MGSDP part – decreases by 10%, if the same community participates in the Programme for the second time its share increases by 10%).

More information about the MGSDP project is available at http://msdp.undp.org.ua/index.php

The Community Based Approach to Local Development Project is a nationwide project implemented in Ukraine funded by the European Union and UNDP with the goal to create favourable environment for sustainable social and economic development at the local level through self-organisation and social mobilisation of communities, development and implementation of the small-scale community initiatives in all regions of Ukraine and Crimea.

The Project aims at restoration and efficient operation of basic local infrastructure facilities (especially in such priority areas such as the health care, energy, environment, public water supply, and public transportation). In addition, project objectives include improving professional skills and knowledge of community organisations, strengthening the institutional capacity of self-governing community organisations and local authorities. The accent is made on determination of needs and priorities of community development as well as management practices of local self-government through community organisations. The basic principle of this project dwells on direct participation of the community in solving urgent problems. It relies on decentralized mechanisms for providing public services. It is assumed that communities themselves can best identify critical issues and priorities for development at the grassroots level. The key mechanism for the project implementation is to create a network of self-governing local community organisations capable of initiating and implementing activities aimed at improving the living conditions of the community residents with local authorities, private business and other stakeholders’ participation. For this purpose in the course of the project specially created teams that helped communities to mobilize and organize themselves, conducted trainings for activists, and helped with the development and implementation of the community development plans. Implementation of the initiatives was held with the participation of the communities and other project participants, including authorities. Initiatives were financed by the project funds, although communities themselves were making money contributions (not less than 5% of the value of a particular initiative).

The project has been operating from 2007 in 209 rayons of all 24 regions of Ukraine and Crimea. During this time over 1151 community organisations in 1125 villages (418 789 members of community organisations), where 1310 projects were implemented on a total budget of UAH 193,6 million serving 1,209,069 beneficiaries, were supported in all regions of Ukraine. For CBA co-financing scheme is the following: 50% contributes CBA, 45% – local authorities, 5% – community.

More information about the CBA project is available at http://cba.org.ua/

15

Table 1.2.1.

Comparative statistics on the four UNDP Projects UNDP Project / Key information CIDP CRDP MGSDP CBA

Start year 1995 2002 2004 2007 Project budget USD 4.4 million USD 6.6 million USD 8.8 million EUR 13.3

million

Geographical scope

AR Crimea Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Chernihiv and Rivne oblasts

12 regions 24 oblasts and AR Crimea

Community organisations created

629 279 550 1151

Settlements involved

400 192 29 1125

Number of community organisations members

200,000 20,000 56,000 418,789

Percent of female CO members

54% 55.5% 52.2% 57.8%

Percent of male CO members

46% 44.5% 47.8% 42.2%

Number of projects supported

419 190 272 1310

Communities projects’ budget (total amount of investments from all stakeholders)

USD 11.9 million

UAH 18.5 million

UAH 30.8 million

UAH 193,6 million

Beneficiaries 143,000 200,000 167,934 1.2 million

1.3. Expected results of the approach impact and ef ficiency

According to the tasks specified in the UNDP documentation, which apply the community based development approach to local development, the effectiveness of the approach should be expressed in clearly defined indicators.

In particular, community based development approach is considered “effective”, when the following conditions are fulfiled: the majority of the community members (at least 80%) should participate in the activities of community organisations; significant part of the community should be represented at the general community meetings; the vast majority of the population should be involved in the decision making process on any matters concerning their own communities. In addition, community organisations members should be extensively informed about activities of the community organisations.

According to the requirements of the approach, priorities of the community development should be determined taking into account interests of the overwhelming majority of the community members and regardless of influence from representatives of authority representatives’.

16

In terms of contributions, all members of the community should pay membership fees. Most stakeholders (community members, local authorities, local business and international donors) should acknowledge the existing co-financing scheme as convenient and effective.

For efficient project operation and sustainable local development established support organisations and structures (CBO, CO, ACMHs, RC, MSU, LDF, MCSDF, OCC, and OIU) should be adequate and useful to carry out the outlined tasks for the needs of local development and for citizens/authority cooperation. All engaged parties should be ready to support the established organisations in the future.

One of the approach implementation directions was the development of human resources. More specifically, there should be an increase in knowledge and utilization of skills by community leaders and local officials.

Activities of the community organisations should be transparent and accountable to the community, and the outcomes should be available to all community members, who are the potential beneficiaries.

Due to implementation of this approach, the cost of created or rehabilitated services should be effective in considering the cost of implementation of the community projects by the community organisations. Similarly, the cost of providing these services should be lower in communities where community projects were introduced in comparison to communities where no projects were introduced. Energy saving should also be taken into consideration.

Citizens should be more satisfied with the quality of services, supported by the community projects, and strive to maintain the established or rehabilitated infrastructure facilities.

As a result of the approach implementation the communities should become more organized, which should be manifested by a growing social cohesion within communities.

1.4. Research Goal and Objectives

To perform a comprehensive impact assessment of the community based development approach to local development UNDP/EU Community Based Approach to Local Development Project commissioned to the Kiev International Institute of Sociology the study "Evaluation of impact of community based development approach to local development introduced in the UNDP Projects in Ukraine”.

The goal of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the community based development approach to local development, which was implemented by four UNDP Projects in Ukraine: Crimea Development and Integration Programme, Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme, Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme and Community Based Approach to Local Development.

Following objectives were identified to achieve this goal:

– Examine the views of the target groups representatives about the effectiveness of the methodology of the community based approach;

– Determine the views of the target groups representatives about the approach impact on the local self-government of population;

– Identify views of the target group representatives regarding the influence of the approach on the provision of services in sectors supported by the projects;

– Determine the views of the target group representatives about the approach impact on the quality of life of the target groups.

17

– Identify factors of the approach implementation effectiveness and develop recommendations for dissemination of experience, improvement of approach and policy initiatives.

1.5. Report structure

This report presents a number of structural parts that cover the methodology, results and conclusions of this evaluation research study.

Section 2 of the research methodology explains in detail the areas of evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of the community based development approach to local development. In addition, it provides description of the methods, which were applied in this evaluation. At the end of this part, the research hypotheses are defined, while clearly specifying what results obtained by which methods should indicate the accomplishment or failure of the expected outcomes of the approach implementation.

The section 3 deals with the assessment of the approach methodology effectiveness aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of mechanisms of the approach implementation by the stakeholders at the local level, particularly at the rayon level and at individual communities.

Section 4 highlights the assessment of the approach impact on local self-organisation of the population. It provides comprehensive examination of established support organisations within the structure of local authorities, their level of transparency, accountability and equality. The quality of strategic planning using the principles of bottom-up planning is verified. The most attention is paid to the citizen-authority relationships, including the accessibility and openness of the authority to dialogue, the attitudes of citizens and authorities towards each other, changes in the co-operation between citizens and government and citizen satisfaction with the work of local authorities. Additionally, the role of local businesses in local development processes is clarified.

The next section reveals assessment of the approach impact on provision of services in the sectors supported by the UNDP Projects, particularly with regard to the cost of creation/rehabilitation and provision of services, quality of these services provision and sustainability of the established community infrastructure. In addition, there is a part that presents assessment of approach impact on the quality of life of the target groups, i.e. the community members. An integrated assessment of changes in citizens’ lives is carried out: changes in the material conditions of life, in economic conditions, in the state of health, psychological self-feeling and social cohesion.

Expert evaluation is presented in a separate section which describes the assessment of experience dissemination, search for success factors of the approach and identifying the opportunities for improvement of the public policy regarding local development.

The last section presents conclusions regarding evaluation of effectiveness and impact of the community based development approach to local development, offers some recommendations on improvement of the approach and public policy regarding local development.

18

SECTION 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1. Areas and components of evaluation of the appr oach effectiveness and impact

According to the objectives of this study, the evaluation was carried out in the four areas: efficiency of the community based approach; the approach’s impact on local self-government; the approach’s impact on provision of services in sectors supported by these projects; the approach’s impact on the quality of life of the target groups.

In each of the above areas components were defined, and each component was further evaluated by one or more criteria.

Efficiency of the community based development approach was evaluated by:

1) Involvement of the population, defined by the following parameters:

- Patterns of the population participation in the CO;

- Level of citizens’ participation in general meetings;

- Level of the population’s involvement in the decision-making process (on any issues, including planning);

- Level of participation of the CO members in the joint co-financing of the community projects);

2) Patterns of priorities setting (the degree of CO independence in setting priorities for conducting community projects was verified);

And 3) the effectiveness of the co-financing schemes (the effectiveness of the current co-financing scheme was examined).

The assessment of the approach’s impact on local self-government included six components:

1) Appropriateness of the support structures established at various levels of local self-government was evaluated by the following criteria:

- Relevance, effectiveness and usefulness of the established structures (LDF, CO, OCC, OCRC) for the local development processes and for the cooperation between citizens and local authorities;

- The extent to which created structures are used outside UNDP Projects;

- Level of the potential viability of the established structures;

- The quality of human resources development and mutual learning of the community leaders and local authorities representatives;

- Degree of CO involvement in activities outside the UNDP Projects);

2) Level of transparency, accountability and equality is evaluated by the following indicators:

- Transparency and accountability of the CO activities: in decision making, setting priorities, regular reporting on the use of funds and financial protocols, carrying out tenders, and public audit;

- Equality in the access to the benefits among the project target population (community members);

3) Quality of strategic planning and bottom-up planning (the quality of strategic planning, bottom-up planning and application of these strategic plans was examined);

4) Access to information (level of accessibility of information about activities of the local authorities was measured);

19

5) The role of local businesses (motivation of local business to contribute to local development initiatives through the sponsorship of the CO projects was clarified);

6) The citizens/authorities relationships were defined by the following criteria:

- changes in the level of accessibility to the government officials and openness to dialogue;

- changes in the attitudes of citizens towards the authority representatives (including changes in the level of trust);

- changes in cooperation between communities and authority representatives (qualitative and quantitative);

- Changes in citizens’ satisfaction with the government officials’ performance).

The approach’s impact on provision of services in the sectors supported by the UNDP Projects was carried out by assessing four components:

1) The cost of creation or rehabilitation of services/or social/or communal infrastructure (effectiveness was determined with regard to the cost of community projects’ implementation by the community organisations);

2) The cost of service delivery (assessment of relative changes in the cost of services provision before and after community projects implementation);

3) The quality of service delivery (changes in the level of satisfaction with the services provision was measured: energy efficiency, water supply, education (school buses), health care, environmental protection, social sector, carrying out trainings and level of energy savings);

4) Sustainability of the established social/community infrastructure (the degree of value of the created or rehabilitated social/community infrastructure and the level of its potential viability);

An important area was evaluating the approach impact on the quality of life of the target groups by five components:

1) Changes in the material conditions of life (relative changes in the conditions of life, comfort and quality of life, compliance with the UNDP Projects priorities were examined);

2) Changes in the economic conditions (determined by direct and indirect relative changes in the economic conditions);

3) Changes in the health status (respondents were asked about relative changes of their health);

4) Changes in psychological self-feeling (in particular, relative changes in personal confidence level were investigated);

5) Changes in social cohesion (relative changes in social cohesion were examined).

2.2. Focus group discussions with citizens and loca l authorities

For the successful implementation of such a large and complex evaluative research study it is critically important to gather sociological data using qualitative research methods. Taking into account this fact the approach implemented by various stakeholders, to learn about opinions and views, that is most adequate is the method of the focus-group discussion. This method makes it possible to identify a possible range of opinions about perception of local development processes, including local self-government, service delivery and changes in the quality of life of the citizens. A variety of responses were received regarding the details of the community projects implementation and the extent of benefits that the citizens obtain. Discussions between participants who express

20

disagreement and opposing views about the same local development processes are also of great importance.

Conducting focus groups provided a good opportunity for local development forums, which were attended by the representatives of both the communities and the local authorities. While these forums were held in various regions of Ukraine, the locations were selected from a range of regions and rayons. Therefore, rayons for the survey were selected mainly from among those at which local development forums were conducted during the field stage of the research. Since the forums were held in different rayons in different months without some consistent pattern, it is logical to assume that the forums were randomly happening at the time of the research study and the generated sample is not biased.

In total, 11 focus groups were carried out - 8 for the CBA project and 3 for the MGSDP project. Since the diversity of ideas and fruitful discussions are among advantages of this method, the optimal number of participants is in the range of 8-12, the average was 10 participants.

For the CBA project 1 focus group was held in each of the 8 macro-regions of Ukraine, specific to this project. Regions that, according to the expert opinion of two CBA national project managers, are similar in nature in project implementation were combined into clusters – macro-regions. Individual areas within each macro-region were selected, so as to cover with the research rayons with varying degrees of effectiveness2. Moderators selected focus groups participants from the local development forums participants or (if forums were not held at this time) from the various communities of different rayons, so that they represented the greatest number of stakeholders. Representatives of different communities, heads of village councils, representatives of Rayon State Administrations, rayon councils, contact persons from Rayon State Administrations and coordinators from Oblast State Administrations participated in the focus groups. Representatives of local businesses had to provide a response to one extended question; therefore they were interviewed individually instead of participating in the two-hour focus groups.

For the MGSDP project there was developed qualitative contrast sample of cities for conducting focus groups, thereby views of the stakeholders’ representatives from 3 cities with various levels of success3 were received. For partaking in the focus groups municipal coordinators invited participants by quotas, so that there were both representatives of the various communities and representatives of the local authorities (city councils employees, municipal coordinators and employees of the municipal support units).

2.3. In-depth interviews with regional experts

Two other UNDP Projects - CIDP and CRDP – at the time of the research study were almost completed; therefore, it was difficult to gather key participants to participate in the focus groups. Thus, the most convenient method for obtaining quality information about activities of these projects was to conduct in-depth interviews with the regional experts. Stories of the representatives of the local population and local authorities on the realities and specifics of projects implementation are among advantages of this method.

2 The degree of effectiveness of the project implementation by rayons has been identified by the 7 criteria applying the method of expert questionnaire of the oblast project coordinators. For each rayon the resulting indicator was the sum of ratings by the 7 criteria with a maximum of 100 points. The rayon was classified as having high effectiveness if its indicator exceeded the median rayon estimate plus the standard deviation. The rayon was classified as having low effectiveness if its indicator was lower than the median rayon estimate minus the standard deviation. 3 Initially the expert questionnaire survey of project staff was conducted. On the ground of this survey results 28 cities were ranked in terms of effectiveness of the project implementation (the 29th city – Vynnytsia was not considered due to its relatively recent participation in the Project in April of 2010). For the focus groups, 1 was selected as the most effective city, 1 as the least effective city and 1 city was selected with average effectiveness.

21

While potential respondents are geographically dispersed, telephone interview is the most resource- efficient research method. In total, 27 expert structured in-depth interviews were conducted over the telephone.

For the evaluation of the CIDP project, in total, 12 respondents were interviewed, i.e. by 3 representatives of each of 4 target groups of respondents4. To learn the opinions and views of different stakeholders interviews were held with community representatives, heads of village councils, representatives of rayon authorities and local UNDP project staff.

To evaluate the CRDP project, in total, 12 respondents, out of the three typical rayons covered by the project,5 were interviewed, i.e. by 3 representatives of each of 4 target groups of respondents. Interviews with community representatives, heads of village councils, representatives of the rayon authorities and local UNDP project staff were conducted for this project as well.

An evaluation survey of the MGSDP project was conducted in the same 3 cities, which were selected for the focus groups. Expert interviews with the mayors were conducted in each of the selected cities.

2.4. In-depth interviews with the national experts

At the end of the research study a generalized assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the UNDP Projects applying the community based development approach to local development should be obtained. From this perspective, within the scale of the UNDP Projects, the most knowledgeable and competent subjects generally are national experts: those who have worked or are currently working with these projects either as senior managers or at the national level. Their general conclusions on the effectiveness of the use and dissemination of the approach methodology, local self-government, public policy and strategic planning are based on their own long-term management experience. Such opinions are crucial to understanding the systemic patterns of implementation of the community based development approach to local development.

To obtain both professional and weighted estimates, 4 internal experts (by 1 representative of the top-management from each of the UNDP Projects under evaluation) and 4 external experts (those having experience of working in the project or cooperation with the project and representing the organisation external to the respective UNDP project)6 were interviewed. In addition, it was decided to interview an internal expert among the UNDP management, who was the supervisor of all four projects. This helped to identify general patterns of the approach’s implementation in Ukraine (without the specifics of individual projects). Thus, in total, 9 expert thematic in-depth interviews with national experts were carried out.

2.5. Survey of regional experts

Some aspects of the approach can be professionally evaluated precisely by local officials or employees of UNDP Projects, who have worked at the rayon or regional level. Moreover, they are most knowledgeable about the situation in the respective rayons and regions, and thus, can provide accurate assessment of the relevance of the established

4 For the CIDP project 4 in-depth interviews in 3 randomly selected rayons of AR Crimea were planned. From the list of rayons provided by the CIDP representatives 3 rayons were selected randomly. To increase the probability of the quotas realisation, interviews with the representatives of rayon councils were conducted on a first priority basis. In the process of the sample realisation it turned out to be impossible to interview representatives of some quotas in selected rayons, therefore, by 1 community representative and 1 project employee from the 4th randomly selected rayon were interviewed. 5 CRDP expert and representative selected 3 rayons together, typical in terms of community projects implementation. 6 Internal experts were selected on the criteria of the maximum experience of participation in the respective project (number of years in project) and the largest scale of conclusions (the highest level of management). External experts were selected by recommendation of internal experts out of the project partners among the non-governmental organisations or governmental agencies.

22

support structures and citizens/authorities relations. Considering this, municipal, rayon and regional coordinators from the local authorities and CBA project employees were interviewed.

Standardized telephone survey via a computer is a quite suitable and cost effective method for these interviews. For the assessment of the CBA project 150 respondents7 were interviewed, for the MGSDP - 56 respondents8 were interviewed using quota sample.

The quantitative responses obtained represent the rayon, municipal and regional coordinators of the CBA and MGSDP projects, i.e. they provide the grounds to draw conclusions about the views of not only those surveyed, but also all coordinators at 0.05 level of significance with an error not exceeding 4%9.

2.6. Survey of community members

Since the residents of the respective communities obtain direct benefit from the community projects, the most accurate information on the realities of implementation and assessment of approach impact on the quality of life can be obtained from surveys of community members. Therefore, to obtain quantitative data that would enable us to draw conclusions regarding the approach’s impact on the target groups, a survey, by personal interview, was conducted of the community members.

For the survey we stratified the communities and from each set of communities we selected the most typical community. We believe that this approach makes it possible to extrapolate respondents’ answers onto all communities of the respective UNDP project10.

To ensure a sufficient number of responses 855 respondents were interviewed. The response rate comprised 72%. 111, 112 and 106 respondents were interviewed to evaluate the CIDP, CRDP and MGSDP Projects respectively. Whereas for the CBA, the largest project by regional coverage and community involvement, 213 respondents were interviewed. In total, 542 respondents were interviewed as a main group.

In order to examine the projects’ impact, a survey of control groups was planned11: 208 respondents for the CBA, 105 respondents for the MGSDP in total, and 313

7 For survey of experts of the CBA project all 25 oblasts of Ukraine were designated. It was planned to interview 1 project employee in each oblast (by 1 out of 2 possible), 1 oblast coordinator of OSA or OC (by 1 single possible, while in one oblast he refused, it was decided to interview one more rayon coordinator) and 4 rayon coordinators (4 out of 8 possible). If there were more potential respondents than it was required by the sample task, the respondents were selected from the list using the step. 8 For the survey of experts from the MGSDP project the objective was to interview representatives of all 28 cities. For each city the sample task specified 2 representatives of the municipal support unit. Since the respondents also were selected according to the defined step, municipal coordinators were either sampled or skipped in the selection process. If it was impossible to interview the last respondent in any city (due to the absence at the work place or refuse to participate), the city mayors were interviewed instead. 9 All statements in this report pertinent to the frequency distributions are based on statistical laws according to which, given the implementation of simple random sample, the distribution of variables values and relationships between variables inherent to the respondents will be observed in the general population (in this research study - among community members) with certain (here - with 95%) probability and with a specified error. 10 The most theoretically feasible scheme of the assessment of the projects’ impact on communities would be generating two representative samples for each project- the main (for the population that the projects’ impact is targeted towards) and control (for the population not covered by the project) and making two measurements - at the beginning and at the end of each project. However, the complete implementation of this approach would be too resource-consuming and the ratio of resources for the project itself and for its effectiveness assessment would be inadequate. Therefore, we used some more economic modification of the approach to the projects impact assessment by using control groups, which, nevertheless, allows evaluation of the most significant project results. 11 The experts suggested control communities for the survey. Those communities were to a maximum degree similar to the main ones, in particular, by such parameters as the number of citizens and economic development, but they should not have participated in the UNDP Projects.

23

respondents in the control group. For the CIDP and CRDP projects surveys of control groups were not carried out, however preliminary research studies were conducted that may be used as a basis for comparison. Therefore, assuming that initially all variables of these communities were similar, all changes in the population’s self-organisation, quality of services and quality of life should have been caused by participation in the UNDP project.

In the sub-sample for the CBA project the survey was conducted in all 8 macro-regions, i.e. in each macro-region a typical region was selected, in each typical region - a typical rayon, and in every typical rayon - a typical village (in total, 16 villages12). In the sub-sample for the MGSDP 8 typical cities were selected and in each typical city - a typical community (in total, 8 communities)13.

In the sub-samples for the CIDP and CRDP 8 typical rayons were selected and 1 typical village was selected in every typical rayon (a total of 8 villages) 14.

2.7. Methodology of data analysis

To analyse the data of the focus groups and interviews (qualitative methods) complete transcripts were prepared based on video and audio records. While reading the transcripts data, participants responses were classified by themes based on the conceptual scheme of the study. Then, for each theme typical responses were singled out; they are presented in this report. Individual citations inserted in this report were selected for the illustrative purposes, based on how precisely they illustrate the research conclusions.

12 In the sub-sample for the CBA project on the first stage of sampling there 8 macro-regions were identified that are typical for this project implementation, a process similar to that of the focus groups. In each macro-region the national managers selected 2 typical oblasts. In each of the selected oblasts according to the recommendation of experts, i.e. project staff in relevant oblasts, 2 typical rayons were selected, and in each selected rayon, 1 village was selected for the survey (usually with a typical project for this rayon). For the main sub-sample group of this project 16 villages have been identified. In each village of the main group according to the list of the community organisation members, potential respondents were selected by applying the step with the randomly generated base number. The step was equal to the number of citizens on the list divided by the number of interviews to be conducted in the given community. The base number helped to identify the first respondent on the list. As a result of this procedure, the sample of respondents in each community was random. In the villages from the control sub-sample group, selection of respondents was carried out by the route method with randomly assigned base number for the selection of households and respondents in the households. 13 In the MGSDP project the cities involved differ in patterns of project implementation, the 2 most successful and 2 lest successful were eliminated from the population as extreme cases. Among the rest 24 cities 8 typical cities for the survey were randomly assigned – by generating random numbers in the SPSS program. In each of the selected cities experts, i.e. municipal coordinators, determined by 1 community for the survey (usually, those were ACMHs.) For the main sub-sample group of this project, 8 cities/settlements of urban type have been identified. In every community from the main sub-sample group by the list of community organisation members potential respondents were selected randomly according to the abovementioned procedure. For the control sub-sample group the same experts have suggested to interview 8 communities (usually ACMHs), similar to those involved in the project, but which have not participated in the UNDP Projects. We assume they were not funded according to the model replicated from UNDP Projects. In the communities from the control sub-sample group, selection of respondents was carried out by the route method with randomly assigned step for the selection of households and respondents in the households. 14 CIDP project was implemented only in Crimea, therefore 8 typical rayons and typical villages (not the best and not the worst, rather medium in effectiveness) in the selected rayons were defined by experts – programme managers. As we applied typical sample, for the survey of community members the procedure of selection of rayons and settlements for CIDP and CRDP was essentially analogues to the procedure for the CBA. – The final decision of selection a rayon and a settlement was made by an internal expert and a KIIS representative. In each village, by the list of the community organisation members, potential respondents were selected randomly according to the abovementioned procedure. For the CRDP project adequate clusters were presented by 4 oblasts where the project was implemented. The CRDP expert together with the KIIS expert selected 2 typical rayons per each oblast and at each of these rayons 1 village for the survey. In each village sample of respondents in every community was generated randomly according to the abovementioned procedure.

24

The analysis of respondents’ answers in the surveys of regional experts and community members was carried out in a certain sequence. Initially, researchers examined the frequency distributions of answers to specific questions in the questionnaire; for accuracy of comparisons all distributions of responses were calculated as a percentage of those respondents who answered the relevant question. After this, the statistically significant differences between sub-groups were identified (for example, between different socio-demographic categories) 15. All statistically insignificant results were not included in the argument because they lie within sample error and might be accidental (that is in another sample they may be different). Therefore, in this report all statements regarding the revealed differences imply that the differences are not random, but statistically significant. In addition, analysis of statistical relationships between variables was carried out (for example, between age and improvement of knowledge and skills)16. Therefore, within this report all mentioned relationships between variables are statistically significant.

The optimal sequence of analysis is as listed in the following: identifying typical patterns of the approach implementation using qualitative methods (the range of possible views and assessments) and verifying quantitative distributions of the corresponding opinions of the community members and regional experts (the prevalence of these views and assessments among target groups) based on data collected by quantitative methods. In addition, estimates obtained by different methods were compared, for example, responses in surveys of regional experts and community members.

2.8. Research operational hypotheses

According to the objectives identified in the statutory UNDP Projects, which apply the community based development approach to local development, the effectiveness of the approach should be demonstrated by the following results17:

Efficiency of the community based approach:

• Participation of community members in community organisations (the actual participation of community members in the activity of community organisations18);

• Majority of community organisation members at least once participate in general meetings (> 80%);

• Involvement of the majority of community organisation members (> 80%) in the decision-making process in community organisations on the basis of consensus, vote or questionnaire;

• Extensively informing members of community organisations (> 80%) about the activities of community organisations;

• Solid (100%) payment of membership fees by the members of community organisations;

15 All statements about identified differences suggest that within the 0.95 confidence interval the statistical hypothesis about percentage or arithmetic means difference can not be rejected. Hypotheses about significance of the percentage differences were tested by Х2-criterion, and hypotheses about the significance of mean differences were tested by the Student t-test. 16 Hypotheses regarding the presence of relationships were checked by the Kendall's tau-b rank correlation coefficient. 17 For detailed structure of evaluation see Appendix A. 18 In the CBA Project the level of participation of community members in community organisations is calculated in terms of households against target households in the community. However, this criterion was not anticipated and consequently not utilised in the survey. According to our data, the share of unique households comprises from 94.6% to 100% for samples in different UNDP Projects, 97.7% on average. But as we do not know for sure the exact percent in responses to different questions, the distributions are calculated for community members, not for households.

25

• Participation of non-members of community organisations in the implementation of community projects through voluntary contributions in the form of money or work (presence of cases of such participation);

• Additional contributions of the members of community organisations on a voluntary basis (presence of cases of additional contributions);

• Identifying priorities for community development taking into account interests of the majority of community organisation members independently from the authorities influence (percentage of those who think that the opinion of the community members was more important is larger than the percentage of those who believe that the opinion of local authorities was more important);

• Majority of stakeholders recognise the co-financing scheme as effective (percentage of those who define it as effective is larger than percentage of those who define it as ineffective);

• Desire of local stakeholders (not UNDP Projects) to make larger contributions than the specified proportion (such a desire is articulated);

The approach’s impact on the local self-government:

• Established support structures (CO, ACMH, MSU, LDF, MCSD, MCSDF, OCC, OIU, RC) accomplish their objectives for the local development and for the cooperation between citizens and authorities (percentage of those who define them as effective is greater than percentage of those who characterize them as ineffective);

• Utilization of the established support structures (CO, ACMH, MSU, LDF, MCSD, MCSDF, OCC, OIU, RC) for dissemination of information materials, approach methodology and acquired experience to other communities (presence of cases of such dissemination);

• Willingness of stakeholders to support established support institutions in the future (confidence in the functionality of institutions after completion of the UNDP Projects prevails over the opinion that they will not function);

• Accumulation of knowledge and application of skills by the community leaders and local officials (presence of positive dynamics in the competence of community leaders and local authorities representatives);

• Implementation of initiatives by community organisations outside of the UNDP Projects at their own expense (presence of cases of such initiatives);

• Participation of community organisations in other competitions outside of the UNDP Projects (presence of cases of such participation);

• Significant transparency of activities of community organisations (> 80% of the members of community organisations are informed about activities);

• Target population has equal access to the benefits created by community projects (> 80% of the members of the community organisations are confident that access is possible);

• The interests of rural communities are accounted in the strategic plans of rayon development and interests of urban communities - in the strategic plans of urban development (presence of cases of development of such plans with the participation of communities);

• Increase in transparency of the local government activities (presence of a positive dynamics of transparency in the local government activities);

26

• Willingness of local businesses to sponsor local development by making contributions to the projects of community organisations (such a desire is articulated);

• Increase in the level of accessibility of local officials and openness to dialogue (presence of the positive dynamics of transparency of local government activities);

• Improvement of citizens’ attitudes towards local officials (presence of positive dynamics of citizens’ trust towards local officials);

• Increase in cooperation between communities and local authorities (presence of positive dynamics of cooperation);

• Increase in citizens’ satisfaction with the work of local officials (presence of positive dynamics of such satisfaction);

The approach’s impact on the service delivery in the sectors supported by these projects:

• Cost-effective establishment or rehabilitation of services relative to the cost of the community projects implementation by community organisations (higher effectiveness in comparison with the projects without community involvement);

• Reducing the relative cost of service delivery (the cost of services is smaller compared to the communities where there were no community projects with this approach);

• High satisfaction with the quality of received services, supported by the community projects (percentage of satisfied respondents is larger than the percentage of those unsatisfied);

• Energy saving (greater savings in comparison with communities where there were no community projects with this approach);

• Members of the community organisations want to support established or rehabilitated infrastructure facilities;

The approach’s impact on the quality of life of the target groups:

• Relative changes in the quality of life of the community members (presence of positive dynamics in the quality of life - material conditions, economic conditions, health status);

• Relative changes in the psychological self-feeling of the community members (presence of positive dynamics of self-confidence);

• Relative changes in the social cohesion of the communities (presence of positive dynamics in social cohesion).

27

SECTION 3. EVALUATION OF THE APPROACH METHODOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS

3.1. Involvement of the population

Analysis of focus-group discussions demonstrates that the members of communities which joined the project believe in themselves and try to change the life of their community.

We can distinguish the factors inducing citizens to join the work of community organisations including community projects:

• Persuasion by informal leaders of public opinion, • Support of local authority representatives, • Awareness of other communities’ positive experience.

In-depth interviews and surveys of regional experts allow us to clarify some peculiarities this process has. According to some representatives of communities and local authorities, initially, when creating community organisations and launching community projects, difficulties occurred with involving local citizens as some of them were sceptical and others could not or did not want to invest their own money into the project. UNDP project staff and local authorities have made a wide range of efforts to persuade citizens. They organised meetings to explain how community self-organisation should work, showed educational films and short clips on the local television. Resource centres of different kinds were extremely helpful. Consequently, as citizens saw that community organisations really worked and it was possible to implement community projects, they participated in projects more actively.

According to the data received by surveying community members, the total number of citizens holding managerial positions in the board of a community organisation (for instance, heads, secretaries, treasurers, members of functional groups or monitoring groups) is 18.7% (14.4 to 20.3% in different UNDP Projects), which is a rather high figure and evidence of democratic management of community organisations.

A prerequisite for real involvement of local residents in self-governance is their participation in forms of direct democracy, in particular, in general community meetings. Community member survey findings demonstrate high level of involvement as for Ukrainian realities (compared to 50-70% suggested in the initial hypothesis) – overall, general community meetings involve from 88.5% to 96.6% of community members in different UNDP Projects, the average proportion being 93.9% among all the respondents. The model approach in fact promotes a participatory form of governance.

It is also worth noting that an equally high involvement level is seen both among men and women, citizens with different levels of education and those who live in unequally wealthy households. By virtue of their requirements, the projects focus on women’s participation and thus they have succeeded in the fulfilment of this requirement.

Naturally, a significant proportion of the community organisation took part in decision making concerning community development issues, ranging from 71.2% to 95.5% in different UNDP Projects, the average being 86.8% among all the respondents, which makes it an undoubtedly overwhelming majority. This involvement level is nearly equal in different social-demographic categories of respondents.

The decisions taken are announced to the community, on average 88.5% (78.9 to 92% in different UNDP Projects) of community organisation members are informed of them. There are no statistically significant differences in awareness levels between different social-demographic population groups.

28

Graph 3.1.1. Levels of population involvement in decision making

(Percentage of the main group, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

For successful microproject realisation, community organisation members have to

pay membership fees. The survey demonstrates that 95.1% to 100% of the respondents paid fees with exceptions ranging from 0% to 4.9%. Thus the poll of community members in various UNDP Projects revealed that 0% to 4.9% of the respondents claim that they do not belong to any community organisations and do not pay membership fees. As the survey only listed community organisation members, some explanations are possible. These respondents may have misunderstood the question or may have already left the community organisation. It is also probable that they created informal organisations which developed into a formal organisation at the settlement level, so the members of the informal organisations became associated members and it is natural that some of them might not be paying fees. The rest of respondents invest money regardless of their form of membership in a community organisation.

Findings of in-depth interviews with regional experts lead to the conclusion that they supported projects in various ways:

• With the help of membership fees, • With additional money investment, • With free voluntary work, • By managing the work of the community organisations.

Surveying community members has fully confirmed researchers’ preliminary hypothesis about the population actually investing amounts of money exceeding the necessary minimum (all respondents who gave an affirmative answer personally contributed more than is required from an individual as an additional voluntary contribution) – from 18% to 36% in different UNDP Projects, the average was around 29.9% for all of the respondents. As it could be expected, the number of benefactors increases with growing wealth of the household that the respondent lives in. Thus, while 23.7% of respondents living in poorer households sometimes invest larger sums than necessary, the proportion of such respondents from wealthier households is 45.3%.

86.8

93.9

88.5

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

% respondents, who

participated in decision

making (n=538)

% respondents, who

were informed

about decisions taken

(n=539)

% respondents, who

participated in general

meetings of community at least once (n=539)

29

Graph 3.1.2. Occurrence of larger investments than necessary for project realisation

(Percentage of the main group, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

As it was repeatedly noted in focus-groups and in-depth interviews, it is more

possible for citizens to express their readiness to provide additional help in the community project realisation by doing certain work on community projects than by extra investments. This statement has been fully confirmed by the survey – over a half (from 54.8% to 84.8% in different UNDP Projects, the average being 76.6%) of respondents helped by doing work on community projects.

It would be appropriate to note that there are more male citizens who have done some labour contribution than female ones (84.8% men compared to 73.5% women). The number of those who provided some help in doing certain work is also somewhat larger among respondents from ‘wealthy’ households (86.0% compared to 72.9-75.6% of respondents from ‘poor’ and ‘medium’ households).

3.2. Pattern of priorities setting

According to focus-group participants (both those representing communities and those who represented local authorities), setting community priorities could be influenced both by various interest groups and by heads of village councils, while representatives of higher authorities did not have the tools to directly influence community priorities. Regardless of the initial idea source and activity, community decision making was democratic: everyone could voice their suggestions and take part in general meetings – and an overwhelming majority of the community expressed their suggestions and participated in general meetings (or at least in the community polls). The democratic procedure of priorities setting guaranteed that they did reflect urgent needs of the majority in a community.

Similarly, the interviewed regional experts note that community priorities were set by local residents themselves by discussing and voting either in general meetings or through a poll. Both community representatives and local authority representatives say that communities set their priorities themselves.

According to the concept of local development involving the local community, community organisations are to be independent of local authorities in setting priorities for community project realisation. However, answers to a neutral question presenting various scenarios of priorities setting that was asked while surveying community members revealed the fact that local authority representatives exert indirect influence on community

29.9

76.6

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

% respondents, who sometimes

contributed more

than demanded

(n=538)

% respondents, who contributed

by performing works

for community

projects (n=539)

30

priorities setting by announcing their own opinions: from 0.9% to 9.6% of respondents involved in different UNDP Projects (an average of 4.1%) note that authorities’ opinions were mostly or solely determinative in setting community priorities.

This can be partially caused by ignorance and existing stereotypes, as the more the respondents are aware of CO activity, the more they tend to consider that the community opinion is deciding. It is probable that views on the issue are really connected with citizens’ awareness of their community organisation activity – as shown by correlation analysis, the more aware the respondent was, the more likely he was to speak of the deciding role of organisation members in setting community priorities19.

Though the maximum proportion of those who believe that only authority opinions mattered is 3.8% in one of the UNDP Projects, it remains a point at issue and corresponds to the reality where communities are partly dependent on funding from local budgets. In spite of this fact, from 58.7% to 71.2% of respondents involved in different UNDP Projects (on average 63.2%) are convinced that deciding priorities setting were mainly or only based on community opinions.

Graph 3.2.1. Respondents’ opinions of whose view is the most important in setting priorities for

community development (Percentage of the main group, subsample size n=538)

3.3. Effectiveness of co-financing scheme

Considering statements of focus-group participants, all the interested parties regard the co-financing scheme as generally good and efficient20. They sometimes suggest reducing bureaucracy, accelerating the process of document registration and funding. Another request is to make the UNDP financial contribution share part bigger as both communities and local authorities are objectively unable to considerably augment their part of the funding.

19 Kendall tau-b correlation coefficient is 0,264 (p<0,001). 20 For CBA, the co-financing scheme is as follows – 50% contributes UNDP/EU, 45% – local authorities, 5% – community. For MGSDP: 45%+45%+10% (each year municipal authorities’ part increases by 5%, community part – by 10%). For CRDP the municipal authorities’ part was by 45%, UNDP – by 40%, local business – by 10-15%, community – approximately 5%. For CIDP each party’s contribution was different in each case.

31

This conclusion is also supported by what regional experts say – they generally evaluate the funding scheme as effective; respondents mostly say that it should remain as it is. The major value of such a funding model is its synergetic effect – all the participants get a result they would be unable to achieve acting by themselves. But sometimes difficulties may occur when applying various funding schemes – for instance, when switching from CIDP schemes to CBA schemes.

To reject or confirm qualitative opinions of certain interested parties, it is important to check them with the help of a representative expert in survey findings. The general view that the surveyed experts have is that the applied co-financing scheme is generally efficient; it is characterized as rather or very effective by 75.7% of respondents (67.9% to 80% of experts in different UNDP Projects), while only 4.4% assess it as rather or completely ineffective.

Graph 3.3.1. Assessment of current co-financing scheme effectiveness (Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

very effective, 36.9

rather effective,

39.8

equally effective

and ineffective,

18.0

rather ineffective,

4.4

completely

ineffective, 0.0

difficult to

say / do not

know, 1.0

Nevertheless, some regional experts in the survey mentioned several difficulties

concerning financing of community projects, namely, collecting membership fees from community organisations, searching for external funding, and the money transfer delay from central authorities and UNDP Projects. They try to solve these issues by negotiations with the parties involved.

Another source of information is the survey of community members asking for community organisation management representatives to assess the co-financing scheme effectiveness because they are more competent in this issue than simple CO members. This survey findings show that, despite occasional criticism of current co-financing scheme, only 3% of respondents assess it as rather or completely ineffective, while 33.3% characterize it as rather effective and 48.5% view it as very effective (overall, 81.8% assess it as rather effective or very effective, this proportion ranging from 77.9 to 86.65% in different UNDP Projects).

An interesting correlation has been discovered: co-financing efficiency assessment by heads of community organisations depends on how confident such respondents are in communication with authority representatives; thus, the greater respondents’ confidence, the higher their evaluation of the implemented co-financing scheme21. Perhaps, it is the community representatives who have succeeded in negotiations with local authorities that feel confident and convinced of the co-financing scheme efficiency.

21 Kendall tau-b correlation coefficient equals 0,249 (p<0.05).

32

Graph 3.3.2. Assessment of current co-financing scheme effectiveness

(Percentage of respondents belonging to CO-MT in their communities in the main group, subsample size n=99)

1.02.0

48.533.3

7.18.1

very effective

rather effective

equally effective and

ineffectiverather ineffective

completely ineffective

difficult to say / do not

know

If we analyse the views of citizens representing different target groups based on in-

depth interview findings, it becomes clear that their opinions are somewhat different.

Some community members and village council heads note that it can sometimes be difficult to raise money because not all members are able to make even the minimal contribution, though they introduce the necessity of such endowments for community project realisation. In fact, it was expected by project staff that the community would take some time to contribute even small amounts of money to reach the target level. So a possible interpretation might be the following: objective difficulties and their subjective reflection in the form of verbalised anxiety arise among low-income households in situations of not meeting the requirements in time. Sponsors have helped to fund community projects, though in an individual case the human factor worked and the village council head compelled a local business representative to contribute money to a community project.

Representatives of rayon authorities are certainly interested in the realisation of community projects and try to provide both financial and organisational help. They assist in drawing up documents, reaching positive solutions with district authority heads, and finding sponsors. But in the future, representatives of rayon authorities would like to decrease the proportion of their monetary contribution (and not increase it) because, as local authority representatives say, local budgets simply lack money for co-financing. In some cases, oblast authorities supported rayons with additional budget contribution.

On the other hand, representatives of some communities want to decrease their own contribution and have local authorities pay more instead. The community’s contribution will still be significant thanks to unpaid work on the objects.

However, even in the worst case scenario for community members – if the communities’ part of funding grows – it may still be advantageous for communities because with a reasonable contribution they get a result worth several times more than they have invested.

Despite the criticism concerning co-financing expressed by a part of respondents, the majority of regional experts surveyed report a widespread practice of extra payments from participants (additional to UNDP); 71.4% of experts (51.8 to 78.7% in different UNDP Projects) state that they know of such cases –this number is close to corresponding participation figure for CO members – report potential readiness of some local partners to make bigger contributions.

33

Graph 3.3.3. Do you know of cases of community members, local businessmen or local authority

representatives funding projects in bigger proportions than the minimal? (Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

So, the scheme is generally adequate and working and it can be even more efficient

in the long run if local potentials and peculiarities are taken into account and solutions suggested by the interviewed experts are implemented.

3.4. Conclusions about effectiveness of the approac h methodology

Overall, the community based development approach to local development can be assessed as effective. The interested parties adhere to the approach methodology requirements and are ready to promote it. The population is being widely involved on the stages of community self-organisation: conduction of general meetings, creation of community organisation, priorities setting, exchange of information about community organisation’s events, financing of community projects, investment of additional voluntary unpaid labour. Priorities are chosen with vast involvement of population either by direct voting or by survey and reflect interests of all or almost all of the members of the communities. The current co-financing scheme is viewed by the parties as effective, target groups want and sometimes can make bigger contributions than required.

34

SECTION 4. EVALUATION OF THE APPROACH IMPACT ON LOCAL SELF-GOVERNANCE 4.1. Appropriateness of support organisations creat ed

Focus-group participants’ answers make it obvious that all the structures created within the project are deemed useful and necessary to both citizens and local authorities.

In the survey some regional experts noted that in the beginning they had to wrestle an initial inactivity and lack of self-organisation of communities, especially if the recognised leaders were absent. They have overcome this by wide involvement of the population, training of active members and leaders, as well as local authorities. There were also some difficulties with official registration of community organisations in local authorities’ offices. These issues have been solved through negotiations and persuasion. Some respondents find it subjectively difficult to write all the necessary documents for community projects and financial reports. They say the problem rests with harsh bureaucratic requirements from UNDP Projects’ side. This difficulty is challenged by assistance of external consultants and self-training in the process of work.

For citizens, who have already passed the stage of creation of community organisations and implementation of community projects, these organisations are a realistic and acceptable form of solving common problems, and local authority representatives find it much more convenient to cooperate with orderly and experienced organisations.

On one hand, not all community members know of existing village (more rare) or rayon (more widespread) resource centres, but those who have used their services at least once are satisfied with both the materials provided and the professional consultations given.

Local development forums appeared to be a useful format of exchanging experience between different communities and making useful and promising contacts that may help to solve community issues.

Overall, the usefulness of the structures created may be seen in such aspects:

• Community mobilisation for action, • Human resource development, • Improvement of cooperation between citizens and authorities.

Regional experts have also noted in their interviews that support structures of different levels created within projects – from community organisations to rayon community resource centres and municipal support units – were absolutely adequate to local development objectives, though their activity effectiveness is directly dependent on certain citizens working there.

In the survey involving regional experts, the key participant of the community self-organisation – that is community organisations – has been given a rather high evaluation of effectiveness: 84.9% of experts from both projects assessed it as rather or very effective in supporting local development processes; none called it completely ineffective and only 1.9% said it was rather ineffective.

Graph 4.1.1. Assessing effectiveness of support of community organisation for local community

development processes (Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

35

very effective, 42.2

rather effective,

42.7

equally effective

and ineffective,

11.7

rather ineffective,

1.9

completely

ineffective,

0.0

difficult to say /

do not know,

1.5

In the CBA project, local development forums got a very high evaluation: 92.7% of

experts rating them as rather or very effective in support of the local development processes, which would be impossible if those were purely formal meetings. So, they are a real format for exchange of experience. All the support institutions created (community organisations, rayon and oblast resource centres, local development forums and oblast coordination councils) have been assessed as rather or very effective by at least 80% of experts, which is also a decent result.

Graph 4.1.2. Effectiveness of support for local community development processes provided by the

following structures (Percentage of regional CBA experts22, subsample size n=150)

46.7

40.3

54.7

50.0

48.7

42.7

40.3

29.3

42.7

38.7

9.3

11.4

6.7

4.7

5.3

0.7

2.0

3.3

0.7

3.3

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.7

6.0

5.3

2.0

4.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0

5.1 community organizations

5.2 rayon resource centers

5.3 oblast resource centers

5.4 local development forums

5.5 oblast coordination

councils

very effective

rather effective

equally effective and

ineffective

rather ineffective

completely ineffective

difficult to say / do not

know

An inverted pattern was revealed in the MGSDP project. Recognised as the most

useful structure, municipal support units were characterized as very effective or rather effective by 91.1% of experts. At the same time, community organisations were assessed as rather effective or very effective by 73.3% of experts and the municipal council for sustainable development forums were characterized as rather or very effective only by 22 Including focal persons and project staff. For detailed description of the sample see the methodological section.

36

62.5% of respondents. As there is no reason to believe that municipal authority representatives tend to overestimate efficiency of their departments and underestimate efficacy of community organisations more than rayon or oblast authority representatives, these figures may reflect actual differences in the work of projects in cities (interaction with communities being easier within one settlement) and in the countryside (RCRC representatives having to go to different villages that may be rather remote).

Graph 4.1.3. Effectiveness of the following structures in supporting local community development

processes (Percentage of regional MGSDP experts, subsample size n=56)

30,4

39,3

33,9

42,9

51,8

28,6

17,9

3,6

12,5

5,4

0,0

3,6

0,0

3,6

1,8

3,6

1,8

19,6

0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0

5.1 community organizations

5.6 municipal support units

5.7 municipal council for

sustainable development

forums

very effective

rather effective

equally effective and

ineffective

rather ineffective

completely ineffective

difficult to say / do not

know

According to experts’ opinion the role of community organisations in supporting

cooperation between communities and local authorities is even greater; community organisations are recognised as rather or very effective in this process by 92.7% of the experts. Similarly, all the support institutions created within both projects got the highest mark for their support for local community-authority cooperation.

Graph 4.1.4. Assessment of CO effectiveness in cooperation between a community and local authority

(Percentage of all experts23, sample size n=206)

very effective, 53.9

rather effective,

38.8

equally

effective

and

ineffective,

6.3

rather ineffective,

1.0

completely

ineffective, 0.0

difficult to say / do

not know, 0.0

If we analyse regional CBA experts’ answers separately, we can state that the most

efficient in cooperation between a community and local authority are community organisations (93.4% of the surveyed regional CBA experts consider them very or rather

23 Regional CBA and MGSDP experts, including focal persons and project staff. For detailed description of sample see methodological section.

37

effective in cooperation between a community and local authority) and forums for local development (93.3%) . Oblast coordination councils are deemed efficient by 85.3% of the surveyed regional CBA experts.

Graph 4.1.5. Effectiveness of the following structures in cooperation between a community and local

authority (Percentage of regional CBA experts, subsample size n=150)

58,7

42,0

40,0

34,7

51,3

45,3

6,7

4,0

9,3

0,0

0,7

1,3

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

2,0

4,0

0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0

6.1 community organizations

6.2 local development forums

6.3 oblast coordination councils

very effective

rather effective

equally effective and

ineffective

rather ineffective

completely ineffective

difficult to say / do not

know

Regional MGSDP experts also consider community organisations to be the most

efficient (91.1%). According to these experts, municipal councils for sustainable development forums are less efficient, though they are still highly effective (69.6%).

Graph 4.1.6. Effectiveness of the following structures in cooperation between a community and local

authority (Percentage of regional MGSDP experts, subsample size n=56)

41,1

35,7

50,0

33,9

5,4

8,9

3,6

0,0

0,0

1,8

0,0

19,6

0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0

6.1 community organizations

6.4 municipal council for

sustainable development forums

very effective

rather effective

equally effective and

ineffective

rather ineffective

completely ineffective

difficult to say / do not

know

Extent of use of created structures beyond projects

Regional experts have noted in their interviews that both community organisations and resource centres are useful in project, grant and other activities as well as beyond projects.

38

Verification of these statements by a quantitative survey of regional experts has shown that at least 70% of the surveyed experts reported cases of representatives from communities that are not participating in UNDP Projects using different possibilities of resource centres: this is evidence of potential informational usefulness that these institutions have for a wider range of citizens and that should be developed. But even more significant and strategically important is community development model replication – it was developed and introduced in these UNDP Projects – and 75.4% of experts could mention communities which self-organized by the approach model.

Graph 4.1.7. Impact of the created institutions on communities not involved in UNDP Projects

(Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

71,4

75,7

22,3

19,9

6,3

4,4

0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0

8. Do you know of any cases of

residents of communities not

involved in the Program using

facilities of

community/rayon/oblast resource

centers or municipal support

units?

9. Do you know of any cases of

residents of communities not

involved in the Program having

organized themselves by the

example of communities taking

part in the Program?

yes

no

difficult to say

/ do not know

Potential sustainability of the created structures

Interviewed regional experts note that, thanks to an understanding of the value of the created structures, both citizens and local authority representatives are interested in continuing their activity. However, some experts are anxious that when the projects are over, their activity may decline.

Considering that UNDP Projects aim at creating viable forms of population self-organisation, it was necessary to check the hypothesis of potential CO sustainability by a representative survey of regional experts. According to its findings, a positive prognosis was given by 86.9% of experts (saying it is rather or very probable that community organisations would continue their existence even when the project is over), while a negative forecast was given by only 2%. The high probability of potentially sustainable existence of institutions created within the CBA project was noted by at least 70%; not less than 60% of respondents said so about the MGSDP project.

Graph 4.1.8. Probability of community organisations continuing their work when the project is over

(Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

39

very probable, 53.9

rather probable,

33.0

equally

probable and

improbable, 9.2

rather improbable,

1.5

totally improbable,

0.5

difficult to

say / do not

know, 1.9

According to regional CBA experts, community organisations are the most probable

to continue their existence after the project is over (85.3% consider it rather or very probable). As for existence of local development forums, oblast resource centres and oblast coordination councils when the project is over 76.5%, 76.7% and 79.9% of regional CBA experts are confident respectively.

Graph 4.1.9. Probability of the following created structures continuing their work when the project is

over (Percentage of regional CBA experts, subsample sizes n of responses on each question

are indicated in the graph below)

52.0

40.5

32.0

25.5

25.5

33.3

41.9

44.7

51.0

54.4

11.3

7.4

10.0

10.1

7.4

0.7

2.7

2.7

4.7

4.7

0.7

1.4

1.3

0.7

3.4

2.0

6.1

9.3

8.1

4.7

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0

7.1 community organizations

(n=150)

7.2 rayon resource centers

(n=148)

7.3 oblast resource centers

(n=150)

7.4 local development forums

(n=149)

7.5 oblast coordination

councils (n=149)

very probable

rather probable

equally probable and

improbable

rather improbable

totally improbable

difficult to say / do not know

The majority of regional MGSDP experts (91%) are also sure that community

organisations will continue their work when the project is over. But only 62.5% of regional MGSDP experts believe that municipal council for sustainable development forums will still exist after the project.

Graph 4.1.10. Probability of the following created structures continuing their work when the project is

over

40

(Subsample of regional MGSDP experts, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

58.9

54.5

28.6

32.1

30.9

33.9

3.6

9.1

14.3

3.6

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.4

1.8

3.6

17.9

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

7.1 community organizations

(n=56)

7.6 municipal support units

(n=55)

7.7 municipal council for

sustainable development forums

(n=56)

very probable

rather probable

equally probable and

improbable

rather improbable

totally improbable

difficult to say / do not

know

Considering that the created support institutions cannot exist without the active

performance of citizens and authorities, to assess their potential sustainability, it is important to determine authority representatives’ readiness to support these institutions. The survey has revealed a high level of confidence in the probability of support of the community organisations even beyond the project – overall, 90% of experts deem it rather or very probable (87 to 92% depending on the UNDP project).

Graph 4.1.11. Probability of an expert being able to sustain COs working beyond this project

(Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

Quality of human resource development and mutual learning of community leaders and local authority representatives

One of the crucial factors in supporting the established forms of local development is the ability and readiness of representatives of local authorities. As it was discovered in the survey of regional experts, in some cases the initial low competence of community leaders might impede local development due to several factors. Firstly, citizens are not fully informed about the opportunities and mechanisms of community self-organisation. Secondly, they lack the appropriate experience and do not know exactly how to implement a community project. Thirdly, they are not qualified in writing official documents and solving technical issues, and thus claim a need to train local community leaders. Though

41

experts would not need to increase in their quality through the project’s support, they still report such an increase. In their interviews, regional experts24 admit that experiences gained in practical co-working on projects increases local authority representatives’ competence – and citizens, especially community activists, also acquire valuable skills.

These statements have been verified by a quantitative survey of regional experts. Even considering local authority representatives’ will portray themselves in the most favourable light, nearly absolute growth (that has been noted by at least 97% of respondents) of knowledge of local governance processes really reflects a wide-scale process, especially compared to corresponding after-effects local authority representatives have in settlements not involved in UNDP Projects. Even more important is improvement in community cooperation skills noted by at least 98% of the surveyed respondents. The statistically important connection between age and knowledge/skill improvement confirms the national experts’ hypothesis: the younger a local authority representative, the more quickly and easily they learn to cooperate with communities and can form the basis for implementing a new model of local development (according to correlation analysis).

The skill enhancement of community members and CO-officials was measured indirectly and is displayed in other parts of the report.

Graph 4.1.12. Assessment of changes in experts’ professional qualities over the past years

(Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

Level of CO’s involvement in events beyond UNDP Projects

The CBA methodology stipulates that, for stimulating such a level of community self-organisation, its organisation will participate in other initiatives, in particular, competitions to get funding for its own projects – up to initiative realisation at its own expense.

The community member survey asked respondents holding managerial positions in their organisations if their organisations had applied for other grants and competitions beyond UNDP Projects. If at least one CO manager reported that, to his/her knowledge, there had been such applications, the community was regarded as having applied for competitions/grants beyond the UNDP Projects. Thus, we have managed to obtain the data concerning occurrence of extra-project activities in communities involved in the study.

The survey findings show that this objective is successfully attained as, according to answers given by managerial group representatives of community organisation, 71.4% of the communities involved in the survey have applied for other grants or competitions

24 For detailed information on the sample see the methodological section.

42

beyond UNDP Projects – and 84% of those who applied won their grants/competitions. It verifies that COs will be effective development partners for local authorities in the future.

Graph 4.1.13. Occurrence of community organisations applying for other grants or competitions beyond

the UNDP Projects (Percentage of communities participating in UNDP Projects, sample size n=35; within

communities applying for grants or competitions beyond the UNDP Projects (sample size n=25) – percentage of those who have won at least one grant or competition)

no, 28.6 yes, 71.4

won at least one grant or competition, 60.0

have not won neither grants nor

competions , 11.4

If we compare the results of this research with previous study findings, it appears

that of the 8 surveyed CIDP communities, in 6 (or 75%) CO heads have reported that their communities applied for competitions/grants beyond the UNDP Projects. According to findings of another evaluation research of CIPD project of 2009 only 35% of the communities had experience participating in other projects beyond the UNDP Projects (however, it should be noted that, considering different designs of these studies, only relative data comparison is possible). Furthermore, in 2010, only 2 of the 6 communities (or 33.3%) that applied for competitions/grants won at least one of them. However, data collected in 2009 shows that 70% of communities that tried to raise money for project realisation beyond the UNDP Projects obtained partial or full funding (here it should also be noted that, strictly speaking, it is not really correct to compare these figures).

The survey also asked all community members if their organisations introduce other initiatives beyond the project at their own expense. According to our findings, an absolute majority of respondents – that is 86% (71.8 to 96.4% in different UNDP Projects) – have reported that their organisations really carried out additional initiatives. If we calculate their occurrence in communities, it seems that in every community there are citizens who reported fulfiling initiatives beyond the project.

Graph 4.1.14. Occurrence of initiative realisation beyond the UNDP by CO themselves

(Percentage of main group, subsample size n=536)

43

4.2. The level of transparency, accountability and equality

The level of transparency of CO activities

For successful realisation of current objectives (in particular, fund raising / collecting membership fees), community members should trust community organisations and their management – thus, the latter must act openly. According to community representatives involved in focus-group discussions, information of received and spent money is available to everyone. To inform citizens about the progress of the work, information stands have been created and newsletters printed. Besides, citizens can see the work results – that is, renovated buildings, provided water service etc – which also demonstrates that the money has been spent for the purpose.

Subjective impressions on the CO activities expressed by individual interest group representatives should be checked through quantitative methods. This is done by surveying community members.

Considering that only 0.6-8.8% of respondents state that they are completely unaware of various aspects of their CO activities and 76.2-90% are rather or fully informed of their priorities setting, accounts of money expenditure, work done on objects and decision-making, the work of community organisations is generally transparent. However, awareness of different forms of activity is somewhat different. Thus, respondents are best informed of the decision-making process (90.0% report their being rather or fully informed) and relatively least informed of public auditing (61.6%) and the tendering procedures (59.8%). While it is natural for tendering figures to be on this level (considering that conducting tenders is part of CO management competence), citizens being relatively worse informed of public audits may mean that they are not as widespread as should be. On the other hand, over a half of respondents are informed of them, which is acceptable. If this activity is worthwhile, it should be further promoted.

Graph 4.2.1. Respondent awareness of their CO activities

(Percentage of the main group, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

44

3.7

3.8

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Conduction of tenders (n=537)

Public audit (n=537)

Priorities' setting (n=537)

Reporting on funds usage (n=537)

Making work on community

objects (n=538)

Decision-making (n=539)

Besides, answers to all the six questions have been brought to one index of

respondent awareness of their CO activities. To make it possible, we calculated an average value for every respondent based on all the six questions. Thus, for every respondent, the awareness index may vary from 1 (utterly uninformed of any activity) to 5 (fully informed of all activity aspects).

If we measure awareness with the help of the general awareness index, it will equal 4.1 for all respondents (meaning that overall CO members are rather informed of all CO activity aspects) and 4.6 for management group members (meaning that their awareness is between ‘rather informed’ and ‘fully informed’).

Graph 4.2.2. CO activity awareness index

(Percentage of the main group, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

4.1

4.6

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

All community members

(n=539)

CO Management (n=101)

Benefiting equality in target populations of projects

The approach stipulates that all community members should have the potential possibility to use the created or rehabilitated infrastructure objects. Nearly all the surveyed community members (95.7%) proclaim that this requirement is met. No significant differences are seen between projects. As for those 4.3% who gave negative answers, it is impossible to certainly define whether they note a really existing local problem of access inequality or whether it is simply their interpretation of the fact that some services are aimed at certain target groups by their functional purpose (for instance, schools and kindergartens being more topical for parents).

45

Graph 4.2.3. Do all community members have potential possibility to use the created or rehabilitated

infrastructure objects? (Percentage of the main group, subsample size n=536)

Yes, 95.7

No, 4.3

4.3. Strategic planning quality, bottom-up planning

In focus-group discussions, target group representatives said that effective cooperation of citizens with local authorities leads to longer term results as community suggestions are taken into account when drawing strategic plans for town/rayon/oblast development; this greatly ensures that community projects will be funded by local authorities in the future.

In interviews with regional experts, the latter confirmed cases of community development goals being considered in strategic plans for local development –these legally fixed provisions give respondents certainty that this cooperation will continue.

To obtain more accurate data, a regional expert survey is to be taken into account. Experts have reported that community development priorities being at least partly considered in rayon/town development plans. This is confirmed by 75.7% and denied by only 1.5% of experts.

Graph 4.3.1. Considering community development priorities in a rayon/town development plan

(Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

fully accounted,

38.8

rather

accounted, 36.9

partially

accounted,

partially

unaccounted,

22.8

rather

unaccounted,

1.0

totally

unaccounted,

0.5

difficult to say /

do not know,

0.0

Together with community development priorities being simply considered, also

experts also noted their realisation. It is important that these priorities have already been brought to life at least partially, which was noted by 67.8% of regional experts – while only 2.5% of respondents disagreed with the statement. This data shows that bottom-up planning and strategic planning really work on territories involved in UNDP Projects.

Graph 4.3.2.

46

Realisation of community development priorities fixed in rayon/town development plans (Percentage of all regional experts, subsample size n=205)

partially

implemented,

partially not

implemented,

29.8

difficult to say /

do no know, 0.0

not implemented

at all, 1.0rather not

implemented, 1.5

rather

implemented,

36.1

fully

implemented,

31.7

4.4. Access to information about local authority ac tivity

Focus-group participants explain that professional development of local authority representatives and experiences of fruitful cooperation with citizens motivate authorities. They inform that citizens have wider and more qualitative information about their activities; especially through information boards, media coverage and direct communication at meetings with the citizens.

In their interviews, regional experts representing authorities mostly note that intensiveness and quality of citizens informing have improved and is mainly promoted through personal meetings, conferences, information boards, newspapers, television, and through the Internet.

At least 80% of the surveyed regional experts have seen an increase in the quantity and quality of information regarding local authority activities provided to citizens. Considering that a part of ‘no change’ answers do not reflect the changes in citizens informing compared to its state before the project started, such increase in openness and accountability of authority actions is a sure success of UNDP project realisation.

Also, 88.9% of all experts believe that informing citizens through information boards and the Internet has increased slightly or significantly over the past years and 93.7% say so about participation in press-conferences and the media.

Graph 4.4.1. Changes seen over the past years in the amount and quality of information concerning

local authority activities provided to citizens (Percentage of regional experts, subsample sizes n=150 for experts of CBA project and

n=56 for experts of MGSDP project)

47

The process of citizen-authority interaction results in citizens getting better access

to information from authorities. Comparison of the main (beneficiary) group (where UNDP Projects were introduced) with the control group (where UNDP Projects were not introduced) shows that the main (beneficiary) group contains 26.5% more citizens that believe that accessibility of the necessary information has increased slightly or considerably over the past years (at the time of UNDP project realisation). Besides, the control group contains 15.5% more citizens that feel decreasing access to information from authorities. The greatest effect of improving citizens’ access to information from authorities is seen in the CBA project. Similar conclusions can be made about awareness of local authority activities. The main (beneficiary) group contains 25.4% more citizens noting an increase in such awareness than the control group: These are statistically significant differences that are characteristic for both CBA and MGSDP.

Graph 4.4.2. Evaluation of accessibility of necessary information from authorities for citizens during the

past few years (Percentage of the surveyed community members, main group subsample size n=542,

control group subsample size n=313)

21.8

45.2

23.1

6.3

36.5

49.6

0 10 20 30 40 50

completely or rather decreased

did not change

very or rather increased

main group control group

Graph 4.4.3.

Assessment of the change in awareness of local authority activities in the past few years (Percentage of the surveyed community members, main group subsample size n=540,

control group subsample size n=313)

48

26.5

45.7

22.4

6.3

40.0

47.8

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

completely or rather decreased

did not change

very or rather increased

main group control group

4.5. The role of local businesses

Interviews with sponsors for CBA project from different parts of Ukraine (the North, the South, the West, the East and the Centre) were conducted, and sponsors have shown their will and readiness to finance community projects and, according to oblast coordinators, they will really fund projects.

It is interesting that sponsors provide financial support to a great variety of projects – outpatient reception points, schools, stadiums – and often do it beyond UNDP Projects. Interesting was one sponsor’s confession about his having donated larger sums than it seemed – but the problem is that excessive sponsorship draws too much attention of state authorities, which may harm his business.

Entrepreneurs have given a wide range of explanations of their motivation to fund projects ranging from a simple wish to help neighbours to the village council heads as a favour to and for patriotic feelings for their village. There are also purely pragmatic reasons like the need to provide normal living conditions for their workers, who are local residents – otherwise they would have to hire workers from neighbouring rayons, which is economically disadvantageous.

It is important and promising to involve a sponsor in a village strategic development project planned for 2012.

4.6. Citizen-authority relationships

In in-depth expert interviews, local authority representatives have given many predicted positive responses to improvements in relations with the citizens, though not all respondents were so optimistic. These relationships depend both on authority representatives (that may change) and on some local peculiarities.

The greatest apprehension and unwillingness was mainly seen at the beginning of the community project creation. But in the process of successful cooperation (and especially at the end, with visible practical results of the completed work) citizens gained more confidence in the outcome, placed more trust in one another, and a basis for future cooperation was established.

In focus-group discussions, different interested parties agreed that citizen-authority relationships improve through the process of joint work on projects:

• First they begin to understanding that such a dialogue is possible and it is fruitful,

• Then the experience of successful cooperation strengthens citizens’ trust in the local authority,

• On the other hand, local authority representatives get more inclined to consider citizens’ opinions and help them more effectively.

49

As some regional experts noted in the survey, support from local authorities may be purely formal. That is why in this cooperation personal contacts that depend on community leaders and public persons among project workers and in local authorities are crucial.

Comparison of experts’ impressions (these are mostly authority representatives) and those of the citizens in regard to the changes in citizen-authority relationships show that experts are at least twice as optimistic as the citizens. So, the positive mood of experts’ responses should be taken considering that it may be tendential self-appraisal. Nevertheless, prevailing both among the citizens and the experts (at least 80%) are those who believe that citizen-authority relationships have improved. In their opinion, authorities have become more open and have started taking into account the interests and opinions of simple citizens to a greater extent; there has been an increase both in community-authority cooperation and efficiency of authority activities in general.

Graph 4.6.1. Assessment of changes in citizen-authority relationship that have taken place in the

past several years (Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

Changes in accessibility of authority representatives and their openness to a dialogue

The overwhelming majority of the surveyed regional experts25 believe that local authority openness to a dialogue with citizens has increased slightly or considerably (89.8% of all the experts).

Graph 4.6.2. Assessment of changes in authority openness to a dialogue with citizens

(Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

25 For detailed information on the sample see methodological section.

50

It was found in the survey of community members that 50.6% of respondents from

the main (beneficiary) group believe that over the past years authority openness to a dialogue with citizens has increased slightly or considerably. But in the ‘control’ group, only 23.3% of respondents hold this opinion.

Graph 4.6.3. Assessment of changes in authority openness to a dialogue with citizens

(Percentage of the surveyed community members, main group subsample size n=540, control group subsample size n=313)

7.7

39.3

23.3

1.7

35.4

50.6

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

very or rather decreased

did not change

very or rather increased

main group control group

Another important aspect is taking into account the interests and opinions of citizens

in local authority activities. Even a larger proportion of regional experts (91.7%) believe that taking into account the interests and opinions of citizens in local authority activities has increased slightly or considerably.

Graph 4.6.4. Assessment of changes in considering opinions of citizens in local authority activities

(Percentage of all regional experts, sample size n=206)

51

The community member’s survey generally confirms the opinions of local authority

representatives. Like in the abovementioned case, significantly more optimistic opinions are held by respondents from the main (beneficiary) group: 46.7% of them believe that taking into account the interests and opinions of citizens in local authority activities has increased slightly or considerably over the past years (compared to 20.8% in the ‘control’ group).

Graph 4.6.5. Assessment of changes in considering opinions of citizens in local authority activities

(Percentage of the surveyed community members, main group subsample size n=540, control group subsample size n=313)

29.4

18.8

20.8

8.5

7.8

46.7

0 10 20 30 40 50

very or rather decreased

did not change

very or rather increased

main group control group

Changes in citizens’ attitudes towards authority representatives

Citizens’ attitude toward authority representatives is a complex phenomenon, but the most significant indicator is trust. In the survey of community members, respondents were asked two questions pertaining to the evaluation of their trust towards local authorities and the central government by a scale from 0 (“Absolutely do not trust”) to 10 (“Completely trust”).

The population survey has confirmed the experts’ hypothesis of successful cooperation with community organisations being connected with (and, most probably, leading to) growing trust to authorities, especially local ones. By the 10-point scale, the level of trust in local authorities is 4.9 in the ‘control’ group, while in the main (beneficiary) group it reaches 6.4.

52

It is worth noting that in both groups citizens’ trust to the central government is low (though it is still higher in the main (beneficiary) group).

Graph 4.6.6. Levels of trust in local authorities and the central government

(Average value among the surveyed community members, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

4.9 (n=297) 3.8 (n=289)

6.4 (n=502)

4.7 (n=480)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

trust to local authorities trust to central authorities

control group main group

Another indicator of changes is respondents’ subjective evaluation of trends in their

trust in local authorities over the past few years.

As we see, besides the changes in the state of trust at the moment the survey was conducted, there are also discrepancies in the way this trust has changed over the past years. The main (beneficiary) group contains 21.1% more citizens who admit growing trust in local authority representatives than the control group (41.2% compared to 20.8%).

Graph 4.6.7. Assessment of changes in trust placed in local authority representatives

(Percentage of the surveyed community members, main group subsample size n=541, control group subsample size n=313)

29.7

45.0

20.8

9.6

43.6

41.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

very or rather decreased

did not change

very or rather increased

main group

control group

Feeling confident in communication with authority representatives are 71.3% of

community organisation heads. Only 7.4% feel diffident.

Graph 4.6.8. Confidence in communication with authority representatives

(Percentage of CO-MT in their communities, subsample size n=94)

53

71.3

21.3

7.4

Feeling confident

Feeling both confident

and diffident

Feeling diffident

Changes in community-authority cooperation

Considering that cooperation with authorities is a complex and integral process, authorities’ growing openness to dialogue with citizens should naturally lead to a more intense and fruitful cooperation between citizens and local authorities. A survey of community members demonstrates this tendency: the main (beneficiary) group contains 34.3% more citizens noting quantitative increase in citizen-authority cooperation than the control group; this trend is characteristic of both CBA and MGSDP.

Graph 4.6.9. Assessment of changes in community-authority cooperation

(Percentage of the surveyed community members, main group subsample size n=539, control group subsample size n=313)

25.2

42.2

19.5

5.6

32.3

53.8

0 10 20 30 40 50

very or rather decreased

did not change

very or rather increased

main group

control group

Changes in levels of citizens’ satisfaction with the work of authority representatives

Overall, 47.9% of respondents in the main (beneficiary) group in the survey of community members have noted that the efficiency of local authority activities has increased in the past few years. Only 7.2% hold an opposing opinion saying their efficiency has decreased. In contrast, ‘control’ group respondents do not report such growth: only 20.9% believe that their efficiency has increased and as many as 24.4% think it has even decreased. So, these changes are admitted by 20% more respondents in the

54

main (beneficiary) group than in the control one, and are characteristic of both the CBA and MGSDP projects.

Graph 4.6.10. Assessment of changes in the efficiency of local authority activities

(Percentage of the surveyed community members, main group subsample size n=541, control group subsample size n=311)

24.4

48.2

20.9

7.2

38.3

47.9

0 10 20 30 40 50

very or rather decreased

did not change

very or rather increased

main group

control group

Naturally, despite the generally critical attitudes towards authorities’ work, the

survey of community members has revealed higher levels of satisfaction with the work of local authorities in communities where UNDP Projects were introduced in cooperation with local authorities. These are 3.5 in the main (beneficiary) group in contrast to 2.8 in the control group (this is even lower than the “equally satisfied and dissatisfied” position) by a 5-point scale with 1 standing for “absolutely dissatisfied” and 5 for “completely satisfied” .

Graph 4.6.11. Levels of satisfaction with the work of local authorities

(Average value among the surveyed community members, main group subsample size n=510, control group subsample size n=291)

2.8

3.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

control group

main group

4.7. Conclusions regarding the approach influence o n local self-governance

The study demonstrates that the created supporting organisations fully correspond to the objectives set and even perform additional functions. They enhance the process of

55

local development and cooperation between citizens and local authorities. The support structures are characterized by a high level of transparency, accountability and equality in their work. Community organisations, resource centres, municipal support units and local development forums facilitate the processes of local development and cooperation between communities and local authorities. These organisations are widely used beyond community projects and disseminate the community based development approach model to other communities. The interested parties give a positive prognosis of the created support organisations being highly sustainable, in great part because they themselves are willing to support them. Human resource development demonstrates improvement also – that of community representatives and local authorities. The strategic planning model involving the bottom-up planning mechanism is being used more widely. There has been significant improvement in accessibility of information from local authorities; community-authority cooperation has also become more democratic and efficient. Local businesses have a certain potential for sponsorship of community projects, so community leaders need to demonstrate the benefits of such funding more explicitly and persuasively. Citizen-authorities relationships demonstrate a clear improvement: there is more openness for dialogue, citizens feel more confident when communicating with local authorities, and consequently, their interests are taken into account by local authorities more often. On the other hand, local authorities display more respect towards community leaders and rely on them for implementation of local policies more widely. Naturally, there is an indicated increase in level of trust in local authorities from citizens. Overall, the citizens-authority relationships are more positive and productive.

56

SECTION 5. ESTIMATION OF APPROACH IMPACT ON SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE SECTORS SUPPORTED BY THE PROJECTS 5.1 Cost of service creation or rehabilitation

Based on the interested parties’ representatives’ statements during the focus groups it is possible to conclude the following: because citizens work for themselves, they seek to utilize the available funds as effectively as possible. They find the optimum proportion of quality and cost, and perform part of work voluntary and free of charge.

5.2 Cost of service delivery

Participants of focus groups of all categories practically unanimously agree that the projects should decrease expenses of public and social utilities. It allows communal establishments and households to save more money.

Regional experts noted in an interview that a decrease in service cost is realistic because of the following factors:

• There are opportunities to obtain necessary services in their own settlements rather than spend money on trips to other inhabited localities,

• Onset of opportunity of the service provider choice and control, • Creation of opportunity to get preferential or free service in own infrastructural

objects.

In the interviews of community members who are part of administrative posts there was a question to respondents regarding whether or not power consumption in their communities has changed in the past few years. According to the findings of the investigation 31.3% of respondents stated that consumption significantly or most likely increased, 28.3% - didn’t change, 23.3% - significantly or most likely decreased.

Chart 5.2.1. Change of power consumption in communities

(Percentage among CO-MT of their communities, subsample size n=99)

increased

considerably,

8.1

rather

increased, 23.2did not change,

28.3

rather

decreased, 15.2

decreased

considerably,

8.1

difficult to say /

do not know,

17.2

Heads of the community organisations also were asked whether they now try to

save non-renewable resources. An absolute majority of the respondents (77.9-91.0%) reported that now they try to save gas, heat and electricity. Hypothetically, there may be at least two factors at work: they consciously try to save recourses or it is a logical consequence of projects’ intervention (due to higher effectiveness of the created/rehabilitated infrastructure).

Chart 5.2.2. Efforts to save gas, heat, electricity in communities

57

(Percentage among CO-MT of their communities, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

12.6

9.5

77.9

3.0

6.0

91.0

6.1

9.2

84.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

HARD TO SAY

We don’t save

We save

HARD TO SAY

We don’t save

We save

HARD TO SAY

We don’t save

We save

Gas

(n=

95)

Ele

ctric

ene

rgy

(n=

100)

Hea

t (n=

98)

Also 79.8% of community organisations heads noted that their communities try to save water now.

Chart 5.2.3. Efforts to save water in communities

(Percentage among CO-MT of their communities, subsample size n=99)

We save, 79.8

We don't

save, 17.2HARD TO

SAY, 3.0

Forms of electricity saving seems to be disputable: 78% to 91% administrative group representatives of community organisations are convinced that they are energy efficient and try to save expanses of different communal resources. On the contrary, responses to other questions show that there are more of those who recognise an increase in energy consumption than those who note a decrease in energy consumption.

5.3 Quality of service delivery

Participants of the focus groups noted an undoubted complex improvement of quality of service. Like in the opinion of the regional experts, the initial level of fulfilment for the population due to community projects is the ability to access services that were inaccessible earlier and/or present services quality improvement.

To determine the measure of change concerning service delivery quality the answers of those respondents in whose communities participated in the UNDP Projects and those respondents in whose communities the projects were not introduced were

58

compared. Since single projects were introduced not in every community that took part in UN and EU Programmes, we will compare the opinions of 1) the respondents in whose communities corresponding projects were introduced, 2) the respondents from the “control group”, 3) the respondents from the “control group” and those from the main (beneficiary) ones in whose communities corresponding projects were not introduced.

Energy-saving. (It refers to the creation of infrastructure which gives an opportunity to save consumption of energy carriers). In an investigation the respondents were asked about the dynamics of heating and street light quality which are included in the projects of “energy-saving”. 2/3 of the respondents (65.2 – 66.4%), in whose communities the projects of energy-saving were introduced, informed that, in their opinion, during some of the last years heating and street light quality has changed for the better. At the same time in the control group (the respondents in whose communities none of the projects were introduced) and among all the respondents where energy-saving projects were not introduced (that is the control group plus those from the main (beneficiary) group, where some other projects were conducted), only 32.7-39.2% note progress concerning heating and street-light.

Table 5.3.1. Subjective estimation of energy-saving service quality dynamics

(Percentage among the community members of corresponding category, who use the corresponding service, subsample sizes n of responses on each question, are indicated in

the graph below)

Projects were introduced

(n=279, n=253)

Control group (n=263, n=234)

All the respondents, where

there were no projects on

“energy-saving” (n=509, n=376)

Heating (school,

kindergarten, medical post,

house)

Quality has improved 65.2 39.2 36.3 Quality hasn’t changed 24.7 43.0 45.2 Quality has worsened 6.8 13.3 10.0

DIFFICULT TO SAY 3.2 4.6 8.4

Street light

Quality has improved 66.4 35.0 32.7 Quality hasn’t changed 28.5 35.9 39.6 Quality has worsened 5.1 28.2 26.9 DIFFICULT TO SAY 0.0 0.9 0.8

Public water supply. According to the interview results, 75.9% of the respondents, in whose communities projects on public water supply were introduced, consider that the quality of such services has improved during the last few years. At the same time, 38.5-38.6% respondents of the two other categories consider that quality has improved. This is typical for both, MGSDP and CBA.

Table 5.3.2. Subjective estimation of public water supply service quality dynamics

(Percentage among the community members of corresponding category, which use the corresponding service, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in

the graph below

Projects were introduced

(n=290)

Control group (n=231)

All the respondents, where there were no projects on “public

water supply” (n=414) Quality has improved 75.9 38.5 38.6 Quality hasn’t changed 17.9 44.6 46.9

59

Quality has worsened 5.5 15.2 12.8 DIFFICULT TO SAY 0.7 1.7 1.7

School transport. In this sphere in some projects involving school buses were introduced. Thus 85.6% of the respondents, in whose communities the projects were held, consider that during some of the past years positive changes concerning school transport have occurred. Among two of the other categories of the respondents that responded positively, and in a similar manner is considerably less than the responses above.

Table 5.3.3. Subjective estimation of school transport (school bus) service quality dynamics

(Percentage among the community members of corresponding category, which use the corresponding service, subsample sizes n of responses on each question, are indicated in

the graph below)

Projects were introduced

(n=97)

Control group (n=163)

All the respondents, where there were no projects on “school transport” (n=434)

Quality has improved 85.6 47.9 53.0 Quality hasn’t changed 8.2 25.8 30.6 Quality has worsened 5.2 11.0 5.1 DIFFICULT TO SAY 1.0 15.3 11.3

Environmental control. One of the projects which was introduced in this direction was waste management. 67.5% of the community respondents, where such projects took place, consider that the situation concerning this has improved. As in previous cases, in the two other categories of the respondents, much fewer citizens estimate changes positively.

Table 5.3.4.

Subjective estimation of environmental control service quality dynamics (waste management)

(Percentage among the community members of corresponding category, which use the corresponding service, subsample sizes n of responses on each question, are indicated in

the graph below)

Projects were introduced

(n=114)

Control group (n=203)

All the respondents, where there were no

projects on “environmental control”

(n=428) Quality has improved 67.5 36.9 45.8 Quality hasn’t changed 29.8 44.8 42.1 Quality has worsened 2.6 17.7 11.7 DIFFICULT TO SAY 0.0 0.5 0.5

Healthcare. 61.1% of the respondents from the communities where these projects took place consider that the medical service quality has improved during the last years. At the same time among the two other categories of the respondents only 18.7-19.1% consider that quality has improved during last years.

Table 5.3.5. Subjective estimation of healthcare service quality dynamics (medical service)

60

(Percentage among the community members of corresponding category, which use the corresponding service, subsample sizes n of responses on each question, are indicated in

the graph below)

Projects were introduced

(n=95)

Control group (n=305)

All the respondents, where there were no

projects on “healthcare” (n=742)

Quality has improved 61.1 18.7 19.1 Quality hasn’t changed 26.3 54.4 56.6 Quality has worsened 12.6 23.6 19.4 DIFFICULT TO SAY 0.0 3.3 4.9

Accordingly, all types of services which were maintained by UNDP Projects inhabitants note an increase in service quality. The most significant is the impact of projects on energy-saving (heating and street light), where the difference in quality improvement was 26% and 31.4% between respondents from the main (beneficiary) group and from the control one. It is natural that differences in satisfaction level by change of services quality are very similar for the control group and for that part of the main (beneficiary) group where corresponding projects were not introduced.

5.4 Sustainability of social infrastructures create d

Participants of the focus groups admit that citizens, who contributed a lot of their own efforts into creation and restoration of services, are interested in taking care of infrastructure objects to support their functioning.

As far as infrastructure objects, maintenance needs definite expanses; the respondents explained that they rely upon different sources of financing in the future:

• Payments of community members, • Charitable contributions of sponsors, • Subsidy from local budget, • Financing from the direction of similar projects.

As it was explained by regional experts in in-depth interviews, personal participation in realisation of community projects creates a sense of responsibility because these are the results of personal work. As a result, community members will take care of created or reconstructed objects.

Therefore, the viability of infrastructure objects is supported by:

• Careful attitude towards created or reconstructed objects in community projects, • Personal efforts to contribute money for ensuring of permanent functioning of

infrastructure objects, • Wish to look for support from authorities and sponsors in rendering of money for

object functioning support, • Planning of funding in local budget for current maintenance, development and

reconstruction of objects, • Acknowledging the importance of infrastructure objects’ existence for

sustainable functioning of community.

5.5 Conclusions concerning service delivery in sect ors which are supported by the UNDP Projects

According to survey results there are sufficient grounds to state that creation and rehabilitation of community services is cost-effective. Communities which apply the community based development approach consume less power; moreover, they save gas, heat, electricity. So the use of the services becomes more economic, and the quality of rendering of services covered by the projects increases. As reported by citizens

61

themselves, the established and rehabilitated communal infrastructures are potentially sustainable.

62

SECTION 6. EVALUATION OF APPROACH IMPACT ON LIVING QUALITY OF TARGET GROUPS One of the important results attained through fulfilment of the project is an improvement in the standard of living.

Results of in-depth interviews testify that among respondents, the level of living satisfaction is average – they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their present life. But it is necessary to note that in comparison to the respondents who took part in UNDP Projects, opinions differ. It was found that, apart from the state of health and attitudes towards other people, all other aspects of life of the respondents, in whose communities these projects were introduced, are more satisfactory. Thus, if in the control group the level of living satisfaction in generally is 3.1 (according to five-mark scale where 1 is “completely dissatisfied”, and 5 is “completely satisfied”), then in the main (beneficiary) group it is 3.4. It is worth noting that essential differences are observed for perspectives of community development (3.8 in the main (beneficiary) group against 2.7 in the control one), community life (3.3 against 2.6), and self-confidence (3.8 against 3.4). It is also typical for citizens to be less satisfied with the level of opportunities of employment in their locality. Among the 4 UNDP Projects the 3 studied were not mandated for employment generation or poverty reduction. Except the small component of cooperative development in CIDP, all other projects have contributed to it indirectly – by virtue of a huge investment at the grassroot level. Though, in the main (beneficiary) group satisfaction is a little bit higher – 2.0 against 1.6, it should be noted that the respondents in the main (beneficiary) group are also more self-confident (3.8 against 3.4).

Chart 6.1. Satisfaction with different aspects of life

(Mean values among the community members, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

3.4

2.5

3.1

4.3

3.2

2.9

1.6

2.6

2.7

2.2

3.1

3.8

2.9

3.2

4.4

3.4

3.1

2.0

3.3

3.8

2.6

3.4

Confidence in own power (control group n=295, main

group n=504)

Level of material well-being (control group n=311, main

group n=515)

State of health (control group n=310, main group

n=524)

Attitude of associates (control group n=300, main

group n=508)

State of environment (control group n=305, main group

n=514)

Level of protection from offenders (control group

n=283, main group n=444)

Opportunities of job placement (control group n=277,

main group n=491)

Public life in city or village (control group n=273, main

group n=465)

Perspectives in development of community (control

group n=237, main group n=459)

Current affairs in Ukraine (control group n=291, main

group n=505)

Life in general (control group n=306, main group

n=524)

Main group Control group

63

Table 6.1.

List of variables of satisfaction with different aspects of life

To what extent are you satisfied or not satisfied with: Confidence in own power 1.1. Your self-confidence Level of material well-being 1.2. Level of your material wellbeing State of health 1.3. Your health state Attitude of associates 1.4. Attitudes of others towards you State of environment 1.5. State of the environment in your area Level of protection from offenders 1.6. Your level of protection from criminals Opportunities of finding a job 1.7. Employment opportunities in your area Public life in city or village 1.8. Social life in your town or village Perspectives of development of community

1.9. Prospects of your community development

Current affairs in Ukraine 1.11. The way things are now in Ukraine Life in general 1.12. Please tell me to what extent you are not

satisfied or satisfied with how your life turns out now in general

For the CIDP project it was discovered that the Crimean Tatars are a little more satisfied with their protection from criminals than the Slavs (Ukrainians and Russians) – the level of Tatars’ satisfaction was 3.8 whereas it was 3.5 among Russians and Ukrainians. Please note that this is a pure scientific fact, which does not imply any interpretation concerning the reasons of this difference.

In 2006 a survey was conducted among community members, by the Sociology Institute of the NAS of Ukraine, for the CRDP project. In particular, a question about the evaluation of the respondent’s current lifestyle was included in the survey. According to the calculated index (67.9 out of 100.0) the respondents came close to a conditional definition of “I don’t always cope with problems and difficulties”. In 2010 another scale was used; that’s why immediate comparisons aren’t entirely accurate. Nevertheless we can see some trends. Thus, for the CRDP in 2010 the mean living satisfaction came to 3.2, a little higher than “as satisfied as dissatisfied”. In general, in comparison with 2006 it can be estimated that the living satisfaction is approximately at the same level.

Satisfaction with community development perspective may serve as another possible comparison for CRDP. According to the results of year 2010 mean satisfaction came to 3.7 that is too close to the mark “more likely satisfied”. In 2006 an index of “optimism/pessimism” concerning changes in community was calculated. It is clear that our two indices don’t coincide, though again we can trace definite tendencies. Thus in 2006 the index value came to 27.8 from a scale ranging from -100 to +100. That is on the whole this value is a little higher than the mean value. In 2010 the value is more approximate to positive pole—that is we can say that hope in the future of the community has increased in last years.

Also in 2006 an index of satisfaction with the environment was calculated, and in 2010 a question about satisfaction with the environment was included in the survey. In 2006 the index came to 41.5, which is a little lower than the mark “satisfactory”. In 2010 on a satisfaction scale from 1 to 5, the level came to 2.7, that is a little lower than mean level. In general, satisfaction with the environment remains approximately unchanged. Analogous comparisons can be conducted for health. The index in year 2006 came to 40.4 or a little less than “satisfactory”, and in 2010 it came to 2.9 or almost “as satisfied as dissatisfied”. In general, we can note some positive shifts but none were particularly large.

Other than the actual evaluation of current living satisfaction, it is important to correctly evaluate the changes of living standards in the last few years. Survey results

64

show that there are definite differences between the main (beneficiary) and the control group, although not notably large. In the main (beneficiary) group there are more of those who consider that their life became better during last years— 32.3% in comparison to 22.3% in the control group. On the contrary, in the control group (for CBA and MGSDP projects) there are more citizens who consider that their life became worse – 33.9% against 25.5%.

Chart 6.2. Evaluation of change in life during last years

(Percentage among the community members, main group subsample size n=541, control group subsample size n=310)

6.1 Changes in material conditions

An indirect result of the introduction of the approach is some (though statistically insignificant) rise of level of material well-being of the communities. This may occur due to creation of new infrastructures, new services, rise of their quality, or even acquisition of new skills, transferable to the economic sphere. It should be noted, that the impact of the community-based approach to local development is complex and systemic, so any positive changes in public services, psychological self-feeling and self-organisation create pre-conditions for improvement in material conditions as well.

Chart 6.1.1. Level of material well-being

(Percentage among the community members, main group subsample size n=515, control group subsample size n=311

65

6.2 Changes in economic conditions

Analysis of answers in the focus groups testifies that reduction of expenses for public utilities lets community establishments and households save money. Also due to additional household activity and creation or reconstruction of services some persons get short-time or permanent jobs. For instance, as school transport is introduced, a driver gets a new job. Or the created infrastructural facilities require staff to maintain them functioning – naturally, local residents are hired for newly created jobs.

Chart 6.2.1. Possibilities of getting a job

(Percentage among the community members, main group subsample size n=491, control group subsample size n=277)

6.3 Changes in health

As participants of the focus groups note, that because of the creation or renovation of services in community projects, health improves due to the improved conditions of life, medical equipment and appropriate sanitary and hygienic conditions, adequate conditions in educational institutions.

In turn regional experts explain: repair or creation of services connected with hygiene may reduce the rate of sickness among children, and thus increase the level of their health. It also happens due to an improvement in heating system in the schools, kindergartens and the hospitals and due to better quality water supply. It has been found that the level of occurrence of diseases have in fact dropped due to abovementioned

66

interventions. Due to better heating system and school transport, attendance of students is higher during winter than in previous years and the quality of learning/teaching has increased. The difference in health between the main and control group is statistically insignificant.

Chart 6.3.1. State of health

(Percentage among the community members, main group subsample size n=524, control group subsample size n=310)

6.4 Changes in psychological self-feeling

Participants of the focus groups discussions note that there are changes not only in living conditions but also in their psychological health:

• Sense of confidence in one’s abilities increases, • A sense of own necessity and importance arises, • Citizens feel responsibility for the results of their work, • A pleasant sense of satisfaction with nicely done work arises, • Successful experience convinces them to be more enterprising.

Regional experts, who represent of all kinds stakeholders, note changes in the psychological state of health of community members, though in different ways.

In particular, one can single out such typical changes:

• Participants of work done under the project become more responsible and disciplined,

• Citizens feel more confidence in their abilities, and have greater self esteem, • Inhabitants feel proud for having been involved in an important affair, • A sense of self-dependence is fostered, • New hope for solving evaluate problems with local authorities appears, • Citizens become more active and enterprising, • Inhabitants feel that they are the leaders of their own settlement, • They feel responsibility for settlement’s future, • They appreciate their city or village more.

Some respondents mentioned a thought just about the need for communities to participate in the financing of community projects, as far as it is a necessary condition of their active participation and gives them a sense of responsibility for the results of their work.

A typical consequence of community projects realisation under management of UNDP Projects is an increase in psychological optimism: interviewed community members

67

note improvement in their own lives – in the main (beneficiary) group there are 10% more of such citizens than in the control group, and 8.4% less of those who note worsening.

Chart 6.4.1. Self-confidence

(Percentage among the community members, main group subsample size n=504, control group subsample size n=295)

6.5 Changes in social cohesion

According to answers of focus groups participants it has become clear that the community is gradually uniting, and becomes stronger with every step:

• Citizens realise the necessity and prospect of common activity, • Creation of community organisation which sets definite form of cooperation, • Public decision-making concerning all the residents, • Voluntary collective works is an immediate help when this work is needed for

community members.

So one may observe the following outcomes:

• Interdependency in the whole community for services that are unavoidable (e.g. water supply, school, health post etc.),

• Mutual understanding due to dialogue, interactions and mutual respect arises, • Conflict management skills over project period are enhanced.

During in-depth interviews, regional experts, explain that: contributing to the project for the entire community and participating in common activity increased a sense of unity in the community. As a result inhabitants became more active and solidary in the decision of common problems of local development.

These statements were verified based on the results of the survey of community members. It turned out that 50.9% of the respondents who participated in UNDP Projects think that during last years unity of their community has increased (Chart). At the same time among the respondents in the control group only 18.8% of interrogated citizens expressed the same thought.

Chart 6.5.1. Evaluation of changes in unity of community during last years

(Percentage among community members, main group subsample size n=542, control group subsample size n=313)

68

29.4

42.2

18.8

10.1

36.7

50.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

very or rather

decreased

did not change

very or rather

imceased

Main group Control group

At that an interesting difference is traced for communities CIDP between the Slavs (Ukrainians and Tatars) and the Crimean Tatars. Thus, many of Slavs think that in last years unity has increased - 50.0% in comparison to the 36.0% among the Crimean Tatars.

Such an indicator as the level of trust between members of their own community is noteworthy. Survey results testify that level of trust is rather high and comes to 7.7 (based on the scale from 0- “don’t trust at all” to 10 – “trust entirely”) among the main (beneficiary) group (Chart). At the same time among the control group the level of trust is much lower26 – 6.1 .

Chart 6.5.2. Level of trust to all the members of own community

(Mean values among the members of the community, main group subsample size n=522, control group subsample size n=242)

6.1

7.7

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Control group

Main group

It is worthwhile to compare levels of trust to different categories of citizens. As

shown on the chart below (Chart 6.5.3) the highest level of trust is traced towards family members (9.4 – 9.5 among the main (beneficiary) and the control group). At the same time the lowest level is towards strangers (3.3). Trust to the community members is in the middle for the control group, and for the main (beneficiary) one it is even closer to the level of trust to family members.

Chart 6.5.3.

26 As it was mentioned in the methodological section, all the differences mentioned are statistically significant.

69

Level of trust to different categories of citizens (Mean values among the main group, subsample sizes n of responses on each

question are indicated in the graph below)

3.3

6.1

9.4

3.3

7.7

9.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Trust to stranges (control group

n=297, main group n=520)

Trust to community members

(control group n=242, main group

n=522)

Trust to family members (control

group n=308, main group n=535)

Main group Control group

It is worthwhile to note that among the Crimean Tatars-participants of CIDP

trust family members and community members somewhat more than the Slavs do. However, it is necessary to note that volume of the sample is not large enough to determine the statistical significance of the difference.

At the same time in communities where the UNDP Projects are introduced, the level of trust towards community members is more than that in communities where there are no UNDP Projects (under the fact that level of trust to other social groups is about the same).

More indicative is an increase of social unity: increase of community unity is marked by 32.1% more in the main (beneficiary) group than in the control one, and at the same time the decrease of unity is 19.3% less in the main group.

Chart 6.5.4. Level of social unity

(Mean values among the community members, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are indicated in the graph below)

2.7

2.6

4.3

3.8

3.3

4.4

0 1 2 3 4 5

Prospects of community development

(control group n=237, main group=458)

Social life in town of village (control

group n=273, main group=465)

Attitudes of others (control group n=300,

main group=508)

Main group

Control group

70

6.6 Conclusions concerning the impact of an approac h on living quality of the target groups

A survey of community members discovered undoubtedly positive changes in the living quality of target groups. As a result of data analysis it is sufficient to conclude that material conditions, economic situation and health are improving to some extent. It is possible to note improvement in psychological self-feeling, namely in subjective feelings of self-confidence and safety. As a result of community self-organisation, mutual trust towards neighbours and local authorities increases. This leads to a significant increase of social unity of communities and to confidence in future prospects of the community development. Totally, citizens are more satisfied with different aspects of their life and with life in general. More significant differences are observed in communities where there was co-operation with the CBA project, although a greater sample theoretically could show more differences for other projects as well.

71

SECTION 7. EVALUATION OF DISSEMINATION OF EXPERIENCE, FACTORS OF SUCCESS OF THE APPROACH, POSSIBILITIES OF IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

7.1. Dissemination of the gained experience

Some experts noted that not all the necessary information disseminates because of the shortage of facilities. In the horizontal dimension the experience should be disseminated not only amongst communities but also amongst other non-government organisations. A crucial issue is the greater personal interest within the community based approach and its experience dissemination is the presentation of histories of success - they are the best argument for those, who did not take part in any of the UNDP Projects.

Besides the narrow target groups, it is also important to inform a wider audience. This can be used to create fertile ground: the target population will be better prepared for the approach replication on a wider scale. It is also a good way to attain citizen’s support concerning corresponding political decisions. Mass communications should play a key role in this process.

An indisputable positive result, on which experts agree, is that at the organisational level, experience gained in earlier UNDP Projects has already been used in later ones. The methodology of this dispersion of information must take into account the needs of target groups, be clearly written out, and correctly addressed. Computer centres must be established, initially in rayon centres, and then in every settlement. These centres must have access to the Internet, and also to support centres (probably, on the base of current resource centres), where each person can ask for an advice – about where to search and where to appeal.

7.2. Factors of successful approach implementation

The initial pre-condition for successful implementation of the community based approach is a genuine, but not formal observance of the procedures of the approach.

In particular, the procedures must be kept and the population must be involved in:

• The creation of community organisation with involvement of all or almost all of the community,

• Electing a genuine management team for community organisation, • Establishing norms of good governance (transparency, accountability, equity), • Determination of community development priorities taking into account opinions

of the majority, • Writing quality project proposals, • Choice of resources and contractors with clear stakes, • Qualitative implementation of works on an object, • Conduction of a qualitative tender process, • Conduction of an adequate public audit.

Due to the involvement of the population in all stages of the community project implementation, community members feel that their interests are taken into account as priorities of development, that it is mutual activity, know the process of introduction from within, and appreciate results. Elected leaders must be the real representatives of interests of the entire community, and the level of trust in them should increase according to the measure of implementation of the project, accounting, and through the mechanism of rotation of management. As experts note, communities which passed the entire implementation of community projects are the ones which adhered to the approach methodology, especially with regards to population involvement. Without following the research methodology correctly they were unlikely to succeed in the finalization of the community project, so the remaining communities are the successful ones.

72

It is important, that some communities believed in that participating in the UNDP project would lead to a possibility of change from the very beginning. Farther in the process of project implementation people make sure, that changes are possible and become confident of success. It turns out that the level of trust may simultaneously be a pre-condition and the consequences of successful project implementation.

The established communication within the community promotes an analogical method of successful community projects’ implementation and in the process of projects implementation, this communication gets better. Without communication they would perform worse. The developed communication is a resource that can be used for dissemination of useful information and for further joint activities within the communities.

Furthermore, the co-financing scheme is convenient for all partners; however, they are willing to contribute more than the stipulated proportion from the side of local authorities and international organisations.

Effectiveness of community organisations’ creation depends on a number of different conditions. Such factors can negatively influence a population’s self-organisation: fatalism or unwillingness to change something in community life, and practical experience of manipulation of this population. Experts claim that without encouraging conditions for the population, self-organisation and the implementation of the all-Ukrainian programme of development can be doubtful.

Experts distinguished factors that assisted in the success of development of active community organisations, they are:

• Social homogeneity (in an ethnic aspect), • Presence of different age-related groups, especially young and middle age, • Presence of experience, traditions, social norms of community collective activity, • Work of local leaders (public opinion and practical ones), • Selection of the best communities among those, which expressed a desire to

participate, • High-quality teaching with the community representatives.

Practice of approach implementation testifies that the created community organisations (including BSP, ACMH and NGOs) are the effective mechanisms of local development. The results clearly retrace in a medium-term prospect (approximately for five years), when community’s active position becomes noticeable, which accept collective decisions, given on different grants, win them and realise the fundamentally new initiatives unforeseen even within frameworks of the UNDP Projects.

In general although the created resource centres showed their successfulness, the success depends on a few parameters. An organisational and territorial closeness of institution to community is better than remoteness, but numerous resource centres are resource- dispensable. There is an issue of compromise between resource efficiency and the quality of work, a working decision is a creation of resource centres at local authorities’ office premises.

The forums of local development (rayon and oblast levels), and the associations of non-government organisations, appeared useful. Such horizontal cooperation is advantageous from the point of view of information exchange, experience and general action. The actions of associations, that have considerable potential of influence on the all-Ukrainian level, are especially influential.

Experts admitted that support units (teams of people working within the UNDP structures) are crucially important for the UNDP Projects, which carry out the role of catalysts and in some sense of supervisors and leaders of processes of community based development approach to local development. Professional workers of UNDP Projects are and must be: devoted to their work and to the citizens, for the sake of which they work,

73

patriotic, hard-working, sure of the methodology effectiveness, consistent, and professional in its implementation.

All the support structures established have considerable potential to assist local development by the provision of informative materials, transmission of experience, consultations of specialists and use of the adjusted connections of cooperation between all partners concerned with the help of communities in presentation on different competitions and grants, in development of local self-governance and business activities, and realisation of training for the leaders of communities and local authorities.

Viability of each of the created structures depends on various factors: community organisations - the population’s involvement in their activity, personal interest, presence of mutual interests, success in work results; resource centres - local authority’s understanding of its benefit for communities and themselves; forums for local development - stimulation from the side of the local authority or international organisations. Experts note the different scenarios of support institutes’ development: from pessimistic in a sense of stopping of their activity after completion of UNDP Projects and without system support from the side of authority on the national scale, to optimistic due to the enthusiasm and professionalism that will depend on separate people. There is one thing the experts agree: for systematic and large-scale processes of local development, it is necessary to gain the support of global institutions such as the international and Ukrainian authorities.

Indisputably, human capitol is of key concern for the implementation of the community based approach. It is much better if communities already have leaders which have the authority and ability to guide the community, and are sure of the possibility of changes and potential efficiency of the approach. If there are no leaders, they may be selected and prepared in the process of implementation of the community projects. In any case there is sense to conduct studies of the community based approach’s methodology for the leaders of communities irrespective of their experience and skills.

The interviewed experts outlined two interesting ways in which community leaders can be formed: due to previous merits they can already work in the positions of local self-governance, local or central authority. Another way is due to the experience of the realisation of community projects, they can exceed from community organisations to authority. On one hand, communities lose their specialists, and it can be evaluated as a defect, on the other hand, such people understand the process of self-governance from within. They have corresponding looks and can already assist a work of approach in the status of local authorities that is an absolute positive. Any analysis of the election results would be politically incorrect in this evaluation research.

It is also necessary to continue and disseminate studies of representatives of community organisations and bodies of local authority, both through the centres of career enhancement of civil servants and by teaching in higher educational establishments that need to be completed with mutual studies on local, macroregional and all-Ukrainian levels. Experts offer a range of possible studies: training the most enthusiastic, to the comprehensive studies of local authorities. Both are recommended – they are sanctioned by authorities training, with local budgets financing, and new programmes, with the external financing. The complex monitoring and evaluation of studies effectiveness are both needed in parallel. Studies of local authorities have at least two advantages: the increase in competence of target groups that work directly for the local development and the creation of the big category of people in authority agencies, which understand the approach and have skills for its implementation that gives an potential opportunity to carry out system changes at all-Ukrainian level.

It is marked, that community organisations participate in other projects, competitions and carry out their own initiatives.

Because community members organisations keep to the rules of data reporting procedures, monitoring and audit, by virtue of all partners concerned aspiration to control

74

the quality of communities projects implementation, and also because of the reputation and standards of international organisations, transparency and accountability become necessary in activity of community organisations and other institutions.

The best practice of the UNDP Projects is the assistance to strategic planning in some cities and rayons: the product of not formal, but rather real coordination of community interests, local authorities and business. Both plans of development and concrete steps of its embodiment are adopted in corresponding documents. They are recommended for upscaling to the fullest extent possible.

The strategic planning with implementation of bottom-up planning mechanism has a few other advantages. It protects citizens as their interests that are taken into account and assigned documentarily and concerted with authority. Furthermore, it also gives a certain amount of guarantee to local or foreign business. For local authorities, involvement of the population in decision-making concerning the prospects of their settlement development is advantageous because they transfer part of their responsibility for a decision concerning local issues from to citizens. It is also a necessary pre-condition for the population’s support of politicians, during local elections. This practice should be disseminated by virtue of passing these advantages to the local authorities in other settlements by exchange visits.

According to international and state principles of work, activity of local authorities must be transparent, although in practice the level of transparency varies greatly. In settlements, where the UNDP Projects are implemented, local authorities use different ways to inform population about their work wider and more intensive. One might advise them to use a wider spectrum of media for informing and do this on a more regular basis. In some cases the transparency of local authorities’ activities is provided by the implementation of international standards of the ISO service delivery and by the creation of the integrated centre of service delivering for the citizens.

A long-term and at the same time realistic sourcing of financing is involvement of local business.

According to experts local businessmen can be interested in:

• Doing something useful for their settlements, • Receiving gratitude and respect from the community, • Getting rid of pressure from the authority, • Turning to more transparent mechanisms of participating in local development, • Making certain investments, • Participating in local politics.

As some experts realistically conclude, the greatest involvement of local business in sponsoring of community projects occurs during the local election process.

Also there is a possibility of involvement not only locally but also in a large all-Ukrainian business. Other than Ukrainian business, experts pay attention to foreign capital potential that may be involved in co-financing of projects: both from donor organisations in the form of assistance and from foreign businesses as investments.

Such pre-conditions of successful business involvement were distinguished:

• To guarantee a just result, rely on the force of social norms by involvement of community members or previous partners,

• Provision of the legal competence of participants, • Establishment of practice of documenting of all terms of participation, rights and

duties of partners, • Expounding in agreement all typical cases that can take place during

implementation, • Giving investors a right on the lease of the created or renewed infrastructure,

75

• Provision of legal agreement guarantees implementation of partners obligations,

Localities with weak economic development need state policy and multi-party efforts to create and strengthen local businesses.

The role of non-government organisations in local development consists of providing valuable informative and educational support (materials, trainings, programmes of studies). NGOs also participate in community projects directly which is advantageous for local development.

Non-government organisations should inform citizens about successful experiences of project implementations, present opportunities, activity of population’s community organisations and local-authority mass media.

Experts note, that the support of local authorities is important for the success of community projects. However, representatives’ ignorance of citizens’ interests, their unwillingness to implement it and nonacceptance of sample bottom-up planning at first often interferes with adjusting of democratic partner relationships between citizens and authority.

The whole complex of measures is needed in order to change attitudes and relationships:

• To convince the local authorities that the involvement of the population in decision-making and local development is useful, because it helps to handle local problems;

• To establish the dialogue between citizens and authorities so that they may understand each other’s concerns and see the general goals of the activity; this is promoted by informal meetings and forums for local development;

• To transform the work of enthusiasts on the public principles to scale, system and protracted work. This should become the basic activity for separate civil servants;

• To create possibilities of participation of communities and authority in the mutual local self-governance projects by founding all-Ukrainian and international grants and competition programmes;

• To prepare and set up a systemic plan of preparation of local development specialists with the use of the best practice.

When community gains work experience, it becomes more skilled in relationships with the authority:

• The representatives of the community know their rights, • Understand the legal mechanisms of self-assertion, • Know, where to find necessary information, • Know, where to appeal for legal help, • Can conduct substantiated dialogue with local authorities, • Are able to convince the local authorities about the necessity of certain actions, • Can influence authorities by addressing to higher instances, courts, • Are able to elect or not to elect local authorities during local elections (this is a

classical mechanism of democracy), • Citizens become partners, observers and inspectors of authority’s activity.

It is important to prepare the critical quantity of active citizens which are skilled and can socialize with local authorities on equal terms. Willingness of citizens to be active partners of local development processes and knowledge of local authorities about this readiness is often enough to change a model of manipulation (sometimes performed by authorities or interest groups) into a model of equal co-operation (desired model).

Nevertheless, in the process of project implementations, citizens and local authorities study and get used to taking decisions concerning local development jointly. Thus their

76

attitude towards each other changes: citizens and local authorities respect and trust each other to a greater degree. Moreover, the closer the level of authority is to the citizens, the stronger is the level of trust, and better cooperative relationships are created.

Therewith the quality of local authorities’ service delivery grows:

• Professionalism improves, • Renovation of working mechanisms takes place, • International standards of the ISO service delivery are set up, • Citizens get typical and more complete information, • Procedures of decisions-making are simplified, • Corruption of authorities diminishes, • Authority is ready to take risks in order to find financing for community projects.

When cooperating between citizens and authority and the third parties (Ukrainian and international non-governmental non-government organisations, educational establishments, and local business) must create and coordinate general norms of activity. Such norms and corresponding relationships are built in the process of dialogue, cooperation, mutual understanding and concordance of actions.

Concerning service delivery, the community based approach really intensifies efforts of the services improvement and gradually they get better. Nevertheless, there are some features: one of experts noticed that the transmission of a house on the ACMH balance had been positive, but before the transmission the house had to be repaired.

An absolute advantage of community organisations’ work is a quality of work: quality of materials, professionalism of contractors, quality control of works’ implementation, careful attitude, and willingness to devote money for the repair of objects. There are a few reasons for this advantage: when an infrastructure becomes the property of residents, they look after it with more care because, on the one hand, they want to do better for themselves, and on the other hand, they understand that nobody, except them, will take care of it. It does not work in all cases, but it is the desired format.

According to projects’ implementation, the quality of life of target groups changes:

• The living conditions improves, • It becomes possible to save on housing and public utility services, • The cost of real estate of residents increases, • Education conditions become better, • People become healthier.

In a psychological aspect, there is a complex set of different problems that need to be solved - especially in villages and in contaminated territories. At the base level when people take care of their domestic living conditions, they feel more quiet, protected and sure. In the process of community projects implementation they feel that this is an opportunity with which they may manage their own life, and to improve their living conditions in the city or in the village. According to experts’ opinion, deeper changes are found, when with development of native settlements, there appears to be hope regarding some prospects, in particular, that young people will remain and a village will advance. Young people are really adjusted optimistically and ready to work.

The consequences of community projects implementation include closer and more intensive relationships in community. People feel responsibility for the fate of their community, get know and take into account interests of each other, and, most importantly, to work on general goals.

7.3. Possibilities of perfection of public policy c oncerning local development

Some experts offered specific legislative initiatives, in particular regarding the revision of the status of contaminated territories in the CRDP project. The revision of the status of

77

these territories must decrease subventions in a short-term prospect and also give an opportunity of strategic economic development for the territories. Active informative work and use of successful experience are needed in order to exemplify the persuasion of a population.

The necessity for an implementation of administrative-territorial reform in the state was also admitted. However one expert was sceptical of the estimation of the reality of its implementation. The problem might lie in the overwhelming presence of large business in the government. Economic interests of large businesses can contradict the interests of local communities.

The interviewed experts expressed criticism concerning insufficient state financing for local development. It is possible that the insufficient financing is hidden behind ostensible attention to problems, business trips of officials, or populist declarations without the actual increase in financing. Undoubtedly, the problem was partly due to the economic crisis. Therefore, one of the most general recommendations is to increase state financing for implementation of community projects with the implementation of the community based approach. This requires appropriate changes in the budget code.

Experts advise to note that in the community projects, where this approach is implemented, money is used very effectively, as members of communities:

• Due to co-financing, involve external facilities of local business and foreign assistance and furthermore, invest their own money,

• Get the best resources and invite optimal contractors with regards to the correlation of price and quality,

• Volunteer to work on the project, • Take good care of the created or renewed objects, • Willingly invest money to its functioning and repair.

According to the opinion of national experts, as a result the projects’ implementation and infrastructure’ creation and delivery of services is several times cheaper in comparison to work that is carried out exceptionally by local authorities or other organisations without community involvement.

Local authorities will be motivated to create conditions for community development only once they are persuaded that the projects will benefit both the state and themselves. The benefits are implemented in such aspects:

• The solution to part of issues at the local level releases local authorities from these issues,

• Civil servants receive access to proper data concerning local development and know, where it is possible to direct money for the effective decision of questions,

• Politicians, who establish the community based approach, obtain voters’ support at an all-Ukrainian level.

Experts recommend getting financial resources for local development support from local taxes, part of which should be channelled directly to local budgets. In particular, property taxes and taxes on citizen’s income, as well as profits from licensing, should be taken into consideration.

The interviewed experts insist on the necessity of change in current normatively-legal acts that outline the legal sphere of community organisations. The recommendations are described below.

The most fundamental task is the decentralization of power. A problem is that sometimes local authorities are unaware of the local development community based approach. And some central authorities, in spite of having declared readiness to decentralize imperious plenary powers and state facilities, can regard this idea negatively due to fear of losing their power and resources. In addition, not all citizens have the

78

psychological readiness and corresponding skills for implementation of power delegated to them. Therefore, a systemic approach is needed; it should be directed towards the improvement of citizens’ skills to self-governance and on persuasion of local authorities to pass a section of the full power to the local level.

On the other hand, from the side of reforms by the government, a large-scale and systemic decision should be set up so that the state units are responsible for local self-governance’s development by the decision of The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The expediency of such changes must be adequately argued by successful experiences of such organisational reforms in municipalities.

The biggest stimulus for self-governance and development is the establishment of elements of direct democracy in administration at a local level. According to the code of community organisations, its mechanisms can include: citizens’ meetings, decision-making during it, referendums and questioning. Accordingly, one of the legislative suggestions is to initiate consideration and to pass an act about general citizens’ meetings, with the goal of the legislative adoption and defence of the rules of its implementation, its legitimacy and influence. In particular, it is suggested that the order of participation of community organisations in the state programmes of local self-governance support is prescribed, so that they could pretend to money from the state budget in the set order. Clarification of the legal status is required by both community organisations and other associations of citizens, in particular the ACMH.

Experts also mark the importance of experience analysis and delivery of recommendations concerning the solution of procedural problems. Thus, according to at least one of the experts from the central authority, authority is interested in obtaining concrete remarks about typical problems with suggestions of their solution, with new legislative initiatives. In particular, the question regarded the readiness to consider suggestions from the International expert centre in the UNDP structure.

Experts note, that the initiators of legislative initiatives can be communities themselves, community organisations, other non-government organisations, representatives of local self-governance authority, international organisations, and the most effective will be initiatives supported by different partners and central authority authorities. It is necessary, that appeals were directed to address, exactly those ministries and centres of decision-making that are authorized to accept them.

For the implementation of the community based approach for local development, a systematic approach is necessary: with the activation of communities, motivation of local self-governance authorities, authorities of local and central authority, complex legislative, political and organisational changes, concordance of social policy, financing, studies and informing.

7.4. Conclusions concerning dissemination of experi ence, factors of success approach, possibilities of improvement of public po licy concerning local development

The initial pre-condition for successful implementation of the community based approach is an actual, but not formal following of approach procedures. Concerning the co-financing scheme, it is convenient for all partners; however representatives of communities are willing to contribute more than stipulated proportion from the side of local authorities and international organisations.

The support structures established have considerable potential to be of assistance to local development by the provision of informative materials, transmission of experience, consultations of specialists, use of the adjusted connections of cooperation between all partners concerned with the help of communities in the presentation of different competitions and grants, in development of local self-governance and business activity, and realisation of training for the leaders of communities and local authorities. Experts

79

noted that support units from the UNDP Projects, which carry out the role of catalysts and in some sense of supervisors and leaders of processes of community based development approach to local development, were crucially important. Indisputably, human capital is of key concern for the implementation of the community based approach.

The best practice of the UNDP Projects is their assistance towards the strategic planning in some cities and rayons that is the product of not formal, but real coordination of community interests, local authorities and business. Both plans of development and concrete steps of its embodiment are adopted in the corresponding documents.

A perspective and at the same time realistic sourcing of financing is business involvement. Also there is opportunity to involve not only local but also large all-Ukrainian businesses. Localities with weak economic development need to establish enterprises.

Local authorities support is important for community projects success. In the process of projects implementation citizens and local authorities study and adapt to taking decisions concerning local development jointly. Thus their attitude toward each other changes: citizens and local authorities respect and trust to each other to a greater extent. Moreover, the nearer the authority level is to the citizens, the stronger is the level of trust; the best working relationships are folded.

It is necessary to implement administrative-territorial reform in the state. Therefore, one of the most general recommendations is to increase the state financing of the implementation of community projects with the implementation of the community based approach. In the community projects, where this approach is implemented, money is used very effectively. Accordingly, it is suggested to send a portion of budgetary facilities to address community projects’ support.

It would be scale and system decision to set up the state units that are responsible for local self-governance’s development.

There is the necessity of change in current normatively-legal acts that outline the legal sphere of population’s community organisations.

The most fundamental is a task to decentralization the power. The biggest stimulus for self-governance development is the establishment of direct democracy elements in administration at local level. Its mechanisms can be the next: citizens meeting, decision-making during it, referendums and questioning.

80

SECTION 8. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION 8.1. Conclusions

The Evaluation of the Impact of the Community Based Approach to Local Development Implemented in the UNDP Projects in Ukraine research has been conducted involving the methods of focus group discussions, in-depth interviews with regional and national experts, and representative surveys of regional experts and the population. It provides sufficient ground to conclude that the community based approach to local development is effective, as it promotes consolidation of local self-government, contributes to improvement of service-rendering conditions and creates a favourable environment for the enhancement of life quality of the population.

The approach is effective for activating and combining efforts of the local communities, local authorities and self-government, and the private sector for common priority setting in the development of settlement and joint implementation of initiatives to improve living conditions.

United by a common goal of their community developm ent, local residents become an active – and acting – partner of local au thorities and bodies of local self-government and contribute to sustainable local deve lopment. Local residents act by means of legally registered organisations, the so c alled community organisations.

Indeed, in these communities the majority of their members participate in activities of these organisations (in particular, decision making), in particular, through participation in regular general meetings and decision-making procedures.

Almost all community members pay membership fees for the common initiatives to be realised and community organisations to function. A considerable proportion of community members contribute more than the set member fee; besides, residents who are not members of their local community also make voluntary contributions towards community project realisation. Community members feel more responsible for objects of public infrastructure and better understand their role in the development of their communities.

Community organisations enjoy high level of trust among local residents; their work is transparent and characterised by high accountability. Community organisation activists regularly and fully inform local residents of all the steps in their activities and report regarding the status of fund expenditures. Community organisations are guided by the principle of equality stating that all the residents, regardless of their economic and social status, have the potential possibility to use created or rehabilitated services.

Community involvement in the process of priority se tting for local development has a positive influence on local devel opment processes as residents feel involved in these processes and local authorit ies’ work can be guided by priorities and needs of local residents.

Community development priorities are set considering interests of most community organisation members and almost without influence from local authorities.

The strategic planning model with a bottom-up planning mechanism has become widespread: rural community interests are taken into account through the work of village councils and included in rayon strategic development plans; town/city community interests are documented in town/city strategic development plans.

Local communities, authorities and businesses ackno wledge the joint initiative development, funding and implementation to be effective.

Partners see the co-funding scheme instilled by the methodology as generally efficient. According to this scheme, a part of the fund for community project implementation comes from international donors, another part – from local budgets, while the community itself and local businesses also make their contribution. Partners are willing

81

to invest more in joint projects than the set minimum and a part of them indeed provide additional funding.

A significant proportion of community organisation members make additional contributions in the form of voluntary public works on community objects.

Members of community organisations express their willingness and readiness to support the created or renovated communal infrastructures.

Representatives of local business express their willingness to sponsor local development; in fact they often contribute to community organisation projects.

The implemented approach methodology contributes to qualitative enhancement of local government, increase in trust towards authorities and establishment of effective cooperation between comm unities and authorities. The key instruments of the methodology are established structures that ensure regular dialogue in joint decision making.

Oblast coordination councils, local forums for local development, and municipal council for sustainable development forums are a platform for discussion of priorities. They also assist in the coordination of activities of communities, authorities and businesses as partners in project implementation.

Oblast and rayon community resource centres, as well as municipal support units provide valuable informational support to communities seeking self-organisation and looking for partners to fulfil joint initiatives. These centres accumulate the experience gained and information about potential donors, help communities to implement other initiatives beyond UNDP projects. These organisations help reproduce the community based development approach model in communities not participating in UNDP projects.

Both communities and authorities assess these structures as highly effective, they are willing to support their work in the future and give a positive prediction of their high sustainability.

Partnership based on community based approach metho dology leads to visible qualitative enhancement of relations betwee n authorities and communities.

There has been a noticeable improvement in the amount and quality of information of activities of local authority provided to the public. This serves as evidence of increase in transparency of authorities. They are becoming more open to dialogue with communities.

Cooperation between communities and local authorities is also improving. Cooperation mechanisms suggested by the methodology allow more efficient consideration of people’s opinions and interests in activities of local authorities. As a result, citizens admit an improvement in the work of authorities.

Citizens express that trust in local authorities is growing. There are positive dynamics in people’s contentment with the work of representatives of local authorities. Citizens feel more confident in communication with representatives of authorities.

There is a noticeable growth in the quality of human resources and mutual training among community leaders and representatives of local authorities. Community leaders and officials accumulate knowledge and apply the new skills.

The research findings lead to the conclusion that t here is an increase in citizens’ satisfaction with the quality of services covered by the projects. Creation or renewal of services involving participation of c ommunities is profitable. Moreover, the created or renewed communal infrastru ctures are actually and potentially sustainable.

Community projects definitely improve the quality of communal services and the public is satisfied with the quality of these enhanced services. Community members apply efforts to use these communal services more economically.

82

Analysis of the collected data leads us to conclusi on that there has been improvement in economic conditions, the psychologic al self-feeling and significant growth in cohesion of communities.

Community self-organisation has led to an improvement of quality of life of citizens. They assess prospects of their community development as positive. Community members working on community project realisation experience growth of self-reliance.

Community based approach to local development has t he strongest positive influence if: institutional support is provided for a longer time period; more financial and human resources are involved per territory unit / community; local authorities are more intensively involved as partners; or the w ork is done in rural communities where greater unity was observed even before the pr oject.

8.2. Recommendations concerning perfection of the a pproach and public policy concerning local development

Community based approach applied by the four UNDP Projects has proved that community members and local authorities can be effectively mobilised for participatory governance and local sustainable development. Support structures such as COs, LDFs/MSDCs, community resource centres, co-ordination councils are valuable assets to build on and, therefore, following opportunities should be capitalized to further promote the approach:

Recommendations for UNDP :

• Methodology of community based development approach has introduced efficient working mechanisms. It should be promoted widely through media outlets, lobby and advocacy.

• Capacity of the created community organizations should be further developed so that they can make independent decisions and maintain their status as an equal partner of local authorities.

• Created rayon community resource centres possess great potential for becoming powerful structures for supporting, informing, and implementing community based development initiatives and disseminating experience. Capacity of these RCRCs and the involved personnel should be further built through appropriate technical and capacity building supports so as to boost their potential.

• Support is needed for creation of a functional network of resource centres to enable the sharing of experience and best practices.

• It is necessary to consolidate and disseminate among communities and RCRCs the information about innovative technologies, especially on new energy saving technologies and alternative energy sources.

• The role of the private sector in local development processes is yet underestimated. Cooperation with local businesses ought to be strengthened in order to exploit their potentials towards self-help initiatives of local communities.

• Incorporating the knowledge and experience of the community based development into the teaching curriculum of academic institutions is recommended as a step towards sustained capacity building in the area of community based development.

Recommendations for national, regional and local au thorities:

• The community based development methodology proved to be efficient for all partners and possesses as a significant value in the long term. Therefore it should be further promoted by local authorities through existing community resource

83

centres and regional media. COs can also be encouraged to share their experience in the form of success stories, bulletins and hosting study/exchange visits.

• Pilot territories (rayons, local councils) practicing participatory governance through COs-participation enjoy more efficient decision-making, micro-project implementation, and more dynamic local development. Settlements with mobilized communities demonstrate an initial increase in economic development, improvements in service delivery, high quality of strategic planning, and corruption-free use of funds in implementation of local projects. These phenomena and their factors should be explored, assessed and generalized by local authorities; the process should be standardized and prepared for adoption in non-pilot areas.

• Local development forums (municipal sustainable development councils in cities) as well as community resource centres possess great potential to sustain the practice of community based local development. However, these are semi-formal, ad-hoc structures with rather normative than legal value. In order to fully exploit their efficiency and build on the opportunities they provide, local authorities should formalize these structures with appropriate logistic provisions and human resources. A national level up scaling of this practice can be considered and supported by the national government.

• In the longer term, local resources are to be generated for funding of community initiatives and sustainability of such initiatives. Such resources are to be mobilised by community organisations in the form of community development funds, maintenance funds etc. through its gradual collection to enable effective participation of low income groups. However, creation and activities of such funds require legal provision.

• Registered COs offer local businesses legal and transparent means of channelling their funds for the support of community initiatives. They also bear potential to receive a local budget to carry out community initiatives jointly. However, current legal provision causes difficulties in a full fledge utilisation of this opportunity and therefore appropriate legal provisions and budget codes must be brought into force.

• Strategic planning in participation of mobilised community is found to be efficient and therefore should be further continued and promoted.

• More than 4000 people across Ukraine have acquired know-how to implement CBA methodology at the local level. Local development processes initiated under this methodology created favourable conditions for the natural leaders to unleash their potential.Their potential can be further utilized by the local governance.

• Several demonstration sites have emerged at the local level for dissemination of CBA methodology and practice. These can be used as learning ground by authorities willing to introduce the community based development.

84

APPENDIX А. AREAS AND COMPONENTS OF THE EVALUATION OF THE APPROACH EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT

Main

areas of assessment

Components of the assessment area

Objects of assessment E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y O

F T

HE

C

OM

MU

NIT

Y B

AS

ED

A

PP

RO

AC

H

Involvement of population in activities of community organisations

Patterns of the general participation of the population in CO

Level of participation of the community representatives in the general meetings

Level of involvement of the population in the decision-making process (on any issues including planning)

Level of participation of the CO members in the co-financing of the community projects

Pattern of priorities setting Level of independence of the CO in priorities setting for the community projects

Effectiveness of the co-financing scheme

Level of effectiveness of the current co-financing scheme

AP

PR

OA

CH

IMP

AC

T O

N T

HE

LO

CA

L S

ELF

-GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

Appropriateness of the established at different levels of the local self-government support structures (community organisations, local development forums, coordination councils, oblast, rayon and community resource centres)

Appropriateness, efficiency and usefulness of the established structures: OCC, LDF, CO, RCRC, OCRC for the local development processes and citizen/local authority cooperation

Extent to which the created structures are used beyond UNDP Projects

Level of the potential sustainability of created structures

Quality of development of human resources and mutual learning of community leaders and local authorities representatives

Level of COs’ involvement in implementation of activities beyond UNDP Projects

Level of transparency, accountability and equity

Level of transparency of COs’ actions: in decision-making, priorities setting, regular reporting on the use of funds and financial transactions, tendering, public audit

Equity of benefit distribution among target population

Quality of strategic planning, bottom-up planning

Quality of strategic planning, bottom-up planning and applicability of these strategic plans

Access to information Level of accessibility of information on activities of local authorities

Role of local business (sponsors)

Motivation of local business for contributing to local development initiatives by sponsoring CO’s projects

Citizen-authorities Changes in the level of accessibility of authority

85

relationship officials and openness to dialogue

Changes in attitudes of citizens towards authority representatives (including changes in the level of trust)

Changes in the cooperation between authority representatives and communities (qualitative and quantitative)

Change in the level of citizens’ satisfaction with the work of the government officials

AA

PR

OA

CH

IMP

AC

T O

N T

HE

S

ER

VIC

E D

ELI

VE

RY

IN T

HE

S

EC

TO

RS

SU

PP

OR

TE

D B

Y T

HE

SE

P

RO

JEC

TS

Cost of service creation / rehabilitation of services (social / communal infrastructures)

Effectiveness relative to the cost of the community projects implementation by the community organisations

Cost of service delivery Relative changes in the cost of service delivery before and after implementation of the community projects

Quality of service delivery Changes in the level of satisfaction with the quality of service delivery: energy saving, water supply, education (school buses), healthcare, environmental protection, social sector, and conducting trainings

Level of energy saving

Sustainability of created social / communal infrastructures

Value of the created or rehabilitated social / communal infrastructures and level of their potential sustainability

AP

PR

OA

CH

IMP

AC

T O

N

TH

E Q

UA

LIT

Y O

F L

IFE

OF

T

HE

TA

RG

ET

P

OP

ULA

TIO

N

Changes in material conditions of life

Relative changes in living conditions, comfort and quality of life, corresponding to the UNDP Projects’ priorities

Changes in economic conditions

Relative changes in economic conditions (direct and indirect)

Changes in health Relative changes in health

Changes in psychological self-feeling

Relative changes in individual self-confidence, confidence in own power

Changes in social cohesion

Relative changes in social cohesion

86

APPENDIX B. DETAILED INFORMATION CONCERNING ON RESEARCH REALISATION

Таble 1. Territory distribution of focus groups with citizens and representatives of local authorities for CBA project.

№ UNDP project Macro-region Region Rayon

FG1 CBA Western (Ivano-Frankivska, Khmelnytska, Rivnenska, Ternopilska, Volynska oblasts)

Khmelnytska oblast

Krasylivskiy rayon

FG2 CBA Border-Western (Chernivetska, L’vivska, Zakarpatska oblasts)

Zakarpatska oblast

Berehivskiy rayon

FG3 CBA Crimea (AR Crimea)

AR Crimea Krasnohvardiyskiy rayon

FG4 CBA Kyivskiy (Kyivska oblast without Kyiv)

Kyivska oblast

Kaharlytskiy rayon

FG5 CBA Eastern (Dnipropetrovska, Donetska, Kharkivska, Luhanska oblasts)

Luhanska oblast

Antratsytivskiy rayon

FG6 CBA Northern (Zhytomyrska, Chernihivska, Sumska oblasts)

Zhytomyrska oblast

Chervonoarmiyskiy rayon

FG7 CBA Central (Cherkaska, Kirovohradska, Poltavska, Vinnytska oblasts)

Cherkaska oblast

Kam’yanskiy and Shoplyanskiy rayons

FG8 CBA Southern (Khersonska, Mykolayivska, Odeska, Zaporizka oblasts)

Khersonska oblast

Velykolepetyskiy rayon

Table 2. Staff of focus groups representatives with citizens and representatives of local authorities for the CBA project

Macro-regions / Quotas

Target groups

Total

Representatives of communities

(including members and heads of community

organisations)

Heads of

village authori

ties

Representatives of Rayon

State Administratio

n

Representatives of Rayon Councils

Contact persons from RSA and RC

Coordinators from OSA and

OC (NOT members of the project)

Kyivskiy 3 2 1 1 1 1 9 Central 3 4 0 1 1 1 10 Northern 4 3 1 0 1 1 10 Bor der-Western 5 2 1 0 1 1 10

Western 3 3 1 1 1 1 10 Southern 4 4 2 0 1 0 11 Crimea 3 2 2 1 1 1 10

87

Table 3. Territory distribution of focus groups with citizens and representatives of local authorities for MGSDP project

№ UNDP

Programme

Macroregion Region City

FG9 MGSDP Crimea AR Crimea City of Bakhchisaray

FG10 MGSDP Kyivskiy Kyivska oblast

City of Kaharlyk

FG11 MGSDP Northern Zhytomyrska oblast

City of Novohrad-Volynskiy

Table 4. Staff of focus groups members with citizens and representatives of local authorities for MGSDP project

Table 5. Geographical distribution of in-depth interviews with regional experts for CIDP project

№ UNDP project

Region Rayon

I-d i4-6 CIDP AR Crimea Bakhchysarayskiy rayon I-d i47-10

CIDP AR Crimea Krasnohvardiyskiy rayon

I-d i 411-13

CIDP AR Crimea Pervomayskiy rayon

I-d i 414-15

CIDP AR Crimea Sakskiy rayon

Table 6. Staff of members of in-depth interviews with oblast experts for CIDP project.

Eastern 3 2 1 0 1 1 10 Total 28 20 9 4 8 7 80

Categories of cities / Quotas

Target groups

Total

Community representatives

(including members and heads of community

organisations)

Representatives of City Council

Municipal coordinators of the

project (including workers of

municipal dept. of support)

Very successful 6 2 1 9 Medium

successful 4 2 1 7

Not very successful 5 2 1 8

Total 15 6 3 24

Rayons / Quotas Target groups Total Community Heads Representatives Workers of

88

Table 7. Geographical distribution of in-depth interviews with regional experts for CRDP project

№ UNDP project

Region Rayon

I-d i 16-19

CRDP Kyivska oblast Ivankivskiy rayon

I-d i 20-23

CRDP Rivnenska oblast Rokytnyanskiy rayon

I-d i 24-27

CRDP Chernihivska oblast Ripkinskiy rayon

Table 8. Staff of members of in-depth interviews with regional experts for CRDP

project.

Table 9. Geographical distribution of in-depth interviews with regional experts for MGSDP project

№ UNDP project

Macroregion Region City

I-d i 1

MGSDP Crimea AR Crimea City of Bakhchisaray

I-d i 2

MGSDP Kyivskiy Kyivska oblast

City of Kaharlyk

I-d i 3

MGSDP Northern Zhytomyrska oblast

City of Novohrad-Volynskiy

Table 10. Staff of members of in-depth interviews with national experts

Projects Quantity of interviews Total Internal experts External experts

CBA 1 1 2 MGSDP 1 1 2 CIDP 1 1 2 CRDP 1 1 2

representatives (community

activists)

of village

councils

of rayon authorities

the project

Bakhchysarayskiy rayon 1 1 1 3 Krasnohvardiyskiy rayon 1 1 1 1 4 Pervomayskiy rayon 1 1 1 3 Sakskiy rayon 1 1 2

Total 3 3 3 3 12

Rayons / Quotas

Target groups

Total Community

representatives (community

activists)

Heads of

village councils

Representatives of rayon

authorities

Workers of the project

Ivankivskiy rayon 1 1 1 1 3 Rokytnyanskiy rayon 1 1 1 1 3 Ripkinskiy rayon 1 1 1 1 3

Total 3 3 3 3 12

89

All four projects of UNDP 1 1 Total 5 4 9

Table 11. Division of conducted interviews with regional experts for different UNDP Projects

Projects Target groups Total Workers of

the project Oblast

coordinators Rayon

coordinators Municipal

coordinators CBA 25 24 101 150

MGSDP 56 56

Total 25 24 101 56 206

Table 12. Division of conducted interviews with community members for different UNDP Projects

Projects Quantity of settlements:

Quantity of interviews

Total In the main (beneficiary)

group

In the control group

CBA 32 213 208 421 MGSDP 16 106 105 211 CIDP 8 111 111 CRDP 8 112 112

Total 32-64 542 313 855

90

APPENDIX C. GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

GUIDE FOR MODERATOR

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION "EVALUATION OF PROGRAMMES’ EFFECTIVENESS”

(Community Based Approach to Local Development Proj ect)

INTRODUCTION (15 minutes) Introduction of the moderator. Explanation of the nature of the group activity. 1) Hi, my name is______________________________ Together we will spend about an hour and a half, talking about the UNDP/EU Community Based Approach to Local Development Project, local self-government, provision of various services and conditions of your life. Our goal is to better understand the situation in your rayon, development of the local self-government, as well as your opinion about the impact of the UNDP/EC project on the life in your community. Especially we are interested in your opinion as to how useful the UNDP/EC project is and what should be done to improve the living conditions in your rayon. We care about your personal opinion and each one of your spontaneous expressions. Please, do not hesitate to say what you think. There are no right or wrong answers. Citizens’ thoughts and their attitudes to these matters differ and we are interested in a variety of viewpoints. The main task for each of you is to speak freely. Our conversation will be recorded on the video tape, so that we can accurately, and with great detail reconstruct today’s discussion in the future. 2) Confidentiality 3) Videotape 4) The focus group language 5) Main rules:

• sincerity of responses; • expression of opinion, even if it contradicts the opinion of the majority

of the focus group participants; • respect for the opinions of others, tolerant attitude to each other; • there are no right or wrong answers; • speak clearly and take turns without interrupting each other; • Participation in the discussion of all participants.

Introducing respondents. Participants are requested to give their name, occupation and how long they lived in the village.

PART 1. DISCUSSION OF THE METHODOLOGY OF THE COMMUNITY BASED APPROACH (10 minutes)

Questions to the respondents

91

1. What priorities for your communities’ development have been selected? What was the selection procedure for these priorities? (procedure - discussion and voting at the general meetings, filling out forms) Do they reflect the opinion of the majority? Whose views were important for their definition? Who made the final decision?

2. Have representatives of local authorities participated in setting priorities? At what stage? How? (Representatives of the local authorities should not have influenced the community priorities)

3. What do you think about the convenience and effectiveness of the current co-financing scheme? Do you (the community organisations and/or local government) have the desire/opportunity to invest a greater proportion to joint projects? Is there anything that should be changed (proportions or maximum ratio)? Do you see any benefit from the community partaking in the co-financing of its project? What is it exactly?

Note - co-financing scheme: - UNDP/EC provides up to 50% of the funding (the maximum amount - $10000); 45% is funded by the local authorities; contribution of the community members comprises at least 5%;

PART 2. DISCUSSION OF THE LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT FEA TURES (60 minutes)

Questions to the respondents

4. How effective are community organisations for local development processes? In

what way? 5. What about oblast, rayon and village Resource Centres, how do they contribute? 6. What about Local Development Forum, Oblast Coordination Councils? How do the

governmental bodies/self-government benefit from the work of these structures? How do the communities benefit? In what way?

7. In your opinion, how effective are community organisations for the development of cooperation between citizens and authorities/local self-government and implementation of joint projects? In what way is it manifested?

8. What about Local Development Forums, Oblast Coordination Councils? (the question is more relevant to authorities)

9. Have other village councils (not participating in this project) been interested in this project? (Question to the authorities’ representatives) Are you aware of any instances when other communities participated in the Local Development Forums? What was the purpose? Have other rayons (not participating in this project) become interested in this project? (question to the authorities’ representatives) Are you aware of instances when other rayons participated in Oblast Coordination Councils? What was the purpose?

10. Are you aware of instances when other communities (not participating in this project) used materials and/or received advice and expert support at Rayon or Oblast Resource Centres? (question to the contact person in the Rayon State Administration in the first place)

11. Are you aware of instances when other communities (not participating in this project) have attempted to organize themselves for collective activities following the example of communities from this project?

12. Do the community organisations implement other initiatives outside the project framework with their own money? What kind - small or large scale? Do they collect money for this? Do your community organisations submit applications for other grants/competitions? What kind of applications? To what organisations? Do you

92

win grants? 13. Do you think it is necessary to continue the work of these organisations? Do you

plan on developing further activities of your organisations (for communities)? Will you support their activities outside the project framework? (for authorities)

14. Have you acquired any professional skills in the process of preparation and implementing the projects? (Questions for the community representatives) For example, skills of managing the community organisation? What about skills and experience of the project implementation? Fundraising skills? Skills of work with technical, legal and financial documentation? Do you apply these competencies and skills for the benefit of the community or in other activity? How?

15. Has your work with communities improved? (question for the authority representatives) In what way? Is it beneficial for you to have active communities?

16. Do the representatives of communities and authorities learn from each other in the process of project implementation?

17. Does the plan for rayon development take into consideration the priorities of the community development? How were they accounted for? Do you plan after the project completion to take into account the opinion of local communities while preparing rayon development plans? (for authorities)

18. Has the quality and amount of information about government/local self-government activities changed? In what way? (Information improved a little) (local authorities should have engaged the mass media to inform citizens more intensively)

19. What channels of information dissemination have you started to use more frequently? (question to authority) (for example, information boards, websites, press conferences) Do you observe a greater degree of transparency in the authority activities? (question to the communities). What is your attitude to this? Which sources provide you with the most information about government/self-government activities - newspapers, television, radio, newsletters, website, and personal communication, through the coordinators? (question to the community representatives)

20. Do you receive information from the Community, Rayon and Oblast Resource Centres? How useful was this information? In what way was it helpful? Where have you used it?

21. To what extent are the local authority and citizens open to dialogue? Why do you think so? (question to the community representatives) Does communication between authorities and the community happen more often?

22. Is it constructive? Does it bring results? Do you plan to continue this practice regardless of the project? Do you need something extra for this to take place or it is possible in the current circumstances?

23. Is the opinion of citizens accounted for in the decision-making on matters concerning their settlement?

24. Have the attitudes of the community members towards the authorities/self-government changed? Has the level of trust changed? (it is assumed that the level of trust to the authorities should have increased among citizens) Has the level of citizen satisfaction with the local authorities’ performance changed? How? (it is assumed that citizens are more satisfied with the local authorities performance) When did these changes happen? (changes should have happened in the result of the project activities)

25. Is there always a willingness to cooperate? 26. Has the cooperation between authority and community become more viable? Has it

become more effective? Has the effectiveness of cooperation between the authorities and the citizens changed? (it is assumed that cooperation has improved) In what way? How is it manifested?

93

PART 3. DISCUSSING ISSUES OF SERVICE PROVISION IN SECTORS SUPPORTED BY THE PROJECTS (10 minutes)

Questions to the respondents

27. Are projects aimed at the improvement of infrastructure implemented more

effectively with community involvement? In what way? 28. How have your expenditures on various services changed (utilities, education,

medicine, etc.) after implementing micro-projects? Do you spend more or less now? (it is expected that the services became cheaper in the result of the project; it is possible to save money now) And how was it before?

29. How sustainable is the established infrastructure (for example, water supply systems, street lighting, metal-plastic windows, school buses, and feldsher and pharmaceutical stations? Do you put any effort into support of this infrastructure? Do you think it will serve long? What will you (community) do when repairs are needed?

PART 5. CLOSING THE DISCUSSION (5 minutes)

Questions to the respondents

30. We have discussed all the questions, is there anything you would like to add to the end of our discussion, if you think there is something relevant to our topic, that has not been discussed?

Acknowledgements.

94

APPENDIX D. GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING IN-DEAPTH INTERVIEW WITH REGIONAL EXPERTS

INTERVIEWER’S GUIDE

For interview with the community representatives o n the issue

«EVALUATION OF PROGRAMMES’ EFFECTIVENESS»

(UNDP Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme)

Objectives:

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the co-financing scheme .

• Evaluate the adequacy of the setting community priorities .

• Examine the degree to which established structures were relevant to the task of supporting local self-government .

• Find out the efficiency of the bottom-up planning in setting community development priorities.

• Examine how information about local self-government activities was provided and used.

• Find out in what way the citizen-authority relationships were established and how they are maintained.

• Find out how did the cost of creation, rehabilitation and provision of services change after participating in the project.

INTRODUCTION (3 minutes) Hello, my name is _____, I work at the Kiev International Institute of Sociology. We are conducting a study of the experience of the UNDP Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme implementation. Our goal is to better understand the project activity in your settlement, impact on the development of the local self-government and your vision of its implementation features.

Questions (20-30 minutes):

1. Tell me please, what is your general impression after cooperation with the project? Specifying questions:

a) Was this programme useful in your opinion? b) Was this cooperation beneficial to you community?

2. How convenient and effective was the co-financing scheme for the community projects

in your opinion? a) Is it feasible to change anything (proportions or maximum ratio)? b) Do you see the benefit from the community participating in the co-financing of its

project? c) What kind?

Note – co-financing scheme:

95

UNDP provides up to 40% of the funding; 55% is funded by the Oblast State Administration, local authorities and entrepreneurs (approximately 10-15%); contribution of the community members comprises approximately 5%; 3. What priorities of your community development were selected?

a) What was the selection procedure for these priorities? (procedure - discussion and voting at general meeting, filling out forms)

b) Do they reflect the view of the majority? c) Whose views were important for their setting? d) Who took the final decision?

4. Have representatives of local authorities participated in setting priorities?

a) At what stage? b) In what way? (local authorities representatives should not have influenced the

community priorities setting) 5. How effective were the community organisations for the local development processes

during the project implementation? а) In what way?

6. What about Local Development Forums?

a) How do the governmental bodies/self-government benefit from the work of these structures?

b) How do the communities benefit? c) In what way?

7. In your opinion, how effective were community organisations for the development of

cooperation between citizens and authorities/local self-government and implementation of joint projects? а) How was this manifested?

8. Has your community organisation implemented other initiatives outside the project

framework with its own money? a) What kind - small or large scale? b) Was the money collected for this? c) Has your community organisation submitted the applications for other

grants/competitions? d) What kind of applications? To what organisations? Did you win grants? e) And how is it now?

9. Do you think it is necessary to continue work of this organisation in the future?

а) Do you plan on developing further activities of your organisations?

10. Have you acquired any professional skills in the process of preparation and implementing the projects? a) For example, skills of managing the community organisation? b) What about skills and experience of the project implementation? c) What about fundraising skills? d) What about skills of work with technical, legal and financial documentation? e) Do you apply these competencies and skills for the benefit of the community or in

other activities? How?

11. Have representatives of communities and authorities learned from each other in the process of Project implementation?

96

12. Have you learned more about government/local self-government activities in the result of the Programme implementation? а) In what way? (Information improved a little) (local authorities should have engaged

the mass media to informing citizens more intensively) 13. Do you observe a greater degree of transparency in the authority activities?

a) What is your attitude to this? b) Which sources provide you with the most information about government/self-

government activities - newspapers, television, radio, newsletters, website, and personal communication, through the coordinators?

c) What is the situation now?

14. To what extent have the local authority and citizens became more open to dialogue in the course of the Programme implementation? a) Why do you think so? b) Does communication between authorities and community happens more often? c) What is the situation now?

15. Has it become more constructive?

a) Does it bring results? b) Do you plan to continue this practice regardless of the project? c) Do you need something extra for this to take place or it is possible in the current

circumstances?

16. Was the opinion of citizens in decision-making on matters concerning their settlement accounted for in the course of the Programme? a) Is it accounted for now?

17. Has your attitude to the authorities/self-government changed in the process of the project implementation? a) Has the level of trust changed? (it is assumed that the level of trust to the authorities should

have increased among citizens) b) Has the level of citizen satisfaction with the local authorities’ performance changed?

How? (it is assumed that citizens are more satisfied with the local authorities performance)

c) When did these changes happen? (changes should have happened in the result of the project activities)

18. Has there always been willingness to cooperate? 19. Has the cooperation between authority and community become more viable after the

Programme implementation? a) Has it become more effective? b) Has the effectiveness of cooperation between the authorities and the citizens

changed? (it is assumed that cooperation has improved) c) In what way? How is it manifested? d) How strong is the cooperation now?

22. Have new services emerged (utilities, education, medicine, etc.) after the projects

implementation? a) What kind? b) Has the quality of these services changed?

97

23. How sustainable is the implemented project (for example, water supply systems, street lighting, metal-plastic windows, school buses, and feldsher and pharmaceutical stations)? a) Do you put any effort into support of this infrastructure? b) Do you think it will serve for a long time? c) What will you (community) do when the repairs are needed?

24. In your opinion, your life generally depends on external circumstances or you? а) Why do you think this way?

25. How has Chernobyl disaster affected your life?

а) And the life in your settlement? 26. What recommendations or suggestions you would like to furnish to the Chornobyl

Recovery and Development Project at the end of our discussion?

98

APPENDIX E. GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING IN-DEAPTH INTERVIEW WITH NATIONAL EXPERTS

INTERVIEWER’S GUIDE

For interview with the national expert on the issu e

«EVALUATION OF PROGRAMMES’ EFFECTIVENESS»

Objectives:

• Evaluate effectiveness of the community-based approach to local development.

• Reveal existing difficulties and successes in the implementation of the approach.

• Find out what factors influence its effectiveness.

• Find out how is it possible to influence the determined factors of the approach effectiveness.

• Define optimal ways of the dissemination and implementation of the experience in applying the approach on the national level.

• Develop a set of the state policy recommendations in the area of local development and local self-government.

INTRODUCTION (5 minutes) Hello, my name is Dmytro Khutkyy, I work at the Kiev International Institute of Sociology. We are conducting study of the experience of the UNDP Projects implementation. You were recommended as an expert from the UNDP project and it is important for us to 1) understand your opinion on the difficulties and successes in implementing the approach to local development involving UNDP into this project, 2) find out your opinion about factors that determine its effectiveness, in addition 3) your recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of the approach, ways of the dissemination and implementation of the acquired experience. For accurate representation of ideas, our conversation will be recorded on a dictating machine, while results of expert interviews will be presented either without specifying the names of experts or in the aggregate form.

Questions (60-120 minutes): 1. Please tell me, how long do/are you work in the project/familiar with the project?

2. What is your role in the management/ evaluation of the project?

3. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the community-based approach to local development?

4. How does the community life change in the process of implementing community projects?

a. Quality of received services? / Material conditions of life?

99

b. The economic conditions of citizens?

c. The health state of citizens?

d. Psychological well-being of the community members? (Self-confidence, optimism, activity)

e. Social well-being? (Community cohesion, more joint actions)

5. How is the local government working with the communities? How is this changing and how it can be improved?

a. With regard to the mutual attitudes of the citizens and local authority: openness, trust, taking into account opinions?

b. With regard to the transparency and informing about government activities?

c. With regard to the scope and quality of cooperation?

d. With regard to the improvement of the quality of service provision, reducing corruption?

e. Is the cooperation reflected in the strategic development plan?

6. What determines the effectiveness of the approach?

a. Methodology design?

b. Activities of international organisations? (amount of financial resources, institutional and human capacity)

c. Community factors? (Level of economic and social development of the settlement, the presence of activists, previous experience)

d. Local authority factors? (Level of economic and social development in the area, the legal base, presence of active and honest people with new thinking)

e. Third parties (NGOs, educational institutions, local business)?

f. Institutions (community organisations, resource centres)?

g. Activities (Local Development Forums)?

h. Relationships between key stakeholders (relationships of international organisations with the communities and local authorities, cooperation between citizens and authority)?

7. How is it possible to influence factors, which determine effectiveness, to achieve better quality, far-reaching and sustainable results?

a. What needs to be done for this, what is the implementation mechanism? (training communities, training local authorities, maintaining relationships through mediation)

b. Who exactly can initiate activities? (COs, NGOs, associations, international organisations)

c. Who can adopt and introduce necessary decisions? (Local authorities, central government)

d. What recommendations can you offer?

8. How is the acquired experience of work applied and what needs to be done to promote it better?

a. Within the communities?

b. Dissemination of experience in other communities?

c. Dissemination of experience on the national level?

9. What other challenges and risks arise in the course of the Project implementation?

100

a. How is it possible to overcome and avoid them?

10. How it is possible to improve the effectiveness of implementation of the community based development approach to local development?

11. What recommendations can you offer for the projects that will apply this approach?

12. What are the prospects for this approach implementation in Ukraine? Thank you for you expert opinions and advice!

End of interview

101

APPENDIX F. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEW WITH REGIONAL EXPERTS

KIEV INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIOLOGY 04070, KYIV, VOLOSKA, 8/5 TELEPHONE: (044) 537-33-76

RESEARCH «EVALUATION OF PROGRAMMES’ EFFECTIVENESS»

«COMMUNITY BASED APPROACH TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT»

Hello, my name is _____, I work at the Kiev International Institute of Sociology. UNDP commissioned KIIS a study of the experience of the UNDP Community Based Approach to Local Development Project implementation. You were selected as an expert for this research. Your responses will be used in the generalized form. Can you answer few questions; this will take 10-15 minutes.

REGION OF INTERVIEW

CRIMEA 1 ZAPORIZHZHIA 10 SUMY 19 C. KYIV 2 IVANO-FRANKIVSK 11 TERNOPIL 20 KYIV 3 KIROVOHRAD 12 KHARKIV 21 VINNYTSIA 4 LUHANSK 13 KHERSON 22 VOLYN 5 LVIV 14 KHMELNYTSKYI 23 DNIPROPETROVSK 6 MYKOLAIV 15 CHERKASY 24 DONETSK 7 ODESA 16 CHERNIVTSI 25 ZHYTOMYR 8 POLTAVA 17 CHERNIHIV 26 ZAKARPATTIA 9 RIVNE 18 RESPONDENT’S STATUS IN THE PROGRAMME

Rayon coordinator 1 Oblast coordinator 2 Project employee 3

1. Please tell me how you would assess changes duri ng the last years in the scope and quality of informing the population about activity of the local authority in your rayon or oblast in the following areas: ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Increased greatly

Rather increased

Did not change

Rather decreased

Decreased entirely

DS/DK

1.1. Information dissemination t hrough the message boards and internet sites

1 2 3 4 5 7

1.2. Information dissemination by participating in the press conferences and through the mass media

1 2 3 4 5 7

1.3. Providing information through the resource centres

1 2 3 4 5 7

2. Please tell me how do you assess changes in the last few years in citizens - local authorities’ relations in your rayon or oblast in t he following areas: ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Increased greatly

Rather increased

Did not change

Rather decreased

Decreased entirely

DS/DK

2.1. Openness of the local government to dialogue with the

1 2 3 4 5 7

102

community 2.2. Accounting for interests and views of ordinary citizens in the local government activities

1 2 3 4 5 7

2.3. Cooperation between local authority and community

1 2 3 4 5 7

2.4. Effectiveness of local authorities’ activity

1 2 3 4 5 7

3. In your opinion how effective is the current co- financing scheme?

(When UNDP/EU contributes to the project 50%, local authority 45% and community 5%?) ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Very effective 1

Rather effective 2

Equally effective and not effective 3

Rather not effective 4

Totally not effective 5

DS/DK 7

4. Are you aware of instances when community reside nts, local entrepreneurs or

representatives of the local authority financed pro jects in the proportions greater that the minimum?

Yes 1

No 2

DS/DK 7

5. How effective in promoting the local development processes are following structures:

ONE RESPONSE ONLY Very

effective Rather

effective Equally effective and not effective

Rather not effective

Totally not effective

DS/DK

5.1. Community Organisation s 1 2 3 4 5 7 5.2. Rayon community resource centre s 1 2 3 4 5 7 5.3. Oblast Resource Centre s 1 2 3 4 5 7 5.4. Local Development Forums 1 2 3 4 5 7 5.5. Oblast Coordination Councils 1 2 3 4 5 7

6. How effective for cooperation between community and local authority are following structures: ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Very effective

Rather effective

Equally effective and not effective

Rather not effective

Totally not effective

DS/DK

6.1. Comm unity Organisation s 1 2 3 4 5 7 6.2. Local Development Forums

1 2 3 4 5 7

6.3. Oblast Coordination Councils

1 2 3 4 5 7

7. How likely is it that the following established structures will continue work after completion of the project: ONE RESPONSE ONLY

103

Very likely

Rather likely

Equally likely and

unlikely

Rather unlikely

Totally unlikely

DS/DK

7.1. Community Organisation s 1 2 3 4 5 7 7.2. Rayon community resource centre s 1 2 3 4 5 7 7.3. Oblast Resource Centre s 1 2 3 4 5 7 7.3. Local Development Forums 1 2 3 4 5 7 7.5. Oblast Coordination Councils 1 2 3 4 5 7

8. Are you aware of instances when residents of the communities, which are not the

Programme cites, used the possibilities of the comm unity, rayon or oblast resource centres?

Yes 1

No 2

DS/DK 7

9. Are you aware of instances when residents of the communities, which are not the

Programme cites, organized themselves following the example of the communities that participate in the Programme?

Yes 1

No 2

DS/DK 7

10. How likely is the possibility that you will sup port the activities of the community organisations beyond the framework of this Programm e? ONE RESPONCE ONLY

Very likely 1

Rather likely 2

Equally likely and unlikely 3

Rather unlikely 4

Totally unlikely 5

DS/DK 7

11. Please tell me how you assess changes during th e last few years in your capacities, such as: ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Increased greatly

Rather increased

Did not change

Rather decreased

Decreased entirely

DS/DK

11.1. Knowledge of local self -government processes

1 2 3 4 5 7

12.1. Skills of cooperation with communities

1 2 3 4 5 7

12. To what degree the priorities of the communitie s’ development are accounted

for in the rayon development plan? ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Fully accounted for 1

Rather accounted for 2

Partially accounted for, partially unaccounted for 3

Rather unaccounted for 4

Totally unaccounted for 5

104

DS/DK 7

13. To what degree are the priorities of the commun ities’ development envisaged in

the rayon development plan implemented? ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Fully implemented 1

Rather implemented 2

Partially implemented, partially not implemented 3

Rather not implemented 4

Not implemented at all 5

DS/DK 7

14. What difficulties have encountered in the proce ss of project implementation, for

example, at establishing community organisations, f inancing micro projects, implementing micro projects, etc.?

________________________________________________________________________ 15. How is it possible to overcome those difficulti es? ________________________________________________________________________ D1. RESPONDENT’S GENDER: MAN......1 WOMEN........2

D2. How old are you? _________ YEARS

D3. What is your education level? ONE RESPONSE ONLY Primary school (less than 7 years) 1 Incomplete secondary 2 Complete secondary 3 Incomplete higher (3 years or more) 4 Higher 5

Thank you for participating in this survey!

105

APPENDIX G. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEW WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS

KIEV INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIOLOGY 04070, KYIV, VOLOSKA, 8/5 TELEPHONE: (044) 537-33-76

RESEARCH «EVALUATION OF PROGRAMMES’ EFFECTIVENESS»

3. INTERVIEW DATE DATE MONTH

2.SAMPLE TYPE

COMMUNITY INTERVIEW (MAIN)…………..1

RESIDENTS INTERVIEW (CONTROL)...…2

4.INTERVIEW DURATION (MINUTES)

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER IN THE TASK /CHAIN

SETTLEMENT TYPE AND SIZE Village .............................................................................1 Urban type settlement ....................................................2 Small town (up to 20 thousand residents) ......................3 Average city (20-99 thous.) ............................................4 Large city (100-499 thous.) .............................................5 Very large city (more than 500 thous.) ............................6

5. LANGUAGE OF RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS Ukrainian ....................................................... 1 Mix of Ukrainian and Russian Languages ..... 2 Russian ......................................................... 3

8. REGION OF THE INTERVIEW: CONFIRMATION:

I certify that I have conducted the interview in accordance with instructions applying method of personal interview with respondent in accordance with instruction

INTERVIEWER’S SIGNATURE: ____________

INTERVIEWER: ___________________________

BRIGADIER: ___________________________

AR Crimea ............... 1 c. Kyiv ...................... 2 Kyiv .......................... 3 Vinnytsia .................. 4 Volyn ....................... 5 Dnipropetrovsk ........ 6 Donetsk ................... 7 Zhytomyr ................. 8 Zakarpattia............... 9

Zaporizhzhia ................................. 10 Ivano-Frankivsk ................................. 11 Kirovohrad ................................. 12 Lugansk ................................. 13 Lviv ................................. 14 Mykolaiv ................................. 15 Odesa ................................. 16 Poltava ................................. 17 Rivne ................................. 18

Sumy ........................ 19 Ternopil .................... 20 Kharkiv ..................... 21 Kherson .................... 22 Khmelnytskyi ............ 23 Cherkasy .................. 24 Chernivtsi ................. 25 Chernihiv .................. 26

Hello, my name is _____, I work at the Kiev International Institute of Sociology. We are conducting a sociological study. We are interested in the issues of your quality of life, satisfaction with services in your town or village, including the life of community. Our goal is to better understand your vision of the life in your community and local self-government. 1. We are interested in the extent to which you are satisfied or not satisfied with some aspects of life. I will name them and you, while an swering, please indicate the extent to which you are satisfied or not satisfied for each o f them, using this card. For convenience, you can name the response code only.

PASS THE CARD TO THE RESPONDENT 1. ONE RESPONSE ONLY

106

It does not matter to me 0 Not satisfied at all 1 Rather not satisfied than satisfied 2 Equally satisfied and not satisfied 3 Rather satisfied, than does not satisfied 4 Satisfied completely 5 DS/DK... 7

So, to what extent are you satisfied or not satisfi ed with: 1.1. Your self -confidence 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.2. Level of your material wellbeing 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.3. Your health state 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.4. Attitudes of others to wards you 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.5. State of environment in your area 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.6. Your level of protection from criminals 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.7. Employment opportunities in your area 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.8. Social life in your town or village 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.9. Prospects of your community development 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.10. Work of local authorities 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.11. The way things are no w in Ukraine 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1.12. Please tell me to what extent you are not sa tisfied or satisfied with how your situation in life in gen eral 0 1 2 3 4 5 7

2. Please tell me how your life in general has chan ged during the last few years:

CARD 2. ONE RESPONSE ONLY Improved considerably 1 Rather improved 2 Did not change 3 Rather worsened 4 Worsened greatly 5 DS/DK 7

3. People can have different levels of trust toward s various people. To what extend do you trust the following people? Please name the number between 0 and 10, where 0 means "absolutely do not trust other people" and "10" - " completely trust other people." To what extend do you trust ... Absolutely Completely do not trust trust DS NR

3.1.…strang ers? 0…1…2…3…4…5…6…7…8…9…10… 97 99 3.2.…family members? 0…1…2…3…4…5…6…7…8…9…10… 97 99 3.3.…your community members? 0…1…2…3…4…5…6…7…8…9…10… 97 99 3.4.…local authority representatives? 0…1…2…3…4…5…6…7…8…9…10… 97 99 3.5.…central authority representative s? 0…1…2…3…4…5…6…7…8…9…10… 97 99 4. During the last few years have there being any c hanges with regards to the quality of the following services that you receive? And if such ch anges occurred, what was the direction: for better or for worse?

CARD 4. ONE RESPONSE ONLY SERVICES Changes for

better No changes

Changes for worse

We do not have such

service

DS/DK

4.1. Heating (school, kindergarten, FMS, house)

1 2 3 4

4.2 Municipal water supply 1 2 3 4 4.3. School transport 1 2 3 4 4.4. Garbage removal 1 2 3 4 4.5. Health care 1 2 3 4 4.6. Street lighting 1 2 3 4

107

5. Please tell me, during the last few years how wo uld you assess changes in the life of your community in the following areas: CARD 5. ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Increased greatly

Rather increased

Did not change

Rather decreased

Decreased entirely

DS/DK

5.1. Cohesion, unity within the community

1 2 3 4 5 7

5.2. Accessibility of the necessary information from the government to the community

1 2 3 4 5 7

5.3. Accounting of the interests an d views of the ordinary citizens in local government activities

1 2 3 4 5 7

5.4. Awareness of the activities of local authorities

1 2 3 4 5 7

5.5. Openness of the authorities to dialogue with the community

1 2 3 4 5 7

5.6. Cooperation between community and local authorities

1 2 3 4 5 7

5.7. Effectiveness of local government activities

1 2 3 4 5 7

5.8. Your trust to the representatives of the local authority

1 2 3 4 5 7

INTERVIEWER, PLEASE PUT FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ONLY TO THE ‘MAIN’

(BENEFICIARY) SAMPLE GROUP 6. How familiar are you with the activity of the pu blic (non-governmental) organisations in your

city or village? CARD 6. ONE RESPONSE ONLY I am the member of such organisation 1 I came across the NGO activity 2 I have heard about presence of NGOs in our city or village, but did not come across their activity

3

I never heard about NGO in our city or village; I do not know what is it 4 DS/DK 7

7. READ THE TEXT FOR THIS SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTION TEXT 7. FOR EACH PROGRAMME ONE RESPONSE ONLY

CBA Are you aware that the community of your city / vil lage established the community organisationand participates in the Community Based Approach to Local Development Project, which is initiated by the United Nations Development Program me and the European Union?

MGSDP Are you aware that the community of your city / vil lage established the community organisationand participates in the Municipal Governance and Su stainable Development Programme, which is initiated by the United Nations Development Prog ramme and supported by the Canadian International Development Agency, Swiss Confederati on and the Embassy of Norway in Ukraine?

CIDP Are you aware that the community of your city / vil lage established the community organisationand participates in the Crimea Integration and Deve lopment Programme?

CRDP Are you aware that the community of your city / vil lage established the community organisationand participates in the Chornobyl Recovery and Deve lopment Programme, which is initiated by the United Nations Development Programme and the Eu ropean Union?

Yes 1

No 2 DS/DK ...7

108

8. Look at this card and tell me, which project or projects in creation or rehabilitation of services was/were carried out in your community? CARD 8. MULTIPLE RESPONSES POSSIBLE

AREA PROJECT

Energy efficiency Installation of windows, doors, repairs of the roof, facade, elevators, buildings, electrical systems, insulation of buildings, heating system, street lighting or solar batteries

Municipal water supply Water supply system, pump, a system of cold and hot water supply, sewage system

Public transportation School Bus

Health care Rehabilitation of the feldsher stations/ ambulatories, purchase of medical equipment

Environment protection Recycling, garbage removal, sewage system, repairs of toilets, pipes replacement, basement repairs

Social sector Community or youth centre, sport ground

Conducting trainings On establishing community organisation, servicing cooperative, ACMH, ACMH association, network of educational establishments, NGO at schools or kindergarten; on the issues of local self-government; for community activists

Difficult to say ....7

Have not heard about the projects.....9 ---> END OF INTERVIEW

9. Do all community members potentially have the po ssibility to use services of the created

or rehabilitated infrastructure facilities? Yes 1 No 2

10. Does your community organisation or body of sel f-organisation of population perform other initiatives outside of the project (for example, vo luntary Saturday work, cleaning or repair) with own money?

Yes 1 No 2

11. What is your role in the activities of your com munity organisation or body of self-organisation of population in your community? CARD 11. ONE RESPONSE ONLY

I am a member of the community organisation

(I became a member of the community organisation and pay membership)

1

I am an associate member of the community organisation

(I have not become a member of the community organisation, but I invest money into the community projects)

2

I am not a member of the community organisation, but I invest money into the community projects

3

I am not a member of the community organisation and I do not invest money into the community projects

4

NEXT QUESTION ASK THOSE RESPONDENTS, WHICH IN THE QUESTION 11 SELECTED RESPONSE CATEGORY 1 12. Are you a member of the management group of you r community organisation or body

of self-organisation of population in your communit y (for example, as a head, secretary, treasurer, member of the functional group or monito ring group)?

Yes 1 No 2

109

13. Let’s talk about your role in the activities of your community organisation or body of self-organisation of population in your community. Please tell me:

Yes No Difficult to say 13.1. Have you participated in a general meeting of your community (at least once)?

1 2 7

13.2. Have you participated in the decision making of your community organisation by voting or filling out a questionnai re?

1 2 7

13.3. Have you been informed about decisions made regarding your community in person or through an announcement?

1 2 7

13.4. Have you ever made larger contri bution into the project than was necessary?

1 2 7

13.5. Have you helped in performing any work for the proj ect implementation?

1 2 7

How well informed are you about the activities of y our community organisation or body of self-organisation of population in your community w ith regard to the following issues: READ EACH ROW IN SUCCESSIVE ORDER. CHECK THE RESPONCE IN EVERY ROW.

Informed fully

Rather informed

Difficult to say

Rather uninformed

Totally uninformed

14.1. Decision making 1 2 3 4 5 14.2. Setting priorities for activities 1 2 3 4 5 14.3. Reporting on the use of funds 1 2 3 4 5 14.4. Carrying out tenders 1 2 3 4 5 14.5. Performing works on the site 1 2 3 4 5 14.6. Public audit 1 2 3 4 5

15. Whose opinion was most important at setting pri orities of your community

development? CARD 15. ONE RESPONSE ONLY Exclusively the view of the community organisation members 1

Mostly the view of the community organisation members, but also, to a certain degree, the authority’s opinion

2

Both, the view of the community organisation members and the authority’s opinion 3

Mostly the view of the authority representatives, but also, to a certain degree, the view of the community organisation members

4

Exclusively the view of the authority representatives 5

DS/DK 7

D1. PLEASE CHECK THE RESPONDENT’S GENDER: MAN......1 WOMEN........2

D2. How old are you? _________ YEARS

D3. What is your education level? PASS TO THE RESPONDENT CARD 3. ONE RESPONCE ONLY

Primary school (less than 7 years) 1 Incomplete secondary 2 Complete secondary 3 Incomplete higher (3 years or more) 4 Higher 5

D4. Whom do you consider yourself by nationality? Ukrainian 1 Other response (WRITE) 3 DS….7 Russian 2

D5. Please look at this card and tell me which of t hese statements best describes the financial situation of your household? CARD D5. ONE RESPONSE ONLY

We do not have enough money even to buy food 1

110

We have enough money to buy food, but it is difficult to buy clothes or shoes 2 We have enough money to buy food, clothing, and we can save something, but it is not enough to buy such things as refrigerator or TV

3

We can buy some expensive things (such as TV or refrigerator), but we can not afford everything we want

4

We can afford everything we want 5 DS/DK...7

We might need to clarify something, tell me please your phone number ____________________

Thank you for participating in this survey!

111

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MANAGEMENT GROUP OF THE COMMUNITY

ORGANISATION, WHICH IN THE QUESTION 11 SELETED OPTION 1 А1. How effective is the current co-financing scheme in your opinion?

READ THE TEXT FOR THIS SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTION TEXT А1. FOR EACH PROGRAMME ONE RESPONSE ONLY

CBA when UNDP/EU invest into the project 50%, city auth ority 45%, and community 5%?

MGSDP when UNDP/ MGSDP invest into the project 45%, city authority 45%, and community 10%, while each consecutive year the shar e of the city authority grows by 5%, and each consecutive year th e share of community increases by 10%?

CIDP when part is financed by UNDP, part by the local au thority and part by the community?

CRDP when UNDP/EU invest into the project up to 40%, loc al author ity up to 45%, entrepreneurs approximately 10-15%, and commun ity about 5%?

CARD. ONE RESPONCE ONLY

Very effective 1 Rather effective 2 Equally effective and not effective 3 Rather not effective 4 Not effective at all 5 DS/DK 7

А2. READ THE TEXT FOR THIS SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTION TEXT А1. FOR EACH PROGRAMME ONE RESPONSE ONLY

CBA Does your community organisation apply for other grants and competitions outside the UN Development Programme and EU Community Based Approach to Local Development Project?

MGSDP Does your community organisation apply for other grants and competitions outside the UN Development Programme Municipal Governance a nd Sustainable Development Programme?

CIDP Does your body of self -organisation of population your community apply for other grants and competitions outside the UN Development Programme Crimea Integration and Development Programme?

CRDP Does your community organisation apply for other grants and competitions outside the UN Development Programme Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme?

Yes 1 No 2 => Skip to the question А4

А3. READ THE TEXT FOR THIS SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTION TEXT А3. FOR EACH PROGRAMME ONE RESPONSE ONLY

CBA Has your community organisation won at least one such grant or competition?

MGSDP Has your community organisation won at least one such grant or competition?

CIDP Has your body of self -organisation of population your community won at least one such grant or competition?

CRDP Has your community organi sation won at least one such grant or competition?

Yes 1 No 2

А4. READ THE TEXT FOR THIS SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTION

112

TEXT А4. FOR EACH PROGRAMME ONE RESPONSE ONLY CBA Do you receive useful information from the community , rayon or oblast

resource centres (from the rayon coordinator)? MGSDP Do yo u receive useful information from the municipal support unit s

(form the responsible employee of the city council) ? CIDP Do you receive useful information from the integrat ion and development

centres at the rayon state administration (form the responsible employee of the rayon state administration)?

CRDP FOR THIS PROGRAMME DO NOT ASK THE QUESTION

Yes 1 No 2

А5. Please tell me how confident or not confident ar e you in communication with the authority representatives?

CARD А5. ONE RESPONSE ONLY Very confident 1 Rather confident 2 Equally confident and not confident 3 Rather not confident 4 Not confident at all 5 DS/DK 7

А6. READ THE TEXT FOR THIS SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTION

TEXT А6. FOR EACH PROGRAMME ONE RESPONSE ONLY CBA Tell me, please, for the past few years energy cons umption at your community

school... MGSDP Tell me, please , for the past few years energy consumption in your household,

school or kindergarten ... CIDP Tell me, please, for the past few years energy cons umption at your community

school... CRDP Tell me, please, for the past few years energy cons umption at your community

school or kindergarten... CARD А6. ONE RESPONSE ONLY

Increased considerably 1 Rather increased 2 Did not change 3 Rather decreased 4 Decreased considerably 5 DS/DK 7

А7. Do you try to save or not ...

SERVICES Save Do not save Difficult to say / Do not

know

А7.1. Gas 1 2 7 А7.2. Water 1 2 7 А7.3. Electricity 1 2 7 А7.4. Heating 1 2 7