Consolidated report on cba eng

0

COMMUNITYBASED

APPROACHTOLOCAL

DEVELOPMENT:

CONSOLIDATED

ASSESSMENTREPORT

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short

summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the

document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents

of the document.]

Content

Introduction

Objectives

Methodology

Findings

Conclusions

Recommendations

1

This publication has been produced within the framework of the Community Based Approach to

Local Development Project under the assistance of the European Union and UNDP. The content of

this publication is the sole responsibility of the authors. This publication is not intended to create

any obligations and does not express official position and/or views of the European Union, donor

countries’ governments, UNDP or any other UN project or program.

The contents of this publication may be freely cited/reproduced with due acknowledgement.

20 Esplanadna str., 7 floor, office 704-708, Kyiv 01601, Ukraine

Tel/fax: +38 (044) 584 34 70. E-mail: [email protected]

Wesite: www.cba.org.ua. Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/cbaproject

First edition: August 2011

Editors: Jaysingh Sah, Ganna Yatsyuk, Tetyana Diyeva

Acknowledgement:

This paper is synthesized from the reports of Kyiv International Institute of Sociology prepared on

the results of sociological research and progress reports of CBA Project.

The European Union is made up of 27 Member States who have decided to gradually link together

their know-how, resources and destinies. Together, during a period of enlargement of 50 years,

they have built a zone of stability, democracy and sustainable development whilst maintaining

cultural diversity, tolerance and individual freedoms. The European Union is committed to sharing

its achievements and its values with countries and peoples beyond its borders.

UNDP is the UN’s global development network, advocating for change and connecting countries

to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground

in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development

challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw ont eh people of UNDP and our wide

range of partners.

2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ARC Autonomous Republic of Crimea

CBA Community Based Approach to Local Development Project

CDO Community Development Officer (CBA staff in the region)

CDP Community Development Plan

CO Community Organisation

EU European Union

KIIS Kyiv International Institute of Sociology

LDF Local Development Forum

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MPP Micro Project Proposal

MP Micro Project (Community Project)

OC Oblast Council

OCC Oblast Coordination Council

OCRC Oblast Community Resource Centre (same as OIU)

OIU Oblast Implementation Unit (same as OCRC)

OSA Oblast State Administration

PA Partnership Agreement

PMU Project Management Unit (CBA head office in Kyiv)

RC Rayon Council

RCRC Rayon Community Resource Centre

RSA Rayon State Administration

UMDG Ukrainian Millennium Development Goal

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

VC/CC Village Council/City Council

1

Community Based Approach to Local Development Project:

Consolidated Assessment Report

ABSTRACT

This publication presents a consolidated assessment report on the impact of the EU/UNDP

funded Community Based Approach to Local Development (CBA) Project. The Project was

implemented during December 2007-mid 2011 over all regions of Ukraine covering 209 rayons,

1123 village/city councils, 1149 communities. About 420,000 citizens participated in the process

and more than 1.2 million people directly benefited from the community projects implemented

by local communities across the country with support of the local authorities, Project and the

private sector.

Based on results of sociological research conducted during 2010 by Kyiv International Institute

of Sociology (KIIS) and analysis of the data collected by the monitoring department of CBA

Project, it was found that community based approach to local development proved effective in

unleashing people’s potential and consolidating efforts of all stakeholders at local level that

result in strengthening local self-government; reinforcing bottom-up planning and joint

decision-making process; improving public service delivery conditions; enhancing citizens-

authority cooperation; raising psychological well-being and social cohesion and enhancing

living quality of target population. High effectiveness of the Project methodology is attributed to

support structures created and skills imparted to representatives of community, elected officials

and state authorities at local and regional level.

The study recommends that the process and the support structures established by the Project

must be given continuity under national framework should the country aim for making local

development efficient and sustainable. Such a vision will require policy considerations and

further nurturing of human resources.

2

I. INTRODUCTION

Ukraine has made significant social, economic and environmental development since its

independence. However, a vast population, living in rural and semi-urban areas, is still suffering

from low living standards, characterized by insufficient access to medical care, education, water

supply, energy supply and environmental situation. Underdeveloped or worn out basic

infrastructures in these sectors are the major cause for poor service delivery. To improve the

situation, much effort required especially at local level where legacy of the highly centralized

decision-making system, passive attitude of the population and limited capacity of the local

governments still exist.

UNDP/Ukraine, with support from its national and international partners, has been promoting

community based development approach in Ukraine since 2001to mitigate above problems. The

approach was piloted on small scale in various spatial contexts and for various development

objectives such as social cohesion and tolerance in Autonomous Republic of Crimea,

psychological recovery from Chernobyl disaster and participatory governance in Ukrainian

cities1. Result of the pilots proved encouraging and warranted need for a nation-wide piloting of

the approach. Accordingly, Community Based Approach to Local Development (CBA) Project

was conceived in 2006.

CBA Project is a joint initiative of EU and UNDP meant to mitigate the above-mentioned

problems. First phase of CBA Project commenced on 4th September 2007 and ended on 6th June

2011. It aimed at creating enabling environment for long-term sustainable development at local

level by promoting local self-governance and community based initiatives throughout Ukraine.

Specific objectives included:

• Improving living conditions in rural and semi-urban communities by promoting

sustainable rehabilitation, management and operation of basic social and communal

infrastructure and services through community-based self-help initiatives

• Demonstrating effective participatory local governance and decentralized management

mechanisms for public service delivery by promoting inclusive, self-governing

community organizations undertaking self-help initiatives in partnership with local

authorities, private sector entities and other stakeholders

• Enhancing relevant professional skills and knowledge of community organizations and

local authorities to initiate and maintain visible participatory local process on social

economic development and public services delivery

• Improving institutional capacities of community organizations 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

• Promoting practical experience at grassroots level in participatory planning, decision-

making and social action with a view to providing inputs for policy and legal reforms

towards regional/local sustainable development, administrative and fiscal

decentralization and consolidation of local democracy

The strategic goal of CBA Project was to build capacity for participation of the local communities

and local authorities in decision making process and use this capacity for multi-stakeholders

cooperation. It utilized social mobilization tool to mobilize target stakeholders (namely local

1 For details, refer documents of Crimea Integration and Development Programme, CIDP (http://www.undp.org.ua/en/local-

development-and-human-security/37-local-development-and-human-security-/619-undp-crimea-integration-and-development-programme); Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme, CRDP (http://www.crdp.org.ua/en/publication/content/462.htm ) and Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme, MGSDP (http://msdp.undp.org.ua)

3

communities, local councils, rayon authorities, regional authorities) and prepare them for joint

decision-making and participatory action directed to resolving local development problems.

Appropriate support structures were developed to ensure joint decision-making and

participatory action. The structures included community organization (CO) at community level,

local development forum (LDF) at rayon level, oblast coordination council (OCC) at region level,

and community resource centre (CRC) at rayon as well as at oblast level.

CBA operated in 24 oblasts and Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC), 200 rayons and 1000

village/city councils were included into Project’s areas. The Project was expected to mobilize

1000 communities from 1000 village/city councils, to support 1175 self-help community

initiatives for improving basic social and communal infrastructure, to establish support

structures (namely1000 COs, 200 LDFs, 25 regional coordination councils, 25 oblast-CRC and

200-Rayon CRC). Various form of capacity building activities, including training, exposure visits,

logistic supports etc., were envisioned to raise skill and capacity of stakeholders so that they

could effectively implement the Project activities.

Coinciding with last year of CBA Project, an assessment of results and achievements of

community based approach was planned. Accordingly, a scientific sociological research was

conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) on request of CBA Project during

June – October 2010. The study used quantitative as well as qualitative indicators relevant for

measuring effectiveness of UNDP projects related with community based approach e.g.

establishing partnership with oblast/rayon/local authorities, creation of support structures,

implementation of micro-projects, trust among community members, trust to local authorities,

social cohesion and general efficiency of CBA methodology. The study used stratified sampling

for geographical coverage across Ukraine and drew sample from community, local authorities,

regional authorities, project staffs pertaining to four projects of UNDP related with community

based approach namely CIDP, CRDP, MGSDP and CBA. Analytical report of this study is available

at http://cba.org.ua/ua/library/documents by the title ‘Local Development with Community

Participation’. It includes information, conclusions and recommendations common to these four

projects.

This publication is a consolidated report taken out of KIIS study pertaining to CBA Project only. It

is based both on data collected by monitoring department of CBA Project2, and results of

sociological research conducted by KIIS. Each section and sub-section includes data from both

sources. In cases where statistical data collected by CBA Project is absent, only results of

sociological research are used. General logic and conceptual scheme of this report is follows the

structure and conceptual framework of sociological research of KIIS.

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The main goal of this study is to assess the effectiveness of methodology utilized by CBA Project

to achieve its objective of improving living condition of target population, participatory

governance and creating environment for sustainable local development.

Key tasks of the research were:

(a) to assess the impact on:

o community participation;

o local self-governance;

o creating conditions for service delivery in the sectors supported by the Project;

2 Statistical data were collected regularly by the Project during 3.5 years of its implementation. This information was tabulated, analyzed and disseminated in form of progress reports. Quarterly and annual progress reports of the Project can be found at CBA web-site:

http://cba.org.ua/one/en/library/project-reports.

4

o changes in community members quality of life;

and,

(b) to identify factors of success and to develop recommendations for further improvement.

III. METHODLOGY OF SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY

Three methods were used to evaluate the methodology of community based approach:

• focus group discussions (allows revealing spectrum of possible opinions and getting

detailed answers from local/regional authorities and other local stakeholders),

• survey of regional experts (allows revealing opinion of rayon and oblast focal persons,

and community development officers of CBA in the oblasts),

• survey of community members (from target as well as controlled communities)

In order to achieve aforementioned tasks, eight focus group discussions3, 150 structural

interviews with regional experts and survey with 421 community members (213 respondents

from pilot communities and 208 from non-pilot).

Key areas of assessment include:

• Efficiency of CBA methodology

• Impact on service delivery

• Influence on quality of life of target population

The data were analysed using statistical tools involving tabular analysis and t-test to derive

reliable inferences. Factors that contributed to the results of assessment were identified and

necessary recommendations were made for management and policy makers.

IV. FINDINGS

4.1 Assessment of Efficiency of the Community Based Approach Methodology

Efficiency of the community based approach methodology used by CBA Project was assessed

through such indicators as level of participation, involvement of CO-members in decision-

making, joint priority definition, co-financing in community initiatives, relevance of support

structures, level of transparency of action, accessibility of services, bottom-up planning, access

to information, participation of private sector and citizen-authorities relationship. Details on

each of these indicators are given hereunder.

Community based approach methodology assumes active participation of community members

in the processes of local development. Even though it is desirable to involve 100% of the target

households into community organizations, CBA methodology considered 80% of target

household participation in the community organisation as a bottom line for full participation.

Due to various reasons, 100% household participation throughout the country could not be

expected or it would be rather impossible in practice. Therefore, this level was set for any

event/process to take place in course of CBA implementation.

4.1.1. Level of Participation in Community Organisation

A total of 1145 communities across the country, participated in CBA Project. Of 420`357 target

households, 78.8% got organized into 1149 community organizations (Annex - I). Region-wise

participation of households shows that in majority of the oblasts, participation level was 80% or

3 25 regions of Ukraine were grouped in 8 clusters basing on expert opinion of community development specialists of CBA Project about similarities

in the processes of Project implementation.

5

more (Table – I). Lower participation was noticed in the areas where the target community was

very large to accommodate the nature of service (such as public health, street lighting) desired

by the community or households scattered over large area. In such a case, full participation of

entire target households was not possible.

Table – I: Participation of Target Households in CO

Participation Range % # of Region % of Regions

> 90 - 100 5 20

> 80 - 90 10 40

> 70 - 80 5 20

> 60 - 70 4 16

> 50 - 60 1 4

Source: CBA Annual Report 2010

4.1.2 CO Members’ Involvement in the Decision-making

Taking active part in the decision-making processes is a necessary element of direct participation

of the citizens in local development. There must be no discrimination either on prosperity of a

household or gender of a participant. It is also assumed that community organization members

participate in general meetings, and are aware about their CO activities.

Statistical data collected by monitoring department of CBA Project show that 1149 COs were

formed by 418,739 persons, representing 331,442 households. Of them, 58% were female and

42% were male. Participation of female (60.3%) was also found to be higher in the management

team of pilot COs. Table – II: CO Formation and Membership

Households CO members

No of formed

CO

No of target

households

% of households

participants

Total Male Female

1149 331442 78.8% 418739 168731(42%) 242678 (58%)

According to the results of KIIS sociological survey, the level of participation of CO-members in

general CO-meetings and in decision-making processes was quite a high: 94% and 89%

respectively. Even though not all CO members took part in the decision-making, high

percentage (92%) of them were informed about decisions taken (Chart - I).

Chart –I: Participation in Decision-making Activity, N=212

94%

89%

92%

Participation in general

meeting at least once

Participation in decision-

making

Being informed about taken

decision

86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96%

6

Despite visible female domination in COs, no statistically significant difference was stated

between male and female as regards to their participation in general meetings and decision-

making processes.

4.1.3 Setting Priorities for Local Development

Community based approach methodology assumes that the set of community problems must

be defined and ranked by community members in common. Common problems are the ones

which are perceived by more than 80% of the households/apartments. At general meeting CO

members define a set of local problems to be solved. Out of defined problems, one problem is

prioritized to be solved in cooperation with CBA Project. To ensure the real reflection of citizens’

opinion, this process must be also free from local authorities’ influence.

As per the sociological survey, the majority of respondents pointed out that prioritization of

defined problems was based mostly on community members’ opinion (60%). At the same time,

27% of interviewed CO-members believed that local authority representatives did have some

influence on the process (Chart - II).

Chart – II: Influence on Problems’ Prioritization

A statistically significant correlation was found between general awareness about CO’s activities

and the conviction in the independent of authorities priority-setting4. The more respondent was

informed about activity of his/her CO, the more he/she was inclined to believe in crucial role of

community in problem prioritization.

4.1.4 Effectiveness of Co-Financing Scheme

According to CBA methodology suggested scheme of micro-project co-financing is as follows:

50% of to be provided by CBA Project, 45% from the local budget of various levels, and 5% to be

contributed by CO-members. In fact, the COs contributed more than required, while Project’s

input turned out to be slightly lower than expected. By end of Project, the cost sharing

distribution was as follows: COs invested 7.2%, local budget – 45%, CBA – 46.5%, and private

sector contributed 1.3% of the total micro-project cost.

KIIS sociological research shows that, in general, existing co-financing scheme is estimated as

successful and efficient. This statement is based on the results of focus-group discussions and

interviews with regional experts. It became apparent that the main advantage of the scheme is

in synergy effect, when all participants get results which they would not get acting separately.

Chart - III presents percentage distributions of opinion of CO-functional group members and

regional experts on this topic.

4Coefficient of correlations is -0.307 (p<0.05)

Mostly

opinion of

CO members

60%

CO members'

opinion and

authority

representativ

es opinion

equally

27%

Mostly

opinion of

authority

representativ

es

4%

Hard to say

9%

7

Chart –III: Assessment of Co-Financing Scheme by

Regional Experts and CO-Functional Groups, %

As data show, 80% of regional experts consider existing co-financing scheme as very or mostly

effective, and only 3% assessed it as mostly ineffective. Functional group members are even

more optimistic: 98% of them consider the scheme as very or mostly effective.

Nonetheless, some regional experts pointed out the following difficulties related to existing co-

financial scheme: collecting community contribution, search for external additional financing,

and delay with provision of budget part of cost-sharing, especially due to lack of resources in

local budget. Therefore, they proposed to increase Project’s share in co-financing projects.

According to community members’ survey, 36% of interviewed CO-members reported about

occasional contribution of more than required cost-sharing for the micro-project. Morstly, the

prosperous households tended to contribute more than it was required than poorer ones.

Survey of regional experts confirms this data: 78.7% of interviewed experts are aware about the

cases of extra contribution.

At the same time, non-financial contribution (volunteer work) was more widespread than

additional financial investment: 82% of interviewed CO members reported about volunteering

for some work related with community initiatives (Chart - IV).

Chart –IV: Additional Contribution of CO Members

to Micro-projects’ Implementation, N=212

Focus-group discussions also revealed that additional non-financial contribution was useful not

only in terms of the work performed, but also because of its positive influence on the social

cohesiveness and increasing trust within the community.

37%43%

17%

3%

57%

41%

3%0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very

effective

Mostly

effective

Equally

effective and

ineffective

Mostly

ineffective

Regional experts,

N=150

CO functional

group, N=37

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Additional financial

contribution

Additional non-

financial contribution

(voluntary work)

36%

82%

8

4.1.5 Relevance of Established Support Structures

Community organizations (CO), formed by the target communities, rayon level local

development forum (LDF), oblast level oblast coordination council (OCC) and community

resource centres (at rayon & oblast level) are the key support structures that significantly

contribute to the participatory decision making, bottom-up planning process and resource

mobilization for micro-projects.

Community organization (COs) are the most vital element of the community based approach

methodology. CO is an organization of citizens living on the same territory and experiencing

common problems of local development. It is a self-governed and self-managed organization

led by a team of trusted activists. It functions with high level of participation of households, high

degree of transparency and mutual cooperation. It represents citizens’ view in local

development forums and dialogues held with the authorities on local development.

Local development forum (LDF) is established in each partner rayon, by the decree of rayon state

administration. The main function of LDF is to facilitate dialogue, coordination, planning and

decision-making at local level between the oblast and rayon authorities and communities. At

LDF sittings local development issues such as mainstreaming of community plans, mobilizing

resources for implementation of community priorities, providing guidance and technical

support to the COs during community micro-project implementation are discussed.

Oblast Coordination Council (OCC)5 is usually chaired by a deputy head of oblast state

administration or oblast council and includes representatives of the local development forums

in the region, relevant departments of OSA, selected VCs/CCs, COs, NGOs, and business sector.

An OCC coordinates project financing, ensures proper awareness of regional and local

governments, carries out joint monitoring of CBA implementation in the oblast and provides

strategic advice on implementation and solves local policy issues.

In each oblast and pilot rayon, a resource centre is created in order to facilitate implementation

of Project activities.

CBA targeted the establishment of 1000 COs, 200 LDFs and 24 OCCs (+ republican coordination

council in ARC). Similarly, 23 oblast level resource centres (except in Kyiv and ARC) and 200 rayon

level resource centres were expected to be established. During the period of CBA activity, 1149

COs were formed, 23 oblast resource centers and 176 rayon resource centers were created

(Annex – I and Annex II).

According to the results of sociological research, the support structures created by CBA are

considered as effective and useful both for community members and for local authority. As focus

group discussions revealed, the support structures are especially useful for: community

mobilization, human resource development, and improvement of cooperation between citizens

and authority. For the local authorities it became easier to work with developed and

experienced communities which implemented at least one micro-project.

Results of regional experts’ survey show that local development forums got the highest score in

terms of overall effectiveness (very effective and rather effective) followed by community

organisation, oblast coordination council, oblast resource centre and rayon resource centre. In

general, no less than 80% of interviewed experts considered CBA support structures as very or

rather effective (Table – III).

5 Termed as Republican Coordination Council in case of ARC

9

Table –III: Effectiveness of Support Structures in Opinion of Regional Experts, N=150, %

Very

effective

Rather

effective

Equally effective

and ineffective

Rather

ineffective Ineffective

Hard to

say

Community organizations 46.7 42.7 9.3 0.7 0.0 0.7

Rayon resource centers 40.3 40.3 11.4 2.0 0.0 6.0

Oblast resource centers 54.7 29.3 6.7 3.3 0.7 5.3

Local development

forums 50.0 42.7 4.7 0.7 0.0 2.0

Oblast coordination

councils 48.7 38.7 5.3 3.3 0.0 4.0

At the same time, community members consider community organizations as the most efficient

structure (94%), followed by LDF (93%), and OCC (85%) (Chart - V)

Chart – V: Effectiveness of Support Structures for Cooperation Between Communities and Local Authorities, Regional Experts, N=150

4.1.6 Potential Sustainability of Support Structures

Created support structures are supposed to be sustainable and continue to function after

termination of CBA.

Regional experts were found to be quite optimistic regarding sustainability of created structures.

As Table - IV shows, the majority of experts evaluated sustainability of created structures as very

or rather probable. COs got the highest probability rate (85%) from them for continuation

followed by rayon resource centers (82.4%), oblast coordination councils (79.9%), and almost the

same rate for oblast resource centers and local development forums (76%). At the same time,

some experts expressed doubts regarding sustainability of these structures (from 2% to 9.3% for

different structures).

Table – IV: Probability of Created Supporting Structures Existence after CBA Termination, %

Very

probable

Rather

probable 50x50

Rather

improbable

Absolutely

improbable

Hard to

say

Community

organizations (N=150) 52.0 33.3 11.3 0.7 0.7 2.0

Rayon resource

centers (N=148) 40.5 41.9 7.4 2.7 1.4 6.1

Oblast resource

centers (N=150) 32.0 44.7 10.0 2.7 1.3 9.3

Local development

forums (N=149) 25.5 51.0 10.1 4.7 0.7 8.1

Oblast coordination

councils (N=149) 25.5 54.4 7.4 4.7 3.4 4.7

42%

51%

4%1% 2%

40%45%

9%

1% 4%

59%

35%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Very

effective

Mostly

effective

Equally

effective

and

ineffective

Mostly

ineffective

Hard to say

LDF

OCC

CO

10

The research also revealed quite a high level of willingness among regional experts to support

created structures, especially the community organisations, after CBA Project terminates – 92%

of experts think they will be able to support community organizations further on (Chart-VI).

Chart –VI: Willingness of Regional Experts to Support

COs after CBA Termination, N=150, %

4.1.7 Use of Support Structures Beyond CBA Project

Methodology of community based approach assumes that created support structures will

contribute to local development processes beyond CBA Project. Among created support

structures, local development forums, and community organizations were found to be active

beyond CBA Project. It includes COs and LDFs acting together to attract non-CBA resources to

undertake additional community initiatives. Replication of CBA methodology in non-CBA

territories is also ongoing.

Data collected by monitoring department of CBA show that COs started to implement other

initiatives, in parallel or after implementation of micro-project under CBA’s support. During 3.5

years of CBA implementation, 235 pilot COs applied to various funding agencies and competed

for financing/co-financing of their initiatives. 159 of them (i.e. 67.7%) won grants (see Table - V).

High success rate was attributed to the skill and confidence of CBA/COs in preparing quality

proposal and in convincing the potential donors that they are capable of implementing a micro-

project with high degree of quality, timely completion, time reporting and with additional

resource mobilisation from community members and other potential sponsors at local level.

Table – V: Activity of Pilot CBA COs Beyond CBA

Activity Number

No. Pilot COs applied for grants to other donors 235

No. Pilot COs received grants 159

Survey of community members conducted by KIIS confirms quite a high level of COs’ activity

beyond participation in CBA Project. Of 35 CO functional group members interviewed, 62.8%

reported about having applied for other grants after/in parallel with cooperation with CBA

Project. All of them successfully received financial support for their initiatives.

Data collected by CBA monitoring department also show that non-pilot rayons and communities

take interest in methodology of community based approach. During 3.5 years of CBA-I, 171 COs

55%

37%

5% 1% 2%Very probable

Mostly probable

Equally probable and

improbable

Mostly improbable

Hard to say

11

were formed following examples of pilot COs; of them 108 were registered as legal entities.

Survey of regional experts confirms cases of replication of CBA methodology. According to the

survey results, 77% of experts reported cases they know when citizens of non-pilot communities

created COs following CBA scheme; 71% of experts mentioned cases when non-pilot

communities used village, rayon or oblast resource centers for assistance (Chart - VII).

Chart –VII: CBA Methodology Replication and Use of

Resource Centre, % of Regional Experts

4.1.8 Human Resource Development

Enhancing relevant professional skills and knowledge of community organizations and local

authorities was one of the main tasks of CBA Project. Human capacity building involved such

activities as training, exposure visit, dialogues and various other forms of techniques pertaining

to skill enhancement/knowledge transfer. During 3.5 years, CBA Project conducted 1776

trainings with 37,262 participants (including 29560 CO members and 7702 representatives of

local authorities).Trainings included modules on CO management, planning, project proposal

preparation, micro-project implementation, object’s handover, public audit, sustainability and

others (Annex - III).

In the interviews, regional experts indicated the increased level of their professional skills.

Participating in the work on micro-project’s implementation provided them with practical skills

of working with community organizations, and increased their knowledge on local governance.

According to the survey results, 97% of interviewed experts reported increased level of their

knowledge of self-government processes during last several years. Simultaneously, 72% of

experts pointed out the significant increase in their skills in cooperation with communities

(Table - VI).

Table –VI: Changes in Professional Skills, Regional Experts, N=150, %

Significantly

increased

Rather

increased

Did not

change

Rather

decreased

Knowledge of self-

government processes 58.0 39.3 2.7 0.0

Skills in cooperation

with communities 72.0 26.7 0.7 0.7

Statistically significant correlation between the age and the amount of obtained skills was found.

Improvement in the skill of younger official to work with communities over years was likely to be

higher than the older officials6. Besides, it was found that changes in the level of knowledge on

6Correlation coefficient Kendal tau-b is 0.157, p<0.05

71%

77%

66% 68% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78%

Citizens of non-pilot communities

use village, rayon, oblast resource

centers

Citizens of non-pilot communities

create COs following CBA schema

12

processes of local self-government are correlated with skills in cooperation with communities.

The highest the level of first, the better is second7.

4.1.9 Level of Transparency of Support Structures

Transparency is one of the key tenets of the community based approach. While contributing

money for micro-project, community members need to be sure that this money will be used in a

proper way. To be able to collect financial fees for community’s part of co-financing, community

members have to trust their CO and its management team. To achieve this, CO’s activity must be

as transparent and accountable as possible.

As focus group participants reported, information about procedure of micro-project

implementation and finance expenditures of the CO was easily available at the COs. Information

boards were created and newsletters were published to spread information about the process of

MP’s implementation.

Statistical data from community members’ survey confirm the high level of transparency of and

availability of information about COs’ activities. Only 0.5% to 6.6% of interviewed CO-members

mentioned that they were not aware about their CO’s activity, while from 53% to 90% reported

to be well informed. The average level of awareness about CO’s activities is 4.1 (scale is “1”–

absolutely unaware, and “5” - fully aware). However, the level of awareness varied depending on

the type of activity. Chart - VIII presents distribution of simple mean for each of the six types of

CO activities.

Chart –VIII: Level of Awareness About CO’s Activity, Simple Mean, N=212

As Chart - VIII shows, the awareness about public audit and conducting tenders is significantly

lower comparing with awareness about decision-making, problem prioritizing, performing

works on project sites (sig. p<0.01), reporting and resource use (sig. p<0.05). Relatively low level

of awareness about tenders can be explained by the fact that it is mostly representatives of

functional group who deal with these issues, while ordinary CO members usually do not

participate in these processes. At the same time, it is expected that all or the majority of CO

members should participate in public audit. Therefore, relatively low value of the index means

that more attention must be paid to the issue of organizing public audits.

7Correlation coefficient Kendal tau-b is 0.550, p<0.01

4,5

4,2

4,0

3,8

4,3

3,7

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Decision-making

Problem prioritizing

Reporting and resource use

Conducting tenders

Doing work at objects

Public audit

13

Significant difference is apparent between the CO members and functional group

representatives on the awareness issue (p<0.01): on average, functional group representatives

are much more informed. This can be explained by their direct and continuous involvement all

the processes within CO (see Chart - IX).

Chart –IX: Awareness about CO Activity among CO Members

and CO Management Team Representatives, Simple Mean

Because of a small sample, no statistically significant difference was found between the levels of

awareness of management group representatives of different types of CO activities among

functional group representatives.

4.1.10 Accessibility of Services among Target Group Population

CBA assumes equal access to services created within imported the framework of CBA Project. As

survey results revealed, almost all respondents reported about the fulfillment of this

requirement (e.g. it was confirmed by 92% of interviewed CO-members). It was not possible to

find out whether those who gave negative answers was actually due to existing problem of

service inaccessibility or they believed so because different services designed for special groups

(for example, school and school bus for children) were not available to them.

Chart –X: Accessibility of Services, N=213

4,1

4,5

3,9

4,0

4,1

4,2

4,3

4,4

4,5

4,6

All CO members, N=212 Functional group members, N=43

92%

8%

Yes

No

14

4.1.11 Bottom-up Planning

Methodology of CBA presupposes that citizens are actively involved into the process of

participatory planning. The plans prepared through people’s participation are appreciated at all

levels and by support agencies. The plans which are initiated directly by citizens carry more

value than the ones prepared by someone on people’s behalf. This statement is based on

assumption that the community members are better aware about the problems in their

communities and the degree of their importance.

Bottom-up planning includes several stages. At first stage, needs of the local community are

collected, debated and finalized at CO level. This is followed by approval of CO plans at

village/city council level. All plans from pilot village/city councils are collected and discussed at

sittings of rayon local development forum, and then incorporated into the social and economic

development plan of the rayon. In its turn, rayon plans of socio-economic development

incorporated into the oblast level program of social and economic development. During 3,5

years of CBA Project activity, all pilot COs prepared their community development plans that

were approved at LDF sittings8.

As focus group discussions revealed, CO-members are convinced in the use and effectiveness of

the bottom-up planning. This mechanism allows attracting attention of local authorities to

urgent problems in communities. Besides, the respondents also mentioned that the plans were

not only formally included into rayon development plans, but also implemented. As a rule,

inclusion of community development plans into rayon plans increases the probability of

receiving financial resources for solving local problems.

Regional experts in interviews reported about the cases of inclusion of priorities of community

development into rayon/oblast programs of strategic development. This statement is also

supported by the statistical data.

Chart –XI: Inclusion of Community Development Priorities into Rayon Development Plans

% of Regional Experts, N=150

8There are several cased when COs united in one umbrella organization and worked out a common community

development plan.

Fully included

43%

Rather included

37%

Partially

included

19%

Rather not

included

1%

15

As data show, 80% of experts consider community development priorities to be fully or rather

included into rayon development plans. At the same time, 76% of respondents reported about

partial or full implementation of the included priorities (Chart - XII).

Chart –XII: Level of Community Priorities’ Realization within Frameworks

of Rayon Plans, Regional Experts, %

4.1.12 Access to Information about Local Authorities’ Activities

One of the goals of CBA is to improve communication between the community members and

local authorities. Access to information about authorities’ activities is an important part of this

task.

Participants of focus group discussions pointed out that cooperation with communities

motivated authorities to disseminate information about their activities. Several ways of

information dissemination were pointed out including: informational boards, mass-media, direct

communication with community members.

As mentioned by the regional experts, direct communication with community members

(participation in LDF sittings, conferences, micro-project inaugurations), and their involvement

into processes of planning and micro-projects’ implementation considerably contributed to the

improvement of communication processes. As figures in Table –VI show, the majority of regional

experts think that access to information about local authorities’ activities significantly or rather

increased during the last several years. Dissemination of information increased through various

public events with mass media participation (confirmed by 94.7% of experts) followed by

information boards (89% reported about this) and increased role of resource centers (83.8%).

Though rayon community resource center is a newly created structure within CBA Project, they

already acquired such a high level of positive assessment confirming the high level of their

effectiveness and importance.

Table –VII: Changes in Information Dissemination About Local Authority’s Activity, N=43, %

Significantly

increased

Rather

increased

Did not

change

Rather

decreased

Significantly

decreased

Hard to

say

Information boards 41.3 47.3 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.7

Press-conferences,

mass media 48.0 46.7 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Resource centers 43.9 39.9 9.5 0.0 0.7 6.1

36%

40%

24%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Fully realized Rather realized Partially realized Rather unrealized

16

In order to distinguish CBA contribution to changes in access to information, a comparison was

made between the target group (pilot CBA communities) and the control group (non-pilot

communities). Chart - XIII demonstrates distribution of answers of respondents from the target

and control groups.

Chart –XIII: Changes in Access to Information about Local Authority’s Activity, %

The majority of respondents from the target group (62%) observed an increased communication

from the authorities, while the trend at the control group is to consider that communication did

not change or decreased (47% and 26% respectively)9. Statistically significant difference allows

making a conclusion about significant contribution of CBA Project into positive changes in

access to information about local authorities’ activity in pilot communities.

4.1.13 Involvement of Private Sector

Originally, private sector was not included into the mandatory co-financing scheme of CBA

Project. However, according to the statistical data of CBA monitoring department,1.3% of total

projects cost was financed by local business. Interviews with selected entrepreneurs revealed

their intention to invest money into communities’ initiatives. Among the various reasons

motivating entrepreneurs contributing into micro-projects are: desire to help their fellow

citizens, support development of a given settlement and prevent re-settlement of potential

employees, and even the desire to support village council head. Therefore, ensuring active role

of private sector in the local development processes is worth considering.

4.1.14 Impact on Citizens –Authority Relation

Implementation of micro-projects requires strong cooperation between citizens and local

authorities. CBA methodology presupposes that joint work on micro projects strengthens

authorities relationship. This subject was assessed from following perspectives:

Dialogues and cooperation

Regional experts reported about the positive changes in citizens – authorities relations during

the last years. Focus group participants pointed out several issues crucial for successful citizens –

authorities relations e.g. openness for dialogue, mutual trust (successful experience of mutual

cooperation contributes a lot to this), and willingness of local authorities to take into 9Difference is statistically significant, p<0.01

62%

27%

5%7%

21%

47%

26%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Very or rather

increased

Did not

change

Very or rather

decreased

Hard to say

Target group, N=213

Control group, N=207

17

consideration the community development priorities. Table - VIII presents the spectrum and

distribution of regional experts’ answers.

Table –VIII: Change in Citizen – Authorities Relation

(Regional experts, N=150), %

Significantly

increased

Rather

increased

Did not

change

Rather

decreased

Significantly

decreased

Hart to

say

Openness for

dialogue 42.0 48.0 8.0 0.7 0.0 1.3

Readiness to take into

account citizens’

opinion and interests

34.7 57.3 5.3 0.7 0.0 2.0

Citizens – authority

cooperation 53.3 41.3 4.7 0.7 0.0 0.0

Effectiveness of local

authority’s activity 28.2 59.7 9.4 0.7 0.0 2.0

As data indicates (Table - VIII), citizens–authorities cooperation changed the most as reported by

94.6% of regional experts. It is followed by authority’s readiness to take into consideration

citizens’ interests (92%) and openness for dialogue (90%). Effectiveness of local authority’s

activity changed relatively the least – 87.9% of experts mentioned about this.

The sociological study confirmed the significant improvement in citizens’ – authorities

cooperation (53%) and the significant improvement in readiness to take into consideration

citizens’ opinions and interests (34.7%), increased openness for dialogue (42%) and an estimated

improvement in the efficiency of local authority (28.2%).

Despite quite positive assessment of citizens–authority relationship from the side of regional

experts, the opinion of community members somewhat differs. Survey of CO members show

that community members are more cautious in their assessment - 58% of interviewed

respondents are convinced that local authority became significantly or rather ready to take into

account citizens’ opinion and interests, while 92% of regional experts are convinced in this

(Chart - XIV ).

Chart –XIV: Readiness to Take into Account Citizens’ Opinion and Interests

(CO-members, N= 213 and Regional Experts, N=150)

57,5%

28,8%

8,0% 5,7%

92,0%

5,3%0,7% 2,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

Significantly

or rather

increased

Did not

change

Significantly

or rather

decreased

Hard to say

CO members

Regional Experts

18

Comparison between response of target group and control group (non-pilot communities)

revealed significant difference in assessment of changes in citizen–authority relation during

previous years. Table - IX presents distribution of assessment of changes in authority and citizens

relations.

Table –IX: Change in Relation between Citizens and Local Authorities

(NTG = 213, NCG = 208), %

Significantly or

rather increased Did not change

Significantly or

rather decreased Hart to say

Target

group

Control

group

Target

group

Control

group

Target

group

Control

group

Target

group

Control

group

Openness for

dialogue 58% 28% 29% 40% 8% 25% 5% 6%

Readiness to take into

account citizens’

opinion and interests

58% 23% 29% 40% 8% 31% 6% 6%

Citizens – authority

cooperation 65% 20% 23% 45% 5% 26% 7% 9%

Effectiveness of local

authority’s activity 58% 21% 27% 45% 9% 27% 6% 7%

As data in Table-VIII show, pilot community members reported about significantly or rather

increased willingness of authority to have a dialogue with citizens (58%), while only 28% citizens

of non-pilot communities were convinced on this. Contrary to this, citizens of non-pilot

communities believed that relations became worse in this realm (25% of respondents

mentioned this). Members of pilot communities significantly more often than citizens of non-

pilot communities, pointed out that authority became more willing to take into consideration

community’s interests (58% and 23% respectively10). Improvement in cooperation with authority

was reported by 65% of pilot community members contrary to 20% of those from non-pilot

communities.

No statistically significant difference was found in assessment of various issues of citizens-

authorities relations within each group.

Trust toward Local Authority

Attitude of citizens towards authority representatives is a complex issue. However, one of the

best indicators of this attitude that can be measured is the level of trust. Survey of community

members and control groups included two questions regarding their trust to local and state

authorities. A scale from 0 (total distrust) to 10 (total trust) was used.

As presented in Chart –XV, in both groups level of trust to local authority is higher than to state

authority. However, in the target group this index is higher than in control one: 5 and 4.1

respectively.

10

Difference is statistically significant, p<0.05

19

Chart –XV: Level of Trust of Citizens to Local and State Authority

Another indicator of change is the subjective assessment of trust dynamic. As it is shown on

Chart –XVI, citizens of pilot communities (target group) reported about significant or rather

increased level of their trust to local authorities during last years, than respondents from non-

pilot communities (control group) – who mostly indicated that trust level either did not change

or decreased.

Chart –XVI: Level of Trust of Citizens to Local Authority During Last Year, %

To some extent, confidence in communicating with authority representatives can be also an

indicator of changes relations with authorities. Among members of CO-management team, 76%

pointed out that they feel very or rather confident while communicating with local authority

representatives, and 12% feel very or rather unconfident (Chart - XVII).

7,0 (N=204)

5,3 (N=201)5,0 (N=197)

4,1 (N=189)

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

Trust to local authority Trust to state authority

Target group

Control group

50%

33%

12%

5%

23%

40%

31%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Significantly or

rather

increased

Did not

change

Sirgnificantly

or rather

decreased

Hard to say

Target group

Control group

20

Chart –XVII: Level of Confidence in Communication with

Authority Representatives, CO-MT, N=42

Cooperation between Citizens and Authorities

Survey results demonstrate a tendency to strengthening of relations between citizens and

authorities through in cooperation in CBA Project. This was especially evident upon comparison

of perceptions by the pilot and non-pilot communities (Chart-XVIII).

Chart –XVIII: Cooperation between Citizens and Authorities,

Target Group N=213, Control Group N=207

Respondents from the target group assessed the quality of cooperation as significantly or rather

improved – (65%). At the same time, respondents from the control group demonstrated the

reverse tendency: only 20% of them thought that positive changes happened in this realm

during last years, while the majority of them (45%) believed that nothing had changed.

Citizens’ Satisfaction of Authorities’ Work

Generally, 57% of respondents from the target group indicated the increased effectiveness of

local authority’s activity during the last years, and only 9% reported about the opposite. At the

same time, the majority of respondents from control group demonstrated an opposite trend

Very or rather

confident

76%

Equally

confident and

not

12%

Very or rather

unconfident

12%

65%

23%

3%8%

20%

45%

27%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Significantly

or rather

increased

Did not

change

Sirgnificantly

or rather

decreased

Hard to say

Target group

Control group

21

Chart –XIX: Effectiveness of Local Authority’s Activity,

Target group N=213, Control Group N=206

Despite the generally critical attitude towards authorities’ activities, members of pilot

communities are significantly more inclined to assess authority’s activity positively than those

from the control group. The level of general satisfaction in the target group is 3,8, while in

control group 3,211 (1 – fully unsatisfied, 5 – fully satisfied).

Chart –XX: Level of Satisfaction with Local Authority’s Activity, Simple Mean

11


57%

27%

9%6%

21%

45%

27%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Significantly

or rather

increased

Did not

change

Sirgnificantly

or rather

decreased

Hard to say

Target group

Control group

3,8

3,2

2,8 3,0 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4,0

Target group

Control group

22

4.2 Impact on Service Delivery

Improving living conditions through rehabilitation/creation of communal infrastructures was

among tasks of CBA Project. The Project supported micro-projects in five spheres: energy saving,

health care, water supply, school transportation and environment. Distribution of 1303

implemented micro-projects within these priorities was as follows: 59% was devoted to energy

saving, 21% to health care, 15% to water supply, 4% to school transportation, and the least

numerous is environmental sphere – 1%. Detailed information about oblast wise distribution of

micro-projects by types is given in Annex - IV

4.2.1 Cost of Service Creation or Rehabilitation

Very often rehabilitation/creation of communal/social infrastructures undertaken by pilot

communities was found to be cost effective. Participants of the focus group opined that this was

possible because citizens worked for themselves, they seek to utilize the available funds as

effectively as possible, they find the optimal cost-quality correlation, and perform part of work

voluntary and free of charge.

4.2.2 Cost of Service Delivery

Implemented micro-projects were supposed to decrease the cost of public utilities, and to

improve conditions of service provision. Focus group discussions revealed that all participants

(both community members and local authority representatives) are confident that implemented

micro-projects allow decreasing public utility costs. Regional experts were more specific and

marked out positive effect of implemented micro-projects in terms of:

• Possibility to get services in their own village/town and do not spend money and time to

travel to other settlements;

• Possibility to choose and control the service provider;

• Creating conditions to get favorable or free of charge facilities.

Further detail assessment on service delivery was made in terms of the following:

4.2.3 Quality of Service Delivery

According to the results of focus group discussions, general increase of service quality was

obvious.

To trace the influence of CBA Project on changes in quality of provided services, three groups

were compared: 1) pilot communities with certain projects (energy saving, water supply etc.), 2)

control group, 3) control group and target group that implemented other than in group 1

project.

Energy saving

It refers to creation/rehabilitation of infrastructures so as to allow for the decrease of energy

consumption. Survey of community members included questions about changes in quality of

heating and street lighting. More than 70% of respondents who benefited from energy saving

projects in their communities reported about increasing quality of heating and street lighting

(76.8% and 79.7% respectively). Response from control group and target group without energy-

saving project is 45%-46% for quality of heating and 27% - 28% for quality of street lighting

(Table – X). The difference was found to be significant12.

12


23

Table –X: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of Energy Saving, %

1. Target group with

energy saving

project, N=155,

N=123

2. Control group

N=132, N=172

3. All respondents

without energy

saving projects,

N=228, N=151

Heating (school,

kindergarten,

ambulance

building)

Quality increased 76,8% 45,3% 46,9%

No changes in quality 16,8% 39,5% 32,5%

Quality decreased 4,5% 8,1% 10,5%

Hard to say 1,9% 7,0% 10,1%

Street lighting Quality increased 79,7% 28,8% 27,2%



Hard to say 0,0% 0,8% 0,7%

Water supply

Out of 1303 micro-projects implemented by communities in cooperation with CBA 14.4% were

devoted to water supply. According to survey results, 86.5% of respondents from communities

that implemented projects on water supply positively assessed changes in quality of water

supply (Table - XI ).

Table –XI: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of Water Supply, %


water supply project, N=

89

2. Control group, N=130 3. All respondents without

water supply projects, N=

209

Quality increased 86.5% 48.5% 46.4%

No changes in quality 10.1% 39.2% 42.6%

Quality decreased 3.4% 9.2% 8.1%

Hard to say 0.0% 3.1% 2.9%

As reflected in the above table, respondents from the target group almost twice as more

positively assessed the changes in quality of water supply (86.5% versus 48.5% respectively)13.

No statistically significant difference was found between the control group and the group of all

respondents without water supply projects.

School transportation

4.5% of 1303 implemented CBA micro-project were devoted to school transportation. In Table -

XII subjective assessments of changes in the realm of school transportation are presented.

Table –XII: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of School

Transportation, % 1. Target group with

projects on school

transportation, N=34

2.Control group, N=136 3.All respondents without

school transportation

projects, N=245




Hard to say 0.0% 12.5% 10.6%

Most (91,2%) of the respondents reported about the increased quality in school transportation.

Probably, since it is quite easy to assess changes in the realm of school transportation (there was

13


24

no school bus before micro-project was implemented, and now community has it), the

distribution of response is quite simple.

Because of small sample size (of target group), significance in difference between the target

group and two others could not be estimated. No statistically significant difference was stated

between two other groups.

Environmental protection

The least number of micro-projects were devoted to environmental protection sphere (0,9% of

1303 implemented micro-projects). These micro-projects mostly concerned reorganization of

landfill and improvement of waste collection.

Of 23 respondents mentioned that they had an environmental project in their communities.

Among them, 87% mentioned that quality services provision increased, and 13% said no

changes happened (Table - XIII).

Table –XIII: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of Environmental

Preservation, %


projects on environmental

preservation, N=23

2.Control group N= 100 3.All respondents without

environmental projects,

N=167




Hard to say 0.0% 1.0% 1.2%

Statistically significant difference was noted between the second and third groups – 30% in

control group and 44,3% in group where environmental project was not implemented (control

group plus a part of the target group without environmental projects). This difference could

probably be explained with assumption that implementing any micro-project within

cooperation with CBA, community members start to change their mindset, and become active

enough to start implementing other initiatives.

Health care

Within CBA Project, 21.1% of micro-projects were implemented in the sphere improvement of

health care. This type of the projects included renovation of health posts and medical

equipment purchase. Among 44 persons who reported that they had this kind of micro-projects

in their communities, 70.5% confirmed the positive changes in quality of services provision, and

22.7% pointed out no changes (Table - XIV).

Table –XIV: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of Health

Protection, %


project on health

protection N=44

2. Control group N=202 3. All respondents without

health protection projects,

N=370

Quality increased 70,5% 22,3% 22,4%



Hard to say 0,0% 2,5% 2,7%

Small sample size of the target group does not allows assessment making a comparison

between this group and two others. At the same time, no statistically significant difference was

stated between the control group and group of respondents without health protection projects.

25

In general, in those cases where sample size allows assessment of statistically significant

difference estimation, respondents from the target group significantly more often indicated

positive changes in all five spheres of micro-projects implementation. Moreover, respondents of

this group did not hesitate about evaluation of the changes –regarding all except energy saving

projects (quality of heating) no one answered ‘hard to say’.

4.3 Assessment of CBA Methodology Influence on Quality of Life of Target Population

Positive changes in target population’ quality of life is one of the most significant indicators of

the Project success. One of the ways to evaluate the general quality of life is to assess such

indicators as subjective satisfaction with various sides of their life such as social cohesiveness,

material conditions of life, and overall well-being. Comparison of the pilot communities (target

group) with non-pilot ones (control group) allows distinguishing factor of CBA Project influence

on changes in general quality of life among target population14.

According to the survey results, mean level of satisfaction of pilot community members was

found to be 3.4 against 3.1 of control group. Despite relatively low mean level of satisfaction,

citizens from pilot CBA communities tend to be more satisfied than those from non-pilot ones

regarding certain spheres of life. Chart - XXI presents a distribution of simple mean of

respondents’ answers from the main and control groups regarding various spheres of their life.

Chart - XXI: Level of Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Life for the Main and Control Groups

Simple Mean (‘1’ – totally unsatisfied, ‘5’ – absolutely satisfied)

Pilot community members in average are more satisfied (compared to the ones from control

group) with almost all spheres of life, except feeling safe from criminality, and their state of

14

During 3,5 years of CBA Project activity more than 1 million beneficiaries got benefit from implementation of 1303

micro-projects.

4,0

3,0

3,3

4,4

3,6

3,2

1,9

3,4

3,9

2,6

3,4

3,3

2,4

3,2

4,2

3,3

3,1

1,5

2,3

2,4

2,2

3,1

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Confidence in own forces N=206, N=194

Level of material well being N=209, N=207

State of health N=212, N=205

Attitude of people towards you N=200, N=200

Environmental conditions in your area N=205, N=201

Feeling safe from criminality N=174, N=188

Opportunity to find a job in your area N=193, N=192

Public life in your village/town N=193, N=183

Perspectives of your community development N=185, N=156

Overall satisfaction with how things going on in Ukraine

N=200, N=194

Overall satisfaction with your life N=210, N=204

Control

group

Main

group

26

health condition. Even though in some cases the difference between the main and control

group is quite small (satisfaction with opportunity to find a job, with environmental conditions,

and overall satisfaction with how things going on in Ukraine), it is statistically significant

(p<0.01), so we can state that in general, pilot community members are more satisfied than

citizens of non-pilot ones.

Despite the fact that improving conditions for health care services is one of the prioritized

directions of CBA activity, no statistically significant difference was found between the main and

the control groups as regards their satisfaction with the personal health condition. State of

health is a very complex issue, depending on numerous factors, while CBA Project activity was

directed mostly on improving such issues as health post renovation and medical equipment

purchase, influence of this input could be visible only in long-term perspective.

Besides evaluation of satisfaction with various aspects of life, respondents from both main and

control groups were asked to assess changes in their life during the last years. According to

results of community members’ survey, 33% of interviewed citizens from pilot communities

reported about significant or rather significant improvement of their life during the last year (see

Chart - XXII), while only 22% reported the same in control group.

Chart - XXII: Changes in Quality of Life during the Last Years

(NTG = 213, NCG = 206)

At the same time, almost the same number of respondents in both groups believed no changes

happened in their life during the last year (42% and 41%), while direction of negative

assessments in changes of quality of life was an opposite – 23% of respondents versus 36% from

control one mentioned worsening in their life situation during previous year.

Changes in Material Well-being

Statistical data demonstrate significant difference regarding subjective evaluation of material

well-being between the main and control groups (Chart - XXIII). Even though, the difference is

quite small (0.6), it is statistically significant (p<0.01). Additional analysis also revealed that

citizens of those pilot communities that implemented micro-projects related to street lighting

tend to assess their material conditions higher than those who implemented other projects15.

15

Coefficient of Pearson correlation is 0.203, p<0.05

6%

27%

42%

18%

5%

2%

4%

18%

41%

22%

14%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Significantly improved

Rather improved

Did not change

Rather became worse

Significantly became worse

Hard to say

Control group

Main group

27

Chart - XXIII: Changes in Material Well-being

Simple Mean (NTG = 209, NMG = 207)

Analysis of the focus group discussions revealed that decrease of expenditures on public

services allows saving financial resources. Besides, creation or renovation of additional services

gives opportunities to create new temporary or permanent work places (teacher in a

kindergarten, driver for school bus etc.). Newly created objects of infrastructure require labor

force, and local citizens get employment opportunity. As the survey result shows, citizens of CBA

pilot communities assess opportunity to get a job in their village/town higher than those from

non-pilot communities (even though difference is quite small, it is statistically significant, Chart -

XXIV).

Chart - XXIV: Opportunity to Get a Job

Simple Mean, (NTG = 193, control group NCG = 192)

Changes in health state conditions

Focus group participants mentioned that because of created or renovated conditions for

medical services their health state improved. Improvement of teaching conditions in schools

and kindergartens also contributed to the improvement of health condition, especially among

children. At the same time, statistical analysis did not reveal significant difference between the

subjective evaluation of health state among respondents from the main and control group.

Changes in psychological well-being

Improvement of psychological well-being was mentioned among the most significant results of

the Project. Focus group participants reported about the following important consequences of

the participation in frameworks of CBA:

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

Main group Control group

3,0

2,4

1,9

1,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

Target group Control group

28

• Increased self-confidence (see Chart - XXV for figures);

• Feeling of self-respect;

• Feeling responsible for the results of their work;

• Feeling of satisfaction over well-done job;

• Motivation to be more active further on due to successful experience;

Regional experts pointed to the following changes in psychological well-being of the pilot

community members:

• People became more responsible, and organized;

• Confidence in their own strength increased;

• Feeling of self-dependent emerged;

• Feeling of ability to cooperate with local authority emerged; level of trust increased;

• People became more active;

• Citizens acquired the feeling of responsibility for the renovated\rebuilt object, they tend

to preserve it in good condition.

Participation of citizens in micro-projects’ implementation significantly contributed a lot to

increase of confidence in their own abilities (see Chart - XXV)

Chart - XXV: Confidence in Their Own Forces, target group, simple mean

(NTG=206, NCG=194)

Having implemented at least one micro-project, people became aware of their potential.

Statistically significant difference between the main and control group confirms this as evidence.

Changes in Social Cohesion

According to the survey result, the increased level of social cohesion within pilot communities

was among the important results of CBA Project. As revealed at focus group discussion revealed,

social cohesion in communities has increased step by step. First people needed to realize a

necessity of common action, creation of CO. Furthermore, it was important to realize that there

must be a common decision-making process, and joint work on micro project implementation.

These actions resulted in the high: interdependency of community members; start of discussion

on common issues; better mutual understanding each other better; and improved skills of

conflict resolution.

Regional experts also mentioned that the financial and in-kind contribution of community

members to community initiatives intensified feeling of cohesion within a community. As a

result, people became more active and enterprising in solving their own problems.

3,0

2,4

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5


29

Statistical data confirm the abovementioned statements. To mark CBA input main and control

groups are compared (Chart - XXVI).

Chart - XXVI: Changes in Social Cohesion, %

As data show, distribution of pilot community members’ response indicates significant increase

in social cohesiveness (56% of respondents reported about it), while only 18% of non-pilot

community members pointed out this.

Level of mutual trust within community is an additional indicator to positive trend in the social

cohesiveness of their communities. According to survey results, members of pilot CBA

communities demonstrated significantly higher level of trust to each other than the members of

non-pilot communities (see Chart - XXVII).

Chart - XXVII: Level of Trust to Community Members

(NTG=208, NCG=163), simple mean (‘0’ – total distrust, ‘10’ – total trust)

Chart - XXVIII visually presents the distributions of level of trust to family members, strangers,

and community members. As data show, the highest level of trust both pilot and non-pilot

communities is demonstrated toward family members. At the same time, there is statistically

significant difference between these two groups: respondents from the target group tend to

trust family members more comparing to the respondents from control group16. The least both

groups trust to the strangers – the value of index is 3.3 and 3.2 respectively. Trust to community

members is in the middle of the scale for the control group and closer to family members for the

target group.

16


2%

11%

29%

36%

20%

2%

3%

28%

42%

14%

4%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Significantly decreased

Rather decreased

Did not change

Rather increased

Significantly increased

Hard to say

Control group

Target group

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0


7,9

6,1

30

Chart - XXVIII: Levels of Trust to Different Groups of People

Simple Mean (‘1’ – total distrust, ‘10’ – total trust)

Level of trust to strangers and family members is quite similar both the main and the control

group, while regarding community members it differs significantly (value of index is 7.9 for the

target group and 6.7 for control group)17.

Subjective assessment of the perspective of further community development, satisfaction with

public life in the village/town, and satisfaction with people’s attitude toward them are also

indirect indicators of quality of life. Chart - XXIX presents the distributions of simple mean for

each of these indicators both for the main and control groups.

Chart - XXIX: Level of Social Cohesion, simple mean

(‘1’ totally unsatisfied - ‘5’ totally satisfied)

The highest level of satisfaction both groups demonstrate with attitude of other people towards

them: 4.4 and 4.2 (however, citizens of pilot CBA communities are still significantly more satisfied

with this issue, p<0.01). Satisfaction with perspective of community development is significantly

higher in the target group (3.9) than in control one (2.4). The same tendency was noted for

satisfaction with public life in their village/town – 3.4 for the target group and 2.3 for control

one18. Strong correlation was apparent between the satisfaction with perspectives of community

development and satisfaction with public life in a community19. For the target group these

indicators are significantly higher than for the control one.

17

Difference is statistically significant, p<0.01 18

In both cases difference is statistically significant, p<0.01 19

Correlation coefficient for control group is 0.551 and for the target group – 0.614 (p<0.01)

9,7

7,9

3,2

9,3

6,1

3,3

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 12,0

Family members (main

group N=213, control group

N=204

Community members (main

group N=208, control group

N=163)

Strangers (main group

N=211, control group

N=193)

Control group

Target group

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Attitude of people

towards you N=200,

N=200

Public life in your

village/town N=193,

N=183

Perspectives of your

community development

N=185, N=156

4,4

3,4

3,9

4,2

2,3

2,4

Control group

Main group

31

SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Sociological research results and the data collected by monitoring department collected

during 3.5 years of the Project’s activity provide sufficient grounds to conclude that 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 enhancement of life quality of the population.

The approach is effective for activating and combining efforts of local communities, local

authorities and self-government, and the private sector for common priority setting in

development of the settlement and joint implementation of initiatives to improve living

conditions.

United by a common goal of their community development, local residents become an active

partner of local authorities and bodies of local self-government and contribute to sustainable

local development.

Indeed, in these communities overwhelming majorities of their members participate in

activities of these organisations, in particular, through participation in regular general meetings

and decision-making procedures.

Almost all community members pay member fees for common initiatives to be realised

and community organisations to function. A considerable proportion of community members

contribute more than the set membership fee; besides, residents who are not members of their

local community also make voluntary contributions for community project realisation.

Community members feel more responsible for objects of public infrastructure and better

understand of their role in 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 on funds

expenditures. Community organisations are guided by the principle of equality stating that all

the residents, regardless of their economic and social status, have equal opportunity for using

created or rehabilitated services.

Community involvement in the process of priority setting for local development has a positive

influence on local development processes.

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 in 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 acknowledge effectiveness of the joint

initiative development, joint funding and joint implementation.

Partners see the co-funding scheme instilled by the methodology as generally efficient.

According to this scheme, a part of funds for community project implementation comes from

international donors, another part – from local budgets, while the community itself and local

businesses make their contribution too. Partners are willing to invest in joint projects more

resources than the set minimum and a part of them indeed provide additional funding.

32

A significant proportion of community organisation members make additional

contributions in 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 do make contributions to community organisation projects.

CBA methodology contributes to qualitative enhancement of local government, increase in

trust towards authorities and establishment of effective cooperation between communities

and authorities. The key instruments of the methodology are created support structures that

ensure regular dialogue in joint decision making.

Oblast coordination councils and local development forums are platforms for discussion

of priorities. They also assist in coordination of activities of communities, authorities and

businesses as partners in project implementation.

Oblast and rayon community resource centres provide valuable informational support to

communities seeking self-organisation and looking for partners for fulfilment of joint initiatives.

These centres accumulate the experience gained and information about potential donors. They

help communities to implement other initiatives beyond CBA Project. These centres help

replication of CBA model in communities not participating in CBA Project.

Both communities and authorities assess these structures as highly effective, they are

willing to use these centres in the future and give a positive prediction of their sustainability.

Partnership based on CBA methodology leads to visible qualitative enhancement of relations

between authorities and communities.

There has been a noticeable improvement in the amount and quality of information

about activities of local authority provided to the public. This serves as an 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 raises people’s interests in activities of local

authorities. As a result, citizens admit an improvement in work of authorities.

Citizens expressed that their trust to local authorities is growing. There is a positive

dynamics in people’s contentment with the work of local authorities. Citizens feel more

confident in communicating with representatives of authorities.

There is a noticeable growth in the quality of human resources and mutual learning

among community leaders and representatives of local authorities. Community leaders and

officials accumulate knowledge and apply the new skills.

There is an increase in citizens’ satisfaction with the quality of services rendered through

community projects. Creation or renewal of services involving participation of communities is

cost effective. Moreover, the created or renewed communal infrastructures 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

communal services more economically and contribute towards sustainability of communal

infrastructures.

There has been improvement in economic conditions, the psychological self-feeling

and significant growth in cohesion of communities.

33

Community self-organisation has led to 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 and self-respect. Because of

continuous interaction and mutual cooperation there is significant increase in community

cohesion.

5.2 Recommendations

Recommendations concerning perfection of approach and public policy concerning local

development

Community based approach applied CBA Project 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, community resource centres, co-ordination

councils are valuable assets to build on and, therefore, following opportunities should be

capitalized to further promote the approach:

5.2.1 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 of an equal partner of

local authorities.

• Created rayon community resource centres possess great potential for becoming

powerful structures for supporting, informing, and implementation of community based

development initiatives and dissemination of experience. Capacity of these RCRCs and

the involved personnel should be further built through appropriate technical and

capacity building supports so as to and personnel boost their potential.

• Support is needed for creation of a functional network of resource centres to enable

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 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 on community based development into

teaching curriculum of academic institutions is recommended as a step towards

sustained capacity building in the area of community based development.

5.2.2 Recommendations for National, Regional and Local Authorities

• The community based development methodology proved to be efficient for all partners

and possesses a significant value in the long term. Therefore, it should be further

promoted by local authorities through existing community resource centres and regional

media. COs can also be encouraged to share their experience in form of success stories,

bulletins and hosting study/exchange visits.

34

• 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

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 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

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 fund, maintenance

fund etc. However, creation and activities of such funds require legal provision.

• Registered COs offer local businesses a legal and transparent means of channelling their

funds for support of community initiatives. They also bear potential to receive local

budget to carry out community initiatives jointly. However, current legal provision causes

difficulties in full fledge utilisation of this opportunity and therefore appropriate legal

provision and budget code must be brought into force.

• Strategic planning in participation of mobilised community is found to be efficient and

therefore should be continued and promoted further.

• More than 4000 people across Ukraine have acquired know-how to implement CBA

methodology at 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 in local governance.

Several demonstration sites have emerged at the local level for dissemination of CBA

methodology in practice. These can be used as learning ground by authorities willing to

introduce community based development.

35

Annex - I

Pilot CBA Community Organizations

# Oblast

Pilot COs

Formed Registered

in VC/CC

Legally

registered

1 ARC 41 41 41

2 Cherkaska 42 42 42

3 Chernihivska 42 42 42

4 Chernivetska 47 47 47

5 Dnipropetrovska 42 42 42

6 Donetska 40 40 40

7 I-Frankivska 56 56 56

8 Kharkivska 42 42 42

9 Khersonska 45 45 45

10 Khmelnytska 50 50 50

11 Kirovohradska 45 45 45

12 Kyivska 50 50 49

13 Luhanska 46 46 46

14 Lvivska 51 50 50

15 Mykolaivska 45 45 45

16 Odeska 45 45 45

17 Poltavska 41 41 41

18 Rivnenska 49 49 45

19 Sumska 43 43 43

20 Ternopilska 57 57 57

21 Vinnytska 41 41 41

22 Volynska 47 47 47

23 Zakarpatska 58 58 58

24 Zaporizka 44 44 44

25 Zhytomyrska 40 40 40

Total 1149 1148 1143

36

Annex - II

Rayon Community Resource Centers created within CBA-I

# Oblast Oblast Community

Resource Centres

Rayon Community

Resource Centers

1 ARC 1 7

2 Cherkaska 1 8

3 Chernihivska 1 8

4 Chernivetska 1 1

5 Dnipropetrovska 1 6

6 Donetska 1 8

7 Ivano-Frankivska 1 5

8 Kharkivska 1 8

9 Khersonska 1 5

10 Khmelnytska 1 3

11 Kirovohradska 1 8

12 Kyivska 1 9

13 Luhanska 1 9

14 Lvivska 1 8

15 Mykolaivska 1 8

16 Odeska 1 6

17 Poltavska 1 8

18 Rivnenska 1 4

19 Sumska 1 8

20 Ternopilska 1 9

21 Vinnytska 1 8

22 Volynska 1 9

23 Zakarpatska 1 7

24 Zaporizka 1 8

25 Zhytomyrska 1 8

Total 25 176

37

Annex – III (a)

Trainings for CO members and Local Authority Representatives

# Oblast

No of trainings

Trainings on

CO

mana

geme

nt

Activ

ity

plan

ning

MPP

prep

arati

on

Finan

cing

MP

imple

ment

ation

PAS

Publi

c

audit

Hand

over

Othe

r

1 ARC 167 7 7 5 4 11 45 45 43 0

2 Cherkaska 50 8 8 8 1 1 0 8 8 8

3 Chernihivska 58 15 15 2 1 5 11 3 6 0

4 Chernivetska 36 9 8 8 0 11 0 0 0 0

5 Dnipropetrovska 60 9 9 9 1 9 17 1 0 5

6 Donetska 58 8 8 8 0 7 12 4 0 11

7 Ivano-Frankivska 65 13 13 13 2 16 0 0 0 8

8 Kharkivska 41 8 8 8 1 2 6 6 0 2

9 Khersonska 94 16 16 16 0 5 8 25 0 8

10 Khmelnytska 64 10 8 11 9 8 8 8 0 2

11 Kirovohradska 71 8 8 8 1 8 8 13 17 0

12 Kyivska 93 17 17 17 1 12 8 8 10 3

13 Luhanska 56 9 9 9 5 7 2 3 1 11

14 Lvivska 45 11 12 13 0 3 1 0 4 1

15 Mykolaivska 63 8 8 8 5 8 8 8 8 2

16 Odeska 41 9 8 9 1 6 7 1 0 0

17 Poltavska 69 11 11 11 2 0 8 8 16 2

18 Rivnenska 63 8 8 6 1 9 4 10 9 8

19 Sumska 51 8 8 8 1 8 8 2 8 0

20 Ternopilska 59 12 12 12 2 10 0 0 0 11

21 Vinnytska 179 12 12 6 15 22 43 29 39 1

22 Volynska 61 9 9 9 2 5 8 0 0 19

23 Zakarpatska 103 16 16 12 9 9 12 12 8 9

24 Zaporizka 69 12 12 12 1 8 0 16 8 0

25 Zhytomyrska 60 9 9 8 2 8 8 0 0 16

Total 1776 262 259 236 67 198 232 210 185 127

38

Annex – III(b)

# Oblast No of

trainings

Participants

Total Male Femal

e

CO

member

s

Local

authority

representative

s

1 ARC 167 1211 578 633 1075 136

2 Cherkaska 50 1150 585 565 740 410

3 Chernihivska 58 1414 659 755 1259 155

4 Chernivetska 36 708 381 327 538 170

5 Dnipropetrovska 60 2771 1127 1644 2448 323

6 Donetska 58 1363 392 971 939 424

7 Ivano-Frankivska 65 1515 548 967 1404 111

8 Kharkivska 41 886 334 552 729 157

9 Khersonska 94 1508 562 946 857 651

10 Khmelnytska 64 1045 332 713 838 207

11 Kirovohradska 71 1625 682 943 1413 212

12 Kyivska 93 2052 810 1242 1507 545

13 Luhanska 56 1119 233 886 737 382

14 Lvivska 45 811 352 459 607 204

15 Mykolaivska 63 1648 666 982 1474 174

16 Odeska 41 734 318 416 573 161

17 Poltavska 69 1140 663 477 927 213

18 Rivnenska 63 1432 550 882 1131 301

19 Sumska 51 1345 559 786 1060 285

20 Ternopilska 59 1008 402 606 718 290

21 Vinnytska 179 3102 1512 1590 2455 647

22 Volynska 61 1755 887 868 1466 289

23 Zakarpatska 103 2227 700 1527 1964 263

24 Zaporizka 69 1723 848 875 1396 327

25 Zhytomyrska 60 1637 595 1042 1147 490

Total 1776 36929 15275 21654 29402 7527

39

Annex - IV

Number of Micro Projects Approved and Implemented Since Inception

# Oblast # Appr.

MPs

# MPs by typology

Health

Energy

saving

Water

supply

Environme

nt

School bus

1 ARC 45 6 29 6 1 3

2 Cherkaska 54 26 22 6 0 0

3 Chernihivska 45 12 27 6 0 0

4 Chernivetska 50 10 37 2 0 1

5 Dnipropetrovska 55 20 23 10 0 2

6 Donetska 51 9 29 9 1 3

7 Ivano-Frankivska 69 5 62 0 2 0

8 Kharkivska 47 3 36 5 1 2

9 Khersonska 54 13 34 7 0 0

10 Khmelnytska 50 8 33 4 0 5

11 Kirovohradska 53 3 36 7 1 6

12 Kyivska 55 13 36 6 0 0

13 Luhanska 55 13 30 11 0 1

14 Lvivska 54 13 36 3 1 1

15 Mykolaivska 52 1 34 14 0 3

16 Odeska 45 8 20 17 0 0

17 Poltavska 50 5 16 22 0 7

18 Rivnenska 49 17 26 0 1 5

19 Sumska 49 10 15 19 2 3

20 Ternopilska 63 13 41 5 1 3

21 Vinnytska 41 8 20 5 0 8

22 Volynska 57 7 47 2 0 1

23 Zakarpatska 61 18 39 3 1 0

24 Zaporizka 53 8 25 16 0 4

25 Zhytomyrska 46 26 17 3 0 0

Total 1303 275 770 188 12 58

% 21% 59% 15% 1% 4%

Technology

Consolidated report on cba eng