Consolidated report on cba eng


Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Consolidated report on cba eng

  1. 1. 0COMMUNITY BASED APPROACH TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT: CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENT REPORT [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a shortsummary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of thedocument here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contentsof the document.]ContentIntroductionObjectivesMethodologyFindingsConclusionsRecommendations
  2. 2. 1This publication has been produced within the framework of the Community Based Approach toLocal Development Project under the assistance of the European Union and UNDP. The content ofthis publication is the sole responsibility of the authors. This publication is not intended to createany obligations and does not express official position and/or views of the European Union, donorcountries’ 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, UkraineTel/fax: +38 (044) 584 34 70. E-mail: ganna.yatsyuk@undp.orgWesite: Facebook page: edition: August 2011Editors: Jaysingh Sah, Ganna Yatsyuk, Tetyana DiyevaAcknowledgement:This paper is synthesized from the reports of Kyiv International Institute of Sociology prepared onthe 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 togethertheir 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 maintainingcultural diversity, tolerance and individual freedoms. The European Union is committed to sharingits achievements and its values with countries and peoples beyond its borders.UNDP is the UN’s global development network, advocating for change and connecting countriesto knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the groundin 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national developmentchallenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw ont eh people of UNDP and our widerange of partners.
  3. 3. 2LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSARC Autonomous Republic of CrimeaCBA Community Based Approach to Local Development ProjectCDO Community Development Officer (CBA staff in the region)CDP Community Development PlanCO Community OrganisationEU European UnionKIIS Kyiv International Institute of SociologyLDF Local Development ForumMDG Millennium Development GoalsMPP Micro Project ProposalMP Micro Project (Community Project)OC Oblast CouncilOCC Oblast Coordination CouncilOCRC Oblast Community Resource Centre (same as OIU)OIU Oblast Implementation Unit (same as OCRC)OSA Oblast State AdministrationPA Partnership AgreementPMU Project Management Unit (CBA head office in Kyiv)RC Rayon CouncilRCRC Rayon Community Resource CentreRSA Rayon State AdministrationUMDG Ukrainian Millennium Development GoalUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeVC/CC Village Council/City Council
  4. 4. 1Community Based Approach to Local Development Project:Consolidated Assessment ReportABSTRACTThis publication presents a consolidated assessment report on the impact of the EU/UNDPfunded Community Based Approach to Local Development (CBA) Project. The Project wasimplemented 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 processand more than 1.2 million people directly benefited from the community projects implementedby local communities across the country with support of the local authorities, Project and theprivate sector.Based on results of sociological research conducted during 2010 by Kyiv International Instituteof Sociology (KIIS) and analysis of the data collected by the monitoring department of CBAProject, it was found that community based approach to local development proved effective inunleashing people’s potential and consolidating efforts of all stakeholders at local level thatresult in strengthening local self-government; reinforcing bottom-up planning and jointdecision-making process; improving public service delivery conditions; enhancing citizens-authority cooperation; raising psychological well-being and social cohesion and enhancingliving quality of target population. High effectiveness of the Project methodology is attributed tosupport structures created and skills imparted to representatives of community, elected officialsand state authorities at local and regional level.The study recommends that the process and the support structures established by the Projectmust be given continuity under national framework should the country aim for making localdevelopment efficient and sustainable. Such a vision will require policy considerations andfurther nurturing of human resources.
  5. 5. 2I. INTRODUCTIONUkraine has made significant social, economic and environmental development since itsindependence. However, a vast population, living in rural and semi-urban areas, is still sufferingfrom low living standards, characterized by insufficient access to medical care, education, watersupply, energy supply and environmental situation. Underdeveloped or worn out basicinfrastructures in these sectors are the major cause for poor service delivery. To improve thesituation, much effort required especially at local level where legacy of the highly centralizeddecision-making system, passive attitude of the population and limited capacity of the localgovernments still exist.UNDP/Ukraine, with support from its national and international partners, has been promotingcommunity based development approach in Ukraine since 2001to mitigate above problems. Theapproach was piloted on small scale in various spatial contexts and for various developmentobjectives such as social cohesion and tolerance in Autonomous Republic of Crimea,psychological recovery from Chernobyl disaster and participatory governance in Ukrainiancities1. Result of the pilots proved encouraging and warranted need for a nation-wide piloting ofthe approach. Accordingly, Community Based Approach to Local Development (CBA) Projectwas conceived in 2006.CBA Project is a joint initiative of EU and UNDP meant to mitigate the above-mentionedproblems. First phase of CBA Project commenced on 4thSeptember 2007 and ended on 6thJune2011. It aimed at creating enabling environment for long-term sustainable development at locallevel by promoting local self-governance and community based initiatives throughout Ukraine.Specific objectives included:• Improving living conditions in rural and semi-urban communities by promotingsustainable rehabilitation, management and operation of basic social and communalinfrastructure and services through community-based self-help initiatives• Demonstrating effective participatory local governance and decentralized managementmechanisms for public service delivery by promoting inclusive, self-governingcommunity organizations undertaking self-help initiatives in partnership with localauthorities, private sector entities and other stakeholders• Enhancing relevant professional skills and knowledge of community organizations andlocal authorities to initiate and maintain visible participatory local process on socialeconomic development and public services delivery• Improving institutional capacities of community organizations and local authorities toidentify community needs and priority, to manage and monitor participatory localprocess for a sustainable social-economic development and efficient public servicedelivery• Promoting practical experience at grassroots level in participatory planning, decision-making and social action with a view to providing inputs for policy and legal reformstowards regional/local sustainable development, administrative and fiscaldecentralization and consolidation of local democracyThe strategic goal of CBA Project was to build capacity for participation of the local communitiesand local authorities in decision making process and use this capacity for multi-stakeholderscooperation. It utilized social mobilization tool to mobilize target stakeholders (namely local1For details, refer documents of Crimea Integration and Development Programme, CIDP (; Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme, CRDP ( and Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme, MGSDP (
  6. 6. 3communities, local councils, rayon authorities, regional authorities) and prepare them for jointdecision-making and participatory action directed to resolving local development problems.Appropriate support structures were developed to ensure joint decision-making andparticipatory 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 1000village/city councils were included into Project’s areas. The Project was expected to mobilize1000 communities from 1000 village/city councils, to support 1175 self-help communityinitiatives for improving basic social and communal infrastructure, to establish supportstructures (namely1000 COs, 200 LDFs, 25 regional coordination councils, 25 oblast-CRC and200-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 theycould effectively implement the Project activities.Coinciding with last year of CBA Project, an assessment of results and achievements ofcommunity based approach was planned. Accordingly, a scientific sociological research wasconducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) on request of CBA Project duringJune – October 2010. The study used quantitative as well as qualitative indicators relevant formeasuring 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 samplingfor geographical coverage across Ukraine and drew sample from community, local authorities,regional authorities, project staffs pertaining to four projects of UNDP related with communitybased approach namely CIDP, CRDP, MGSDP and CBA. Analytical report of this study is availableat by the title ‘Local Development with CommunityParticipation’. It includes information, conclusions and recommendations common to these fourprojects.This publication is a consolidated report taken out of KIIS study pertaining to CBA Project only. Itis based both on data collected by monitoring department of CBA Project2, and results ofsociological research conducted by KIIS. Each section and sub-section includes data from bothsources. In cases where statistical data collected by CBA Project is absent, only results ofsociological research are used. General logic and conceptual scheme of this report is follows thestructure and conceptual framework of sociological research of KIIS.II. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDYThe main goal of this study is to assess the effectiveness of methodology utilized by CBA Projectto achieve its objective of improving living condition of target population, participatorygovernance 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;2Statistical data were collected regularly by the Project during 3.5 years of its implementation. This information was tabulated, analyzed anddisseminated in form of progress reports. Quarterly and annual progress reports of the Project can be found at CBA web-site:
  7. 7. 4o 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 STUDYThree methods were used to evaluate the methodology of community based approach:• focus group discussions (allows revealing spectrum of possible opinions and gettingdetailed 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 structuralinterviews with regional experts and survey with 421 community members (213 respondentsfrom 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 populationThe data were analysed using statistical tools involving tabular analysis and t-test to derivereliable inferences. Factors that contributed to the results of assessment were identified andnecessary recommendations were made for management and policy makers.IV. FINDINGS4.1 Assessment of Efficiency of the Community Based Approach MethodologyEfficiency of the community based approach methodology used by CBA Project was assessedthrough such indicators as level of participation, involvement of CO-members in decision-making, joint priority definition, co-financing in community initiatives, relevance of supportstructures, level of transparency of action, accessibility of services, bottom-up planning, accessto information, participation of private sector and citizen-authorities relationship. Details oneach of these indicators are given hereunder.Community based approach methodology assumes active participation of community membersin the processes of local development. Even though it is desirable to involve 100% of the targethouseholds into community organizations, CBA methodology considered 80% of targethousehold participation in the community organisation as a bottom line for full participation.Due to various reasons, 100% household participation throughout the country could not beexpected or it would be rather impossible in practice. Therefore, this level was set for anyevent/process to take place in course of CBA implementation.4.1.1. Level of Participation in Community OrganisationA total of 1145 communities across the country, participated in CBA Project. Of 420`357 targethouseholds, 78.8% got organized into 1149 community organizations (Annex - I). Region-wiseparticipation of households shows that in majority of the oblasts, participation level was 80% or325 regions of Ukraine were grouped in 8 clusters basing on expert opinion of community development specialists of CBA Project about similaritiesin the processes of Project implementation.
  8. 8. 5more (Table – I). Lower participation was noticed in the areas where the target community wasvery large to accommodate the nature of service (such as public health, street lighting) desiredby the community or households scattered over large area. In such a case, full participation ofentire target households was not possible.Table – I: Participation of Target Households in COParticipation Range % # of Region % of Regions> 90 - 100 5 20> 80 - 90 10 40> 70 - 80 5 20> 60 - 70 4 16> 50 - 60 1 4Source: CBA Annual Report 20104.1.2 CO Members’ Involvement in the Decision-makingTaking active part in the decision-making processes is a necessary element of direct participationof the citizens in local development. There must be no discrimination either on prosperity of ahousehold or gender of a participant. It is also assumed that community organization membersparticipate in general meetings, and are aware about their CO activities.Statistical data collected by monitoring department of CBA Project show that 1149 COs wereformed by 418,739 persons, representing 331,442 households. Of them, 58% were female and42% were male. Participation of female (60.3%) was also found to be higher in the managementteam of pilot COs.Table – II: CO Formation and MembershipHouseholds CO membersNo of formedCONo of targethouseholds% of householdsparticipantsTotal Male Female1149 331442 78.8% 418739 168731(42%) 242678 (58%)According to the results of KIIS sociological survey, the level of participation of CO-members ingeneral 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, highpercentage (92%) of them were informed about decisions taken (Chart - I).Chart –I: Participation in Decision-making Activity, N=21294%89%92%Participation in generalmeeting at least onceParticipation in decision-makingBeing informed about takendecision86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96%
  9. 9. 6Despite visible female domination in COs, no statistically significant difference was statedbetween male and female as regards to their participation in general meetings and decision-making processes.4.1.3 Setting Priorities for Local DevelopmentCommunity based approach methodology assumes that the set of community problems mustbe defined and ranked by community members in common. Common problems are the oneswhich are perceived by more than 80% of the households/apartments. At general meeting COmembers define a set of local problems to be solved. Out of defined problems, one problem isprioritized 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 ofdefined 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 someinfluence on the process (Chart - II).Chart – II: Influence on Problems’ PrioritizationA statistically significant correlation was found between general awareness about CO’s activitiesand the conviction in the independent of authorities priority-setting4. The more respondent wasinformed about activity of his/her CO, the more he/she was inclined to believe in crucial role ofcommunity in problem prioritization.4.1.4 Effectiveness of Co-Financing SchemeAccording 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 becontributed by CO-members. In fact, the COs contributed more than required, while Project’sinput turned out to be slightly lower than expected. By end of Project, the cost sharingdistribution was as follows: COs invested 7.2%, local budget – 45%, CBA – 46.5%, and privatesector contributed 1.3% of the total micro-project cost.KIIS sociological research shows that, in general, existing co-financing scheme is estimated assuccessful and efficient. This statement is based on the results of focus-group discussions andinterviews with regional experts. It became apparent that the main advantage of the scheme isin 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 andregional experts on this topic.4Coefficient of correlations is -0.307 (p<0.05)Mostlyopinion ofCO members60%CO membersopinion andauthorityrepresentatives opinionequally27%Mostlyopinion ofauthorityrepresentatives4%Hard to say9%
  10. 10. 7Chart –III: Assessment of Co-Financing Scheme byRegional Experts and CO-Functional Groups, %As data show, 80% of regional experts consider existing co-financing scheme as very or mostlyeffective, and only 3% assessed it as mostly ineffective. Functional group members are evenmore 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 inlocal budget. Therefore, they proposed to increase Project’s share in co-financing projects.According to community members’ survey, 36% of interviewed CO-members reported aboutoccasional contribution of more than required cost-sharing for the micro-project. Morstly, theprosperous 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 thecases of extra contribution.At the same time, non-financial contribution (volunteer work) was more widespread thanadditional financial investment: 82% of interviewed CO members reported about volunteeringfor some work related with community initiatives (Chart - IV).Chart –IV: Additional Contribution of CO Membersto Micro-projects’ Implementation, N=212Focus-group discussions also revealed that additional non-financial contribution was useful notonly in terms of the work performed, but also because of its positive influence on the socialcohesiveness and increasing trust within the community.37%43%17%3%57%41%3%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%VeryeffectiveMostlyeffectiveEquallyeffective andineffectiveMostlyineffectiveRegional experts,N=150CO functionalgroup, N=370%20%40%60%80%100%Additional financialcontributionAdditional non-financial contribution(voluntary work)36%82%
  11. 11. 84.1.5 Relevance of Established Support StructuresCommunity organizations (CO), formed by the target communities, rayon level localdevelopment forum (LDF), oblast level oblast coordination council (OCC) and communityresource centres (at rayon & oblast level) are the key support structures that significantlycontribute to the participatory decision making, bottom-up planning process and resourcemobilization for micro-projects.Community organization (COs) are the most vital element of the community based approachmethodology. CO is an organization of citizens living on the same territory and experiencingcommon problems of local development. It is a self-governed and self-managed organizationled by a team of trusted activists. It functions with high level of participation of households, highdegree of transparency and mutual cooperation. It represents citizens’ view in localdevelopment 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 stateadministration. The main function of LDF is to facilitate dialogue, coordination, planning anddecision-making at local level between the oblast and rayon authorities and communities. AtLDF sittings local development issues such as mainstreaming of community plans, mobilizingresources for implementation of community priorities, providing guidance and technicalsupport to the COs during community micro-project implementation are discussed.Oblast Coordination Council (OCC)5is usually chaired by a deputy head of oblast stateadministration or oblast council and includes representatives of the local development forumsin 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 localgovernments, carries out joint monitoring of CBA implementation in the oblast and providesstrategic advice on implementation and solves local policy issues.In each oblast and pilot rayon, a resource centre is created in order to facilitate implementationof Project activities.CBA targeted the establishment of 1000 COs, 200 LDFs and 24 OCCs (+ republican coordinationcouncil in ARC). Similarly, 23 oblast level resource centres (except in Kyiv and ARC) and 200 rayonlevel resource centres were expected to be established. During the period of CBA activity, 1149COs 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 areconsidered as effective and useful both for community members and for local authority. As focusgroup discussions revealed, the support structures are especially useful for: communitymobilization, human resource development, and improvement of cooperation between citizensand authority. For the local authorities it became easier to work with developed andexperienced communities which implemented at least one micro-project.Results of regional experts’ survey show that local development forums got the highest score interms of overall effectiveness (very effective and rather effective) followed by communityorganisation, oblast coordination council, oblast resource centre and rayon resource centre. Ingeneral, no less than 80% of interviewed experts considered CBA support structures as very orrather effective (Table – III).5Termed as Republican Coordination Council in case of ARC
  12. 12. 9Table –III: Effectiveness of Support Structures in Opinion of Regional Experts, N=150, %VeryeffectiveRathereffectiveEqually effectiveand ineffectiveRatherineffectiveIneffectiveHard tosayCommunity organizations 46.7 42.7 9.3 0.7 0.0 0.7Rayon resource centers 40.3 40.3 11.4 2.0 0.0 6.0Oblast resource centers 54.7 29.3 6.7 3.3 0.7 5.3Local developmentforums50.0 42.7 4.7 0.7 0.0 2.0Oblast coordinationcouncils48.7 38.7 5.3 3.3 0.0 4.0At the same time, community members consider community organizations as the most efficientstructure (94%), followed by LDF (93%), and OCC (85%) (Chart - V)Chart – V: Effectiveness of Support Structures for CooperationBetween Communities and Local Authorities, Regional Experts, N=1504.1.6 Potential Sustainability of Support StructuresCreated support structures are supposed to be sustainable and continue to function aftertermination 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 veryor rather probable. COs got the highest probability rate (85%) from them for continuationfollowed by rayon resource centers (82.4%), oblast coordination councils (79.9%), and almost thesame 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% fordifferent structures).Table – IV: Probability of Created Supporting Structures Existence after CBA Termination, %VeryprobableRatherprobable50x50RatherimprobableAbsolutelyimprobableHard tosayCommunityorganizations (N=150)52.0 33.3 11.3 0.7 0.7 2.0Rayon resourcecenters (N=148)40.5 41.9 7.4 2.7 1.4 6.1Oblast resourcecenters (N=150)32.0 44.7 10.0 2.7 1.3 9.3Local developmentforums (N=149)25.5 51.0 10.1 4.7 0.7 8.1Oblast coordinationcouncils (N=149)25.5 54.4 7.4 4.7 3.4 4.742%51%4%1% 2%40%45%9%1% 4%59%35%7%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%VeryeffectiveMostlyeffectiveEquallyeffectiveandineffectiveMostlyineffectiveHard to sayLDFOCCCO
  13. 13. 10The research also revealed quite a high level of willingness among regional experts to supportcreated 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 SupportCOs after CBA Termination, N=150, %4.1.7 Use of Support Structures Beyond CBA ProjectMethodology of community based approach assumes that created support structures willcontribute to local development processes beyond CBA Project. Among created supportstructures, local development forums, and community organizations were found to be activebeyond CBA Project. It includes COs and LDFs acting together to attract non-CBA resources toundertake additional community initiatives. Replication of CBA methodology in non-CBAterritories is also ongoing.Data collected by monitoring department of CBA show that COs started to implement otherinitiatives, in parallel or after implementation of micro-project under CBA’s support. During 3.5years of CBA implementation, 235 pilot COs applied to various funding agencies and competedfor 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 qualityproposal 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 additionalresource mobilisation from community members and other potential sponsors at local level.Table – V: Activity of Pilot CBA COs Beyond CBAActivity NumberNo. Pilot COs applied for grants to other donors 235No. Pilot COs received grants 159Survey of community members conducted by KIIS confirms quite a high level of COs’ activitybeyond 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 CBAProject. All of them successfully received financial support for their initiatives.Data collected by CBA monitoring department also show that non-pilot rayons and communitiestake interest in methodology of community based approach. During 3.5 years of CBA-I, 171 COs55%37%5% 1% 2%Very probableMostly probableEqually probable andimprobableMostly improbableHard to say
  14. 14. 11were 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 thesurvey results, 77% of experts reported cases they know when citizens of non-pilot communitiescreated COs following CBA scheme; 71% of experts mentioned cases when non-pilotcommunities used village, rayon or oblast resource centers for assistance (Chart - VII).Chart –VII: CBA Methodology Replication and Use ofResource Centre, % of Regional Experts4.1.8 Human Resource DevelopmentEnhancing relevant professional skills and knowledge of community organizations and localauthorities was one of the main tasks of CBA Project. Human capacity building involved suchactivities as training, exposure visit, dialogues and various other forms of techniques pertainingto skill enhancement/knowledge transfer. During 3.5 years, CBA Project conducted 1776trainings with 37,262 participants (including 29560 CO members and 7702 representatives oflocal authorities).Trainings included modules on CO management, planning, project proposalpreparation, micro-project implementation, object’s handover, public audit, sustainability andothers (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 skillsof working with community organizations, and increased their knowledge on local governance.According to the survey results, 97% of interviewed experts reported increased level of theirknowledge of self-government processes during last several years. Simultaneously, 72% ofexperts pointed out the significant increase in their skills in cooperation with communities(Table - VI).Table –VI: Changes in Professional Skills, Regional Experts, N=150, %SignificantlyincreasedRatherincreasedDid notchangeRatherdecreasedKnowledge of self-government processes58.0 39.3 2.7 0.0Skills in cooperationwith communities72.0 26.7 0.7 0.7Statistically 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 behigher than the older officials6. Besides, it was found that changes in the level of knowledge on6Correlation coefficient Kendal tau-b is 0.157, p<0.0571%77%66% 68% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78%Citizens of non-pilot communitiesuse village, rayon, oblast resourcecentersCitizens of non-pilot communitiescreate COs following CBA schema
  15. 15. 12processes 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 StructuresTransparency is one of the key tenets of the community based approach. While contributingmoney for micro-project, community members need to be sure that this money will be used in aproper way. To be able to collect financial fees for community’s part of co-financing, communitymembers have to trust their CO and its management team. To achieve this, CO’s activity must beas transparent and accountable as possible.As focus group participants reported, information about procedure of micro-projectimplementation and finance expenditures of the CO was easily available at the COs. Informationboards were created and newsletters were published to spread information about the process ofMP’s implementation.Statistical data from community members’ survey confirm the high level of transparency of andavailability of information about COs’ activities. Only 0.5% to 6.6% of interviewed CO-membersmentioned that they were not aware about their CO’s activity, while from 53% to 90% reportedto 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 onthe type of activity. Chart - VIII presents distribution of simple mean for each of the six types ofCO activities.Chart –VIII: Level of Awareness About CO’s Activity, Simple Mean, N=212As Chart - VIII shows, the awareness about public audit and conducting tenders is significantlylower comparing with awareness about decision-making, problem prioritizing, performingworks on project sites (sig. p<0.01), reporting and resource use (sig. p<0.05). Relatively low levelof awareness about tenders can be explained by the fact that it is mostly representatives offunctional group who deal with these issues, while ordinary CO members usually do notparticipate in these processes. At the same time, it is expected that all or the majority of COmembers should participate in public audit. Therefore, relatively low value of the index meansthat more attention must be paid to the issue of organizing public audits.7Correlation coefficient Kendal tau-b is 0.550, p<0.014,54,24,03,84,33,70,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0Decision-makingProblem prioritizingReporting and resource useConducting tendersDoing work at objectsPublic audit
  16. 16. 13Significant difference is apparent between the CO members and functional grouprepresentatives on the awareness issue (p<0.01): on average, functional group representativesare much more informed. This can be explained by their direct and continuous involvement allthe processes within CO (see Chart - IX).Chart –IX: Awareness about CO Activity among CO Membersand CO Management Team Representatives, Simple MeanBecause of a small sample, no statistically significant difference was found between the levels ofawareness of management group representatives of different types of CO activities amongfunctional group representatives.4.1.10 Accessibility of Services among Target Group PopulationCBA assumes equal access to services created within imported the framework of CBA Project. Assurvey results revealed, almost all respondents reported about the fulfillment of thisrequirement (e.g. it was confirmed by 92% of interviewed CO-members). It was not possible tofind out whether those who gave negative answers was actually due to existing problem ofservice 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=2134,14,53,94,04,14,24,34,44,54,6All CO members, N=212 Functional group members, N=4392%8%YesNo
  17. 17. 144.1.11 Bottom-up PlanningMethodology of CBA presupposes that citizens are actively involved into the process ofparticipatory planning. The plans prepared through people’s participation are appreciated at alllevels and by support agencies. The plans which are initiated directly by citizens carry morevalue than the ones prepared by someone on people’s behalf. This statement is based onassumption that the community members are better aware about the problems in theircommunities and the degree of their importance.Bottom-up planning includes several stages. At first stage, needs of the local community arecollected, debated and finalized at CO level. This is followed by approval of CO plans atvillage/city council level. All plans from pilot village/city councils are collected and discussed atsittings of rayon local development forum, and then incorporated into the social and economicdevelopment plan of the rayon. In its turn, rayon plans of socio-economic developmentincorporated into the oblast level program of social and economic development. During 3,5years of CBA Project activity, all pilot COs prepared their community development plans thatwere approved at LDF sittings8.As focus group discussions revealed, CO-members are convinced in the use and effectiveness ofthe bottom-up planning. This mechanism allows attracting attention of local authorities tourgent problems in communities. Besides, the respondents also mentioned that the plans werenot only formally included into rayon development plans, but also implemented. As a rule,inclusion of community development plans into rayon plans increases the probability ofreceiving financial resources for solving local problems.Regional experts in interviews reported about the cases of inclusion of priorities of communitydevelopment into rayon/oblast programs of strategic development. This statement is alsosupported by the statistical data.Chart –XI: Inclusion of Community Development Priorities into Rayon Development Plans% of Regional Experts, N=1508There are several cased when COs united in one umbrella organization and worked out a common communitydevelopment plan.Fully included43%Rather included37%Partiallyincluded19%Rather notincluded1%
  18. 18. 15As data show, 80% of experts consider community development priorities to be fully or ratherincluded into rayon development plans. At the same time, 76% of respondents reported aboutpartial or full implementation of the included priorities (Chart - XII).Chart –XII: Level of Community Priorities’ Realization within Frameworksof Rayon Plans, Regional Experts, %4.1.12 Access to Information about Local Authorities’ ActivitiesOne of the goals of CBA is to improve communication between the community members andlocal authorities. Access to information about authorities’ activities is an important part of thistask.Participants of focus group discussions pointed out that cooperation with communitiesmotivated authorities to disseminate information about their activities. Several ways ofinformation dissemination were pointed out including: informational boards, mass-media, directcommunication with community members.As mentioned by the regional experts, direct communication with community members(participation in LDF sittings, conferences, micro-project inaugurations), and their involvementinto processes of planning and micro-projects’ implementation considerably contributed to theimprovement of communication processes. As figures in Table –VI show, the majority of regionalexperts think that access to information about local authorities’ activities significantly or ratherincreased during the last several years. Dissemination of information increased through variouspublic events with mass media participation (confirmed by 94.7% of experts) followed byinformation 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, theyalready acquired such a high level of positive assessment confirming the high level of theireffectiveness and importance.Table –VII: Changes in Information Dissemination About Local Authority’s Activity, N=43, %SignificantlyincreasedRatherincreasedDid notchangeRatherdecreasedSignificantlydecreasedHard tosayInformation boards 41.3 47.3 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.7Press-conferences,mass media48.0 46.7 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0Resource centers 43.9 39.9 9.5 0.0 0.7 6.136%40%24%1%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%Fully realized Rather realized Partially realized Rather unrealized
  19. 19. 16In order to distinguish CBA contribution to changes in access to information, a comparison wasmade between the target group (pilot CBA communities) and the control group (non-pilotcommunities). Chart - XIII demonstrates distribution of answers of respondents from the targetand 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 communicationfrom the authorities, while the trend at the control group is to consider that communication didnot change or decreased (47% and 26% respectively)9. Statistically significant difference allowsmaking a conclusion about significant contribution of CBA Project into positive changes inaccess to information about local authorities’ activity in pilot communities.4.1.13 Involvement of Private SectorOriginally, private sector was not included into the mandatory co-financing scheme of CBAProject. However, according to the statistical data of CBA monitoring department,1.3% of totalprojects cost was financed by local business. Interviews with selected entrepreneurs revealedtheir intention to invest money into communities’ initiatives. Among the various reasonsmotivating entrepreneurs contributing into micro-projects are: desire to help their fellowcitizens, support development of a given settlement and prevent re-settlement of potentialemployees, and even the desire to support village council head. Therefore, ensuring active roleof private sector in the local development processes is worth considering.4.1.14 Impact on Citizens –Authority RelationImplementation of micro-projects requires strong cooperation between citizens and localauthorities. CBA methodology presupposes that joint work on micro projects strengthensauthorities relationship. This subject was assessed from following perspectives:Dialogues and cooperationRegional experts reported about the positive changes in citizens – authorities relations duringthe 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 mutualcooperation contributes a lot to this), and willingness of local authorities to take into9Difference is statistically significant, p<0.0162%27%5%7%21%47%26%6%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Very or ratherincreasedDid notchangeVery or ratherdecreasedHard to sayTarget group, N=213Control group, N=207
  20. 20. 17consideration the community development priorities. Table - VIII presents the spectrum anddistribution of regional experts’ answers.Table –VIII: Change in Citizen – Authorities Relation(Regional experts, N=150), %SignificantlyincreasedRatherincreasedDid notchangeRatherdecreasedSignificantlydecreasedHart tosayOpenness fordialogue42.0 48.0 8.0 0.7 0.0 1.3Readiness to take intoaccount citizens’opinion and interests34.7 57.3 5.3 0.7 0.0 2.0Citizens – authoritycooperation53.3 41.3 4.7 0.7 0.0 0.0Effectiveness of localauthority’s activity28.2 59.7 9.4 0.7 0.0 2.0As data indicates (Table - VIII), citizens–authorities cooperation changed the most as reported by94.6% of regional experts. It is followed by authority’s readiness to take into considerationcitizens’ interests (92%) and openness for dialogue (90%). Effectiveness of local authority’sactivity changed relatively the least – 87.9% of experts mentioned about this.The sociological study confirmed the significant improvement in citizens’ – authoritiescooperation (53%) and the significant improvement in readiness to take into considerationcitizens’ opinions and interests (34.7%), increased openness for dialogue (42%) and an estimatedimprovement in the efficiency of local authority (28.2%).Despite quite positive assessment of citizens–authority relationship from the side of regionalexperts, the opinion of community members somewhat differs. Survey of CO members showthat community members are more cautious in their assessment - 58% of interviewedrespondents are convinced that local authority became significantly or rather ready to take intoaccount 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%Significantlyor ratherincreasedDid notchangeSignificantlyor ratherdecreasedHard to sayCO membersRegional Experts
  21. 21. 18Comparison between response of target group and control group (non-pilot communities)revealed significant difference in assessment of changes in citizen–authority relation duringprevious years. Table - IX presents distribution of assessment of changes in authority and citizensrelations.Table –IX: Change in Relation between Citizens and Local Authorities(NTG = 213, NCG = 208), %Significantly orrather increasedDid not changeSignificantly orrather decreasedHart to sayTargetgroupControlgroupTargetgroupControlgroupTargetgroupControlgroupTargetgroupControlgroupOpenness fordialogue58% 28% 29% 40% 8% 25% 5% 6%Readiness to take intoaccount citizens’opinion and interests58% 23% 29% 40% 8% 31% 6% 6%Citizens – authoritycooperation65% 20% 23% 45% 5% 26% 7% 9%Effectiveness of localauthority’s activity58% 21% 27% 45% 9% 27% 6% 7%As data in Table-VIII show, pilot community members reported about significantly or ratherincreased willingness of authority to have a dialogue with citizens (58%), while only 28% citizensof non-pilot communities were convinced on this. Contrary to this, citizens of non-pilotcommunities believed that relations became worse in this realm (25% of respondentsmentioned this). Members of pilot communities significantly more often than citizens of non-pilot communities, pointed out that authority became more willing to take into considerationcommunity’s interests (58% and 23% respectively10). Improvement in cooperation with authoritywas reported by 65% of pilot community members contrary to 20% of those from non-pilotcommunities.No statistically significant difference was found in assessment of various issues of citizens-authorities relations within each group.Trust toward Local AuthorityAttitude of citizens towards authority representatives is a complex issue. However, one of thebest indicators of this attitude that can be measured is the level of trust. Survey of communitymembers and control groups included two questions regarding their trust to local and stateauthorities. 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 stateauthority. However, in the target group this index is higher than in control one: 5 and 4.1respectively.10Difference is statistically significant, p<0.05
  22. 22. 19Chart –XV: Level of Trust of Citizens to Local and State AuthorityAnother indicator of change is the subjective assessment of trust dynamic. As it is shown onChart –XVI, citizens of pilot communities (target group) reported about significant or ratherincreased 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 changeor 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 anindicator 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 authorityrepresentatives, 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)0,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,0Trust to local authority Trust to state authorityTarget groupControl group50%33%12%5%23%40%31%5%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Significantly orratherincreasedDid notchangeSirgnificantlyor ratherdecreasedHard to sayTarget groupControl group
  23. 23. 20Chart –XVII: Level of Confidence in Communication withAuthority Representatives, CO-MT, N=42Cooperation between Citizens and AuthoritiesSurvey results demonstrate a tendency to strengthening of relations between citizens andauthorities through in cooperation in CBA Project. This was especially evident upon comparisonof perceptions by the pilot and non-pilot communities (Chart-XVIII).Chart –XVIII: Cooperation between Citizens and Authorities,Target Group N=213, Control Group N=207Respondents from the target group assessed the quality of cooperation as significantly or ratherimproved – (65%). At the same time, respondents from the control group demonstrated thereverse tendency: only 20% of them thought that positive changes happened in this realmduring last years, while the majority of them (45%) believed that nothing had changed.Citizens’ Satisfaction of Authorities’ WorkGenerally, 57% of respondents from the target group indicated the increased effectiveness oflocal authority’s activity during the last years, and only 9% reported about the opposite. At thesame time, the majority of respondents from control group demonstrated an opposite trendVery or ratherconfident76%Equallyconfident andnot12%Very or ratherunconfident12%65%23%3%8%20%45%27%9%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Significantlyor ratherincreasedDid notchangeSirgnificantlyor ratherdecreasedHard to sayTarget groupControl group
  24. 24. 21Chart –XIX: Effectiveness of Local Authority’s Activity,Target group N=213, Control Group N=206Despite the generally critical attitude towards authorities’ activities, members of pilotcommunities are significantly more inclined to assess authority’s activity positively than thosefrom the control group. The level of general satisfaction in the target group is 3,8, while incontrol group 3,211(1 – fully unsatisfied, 5 – fully satisfied).Chart –XX: Level of Satisfaction with Local Authority’s Activity, Simple Mean11Difference is statistically significant, p<0.0557%27%9%6%21%45%27%7%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Significantlyor ratherincreasedDid notchangeSirgnificantlyor ratherdecreasedHard to sayTarget groupControl group3,83,22,8 3,0 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4,0Target groupControl group
  25. 25. 224.2 Impact on Service DeliveryImproving living conditions through rehabilitation/creation of communal infrastructures wasamong tasks of CBA Project. The Project supported micro-projects in five spheres: energy saving,health care, water supply, school transportation and environment. Distribution of 1303implemented micro-projects within these priorities was as follows: 59% was devoted to energysaving, 21% to health care, 15% to water supply, 4% to school transportation, and the leastnumerous is environmental sphere – 1%. Detailed information about oblast wise distribution ofmicro-projects by types is given in Annex - IV4.2.1 Cost of Service Creation or RehabilitationVery often rehabilitation/creation of communal/social infrastructures undertaken by pilotcommunities was found to be cost effective. Participants of the focus group opined that this waspossible because citizens worked for themselves, they seek to utilize the available funds aseffectively as possible, they find the optimal cost-quality correlation, and perform part of workvoluntary and free of charge.4.2.2 Cost of Service DeliveryImplemented micro-projects were supposed to decrease the cost of public utilities, and toimprove conditions of service provision. Focus group discussions revealed that all participants(both community members and local authority representatives) are confident that implementedmicro-projects allow decreasing public utility costs. Regional experts were more specific andmarked 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 totravel 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 DeliveryAccording to the results of focus group discussions, general increase of service quality wasobvious.To trace the influence of CBA Project on changes in quality of provided services, three groupswere 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 1project.Energy savingIt refers to creation/rehabilitation of infrastructures so as to allow for the decrease of energyconsumption. Survey of community members included questions about changes in quality ofheating and street lighting. More than 70% of respondents who benefited from energy savingprojects 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 significant12.12Difference is statistically significant, p<0.01
  26. 26. 23Table –X: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of Energy Saving, %1. Target group withenergy savingproject, N=155,N=1232. Control groupN=132, N=1723. All respondentswithout energysaving projects,N=228, N=151Heating (school,kindergarten,ambulancebuilding)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%No changes in quality 15,4% 34,8% 33,8%Quality decreased 4,9% 35,6% 38,4%Hard to say 0,0% 0,8% 0,7%Water supplyOut of 1303 micro-projects implemented by communities in cooperation with CBA 14.4% weredevoted to water supply. According to survey results, 86.5% of respondents from communitiesthat implemented projects on water supply positively assessed changes in quality of watersupply (Table - XI ).Table –XI: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of Water Supply, %1. Target group withwater supply project, N=892. Control group, N=130 3. All respondents withoutwater supply projects, N=209Quality 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 morepositively 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 allrespondents without water supply projects.School transportation4.5% 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 SchoolTransportation, %1. Target group withprojects on schooltransportation, N=342.Control group, N=136 3.All respondents withoutschool transportationprojects, N=245Quality increased 91.2% 53.7% 60.0%No changes in quality 8.8% 22.8% 23.3%Quality decreased 0.0% 11.0% 6.1%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 was13Difference is statistically significant, p<0.01
  27. 27. 24no school bus before micro-project was implemented, and now community has it), thedistribution of response is quite simple.Because of small sample size (of target group), significance in difference between the targetgroup and two others could not be estimated. No statistically significant difference was statedbetween two other groups.Environmental protectionThe least number of micro-projects were devoted to environmental protection sphere (0,9% of1303 implemented micro-projects). These micro-projects mostly concerned reorganization oflandfill 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 nochanges happened (Table - XIII).Table –XIII: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of EnvironmentalPreservation, %1. Target group withprojects on environmentalpreservation, N=232.Control group N= 100 3.All respondents withoutenvironmental projects,N=167Quality increased 87.0% 30.0% 44.3%No changes in quality 13.0% 48.0% 41.3%Quality decreased 0.0% 21.0% 13.2%Hard to say 0.0% 1.0% 1.2%Statistically significant difference was noted between the second and third groups – 30% incontrol group and 44,3% in group where environmental project was not implemented (controlgroup plus a part of the target group without environmental projects). This difference couldprobably be explained with assumption that implementing any micro-project withincooperation with CBA, community members start to change their mindset, and become activeenough to start implementing other initiatives.Health careWithin CBA Project, 21.1% of micro-projects were implemented in the sphere improvement ofhealth care. This type of the projects included renovation of health posts and medicalequipment purchase. Among 44 persons who reported that they had this kind of micro-projectsin their communities, 70.5% confirmed the positive changes in quality of services provision, and22.7% pointed out no changes (Table - XIV).Table –XIV: Subjective Assessment of Changes in Service Quality in the Sphere of HealthProtection, %1. Target group withproject on healthprotection N=442. Control group N=202 3. All respondents withouthealth protection projects,N=370Quality increased 70,5% 22,3% 22,4%No changes in quality 22,7% 56,4% 57,0%Quality decreased 6,8% 18,8% 17,8%Hard to say 0,0% 2,5% 2,7%Small sample size of the target group does not allows assessment making a comparisonbetween this group and two others. At the same time, no statistically significant difference wasstated between the control group and group of respondents without health protection projects.
  28. 28. 25In general, in those cases where sample size allows assessment of statistically significantdifference estimation, respondents from the target group significantly more often indicatedpositive changes in all five spheres of micro-projects implementation. Moreover, respondents ofthis group did not hesitate about evaluation of the changes –regarding all except energy savingprojects (quality of heating) no one answered ‘hard to say’.4.3 Assessment of CBA Methodology Influence on Quality of Life of Target PopulationPositive changes in target population’ quality of life is one of the most significant indicators ofthe Project success. One of the ways to evaluate the general quality of life is to assess suchindicators 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 (targetgroup) with non-pilot ones (control group) allows distinguishing factor of CBA Project influenceon changes in general quality of life among target population14.According to the survey results, mean level of satisfaction of pilot community members wasfound 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 onesregarding certain spheres of life. Chart - XXI presents a distribution of simple mean ofrespondents’ 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 GroupsSimple Mean (‘1’ – totally unsatisfied, ‘5’ – absolutely satisfied)Pilot community members in average are more satisfied (compared to the ones from controlgroup) with almost all spheres of life, except feeling safe from criminality, and their state of14During 3,5 years of CBA Project activity more than 1 million beneficiaries got benefit from implementation of 1303micro-projects.4,03,03,34,43,63,21,93,43,92,63,43,32,43,24,23,33,11,52,32,42,23,10,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0Confidence in own forces N=206, N=194Level of material well being N=209, N=207State of health N=212, N=205Attitude of people towards you N=200, N=200Environmental conditions in your area N=205, N=201Feeling safe from criminality N=174, N=188Opportunity to find a job in your area N=193, N=192Public life in your village/town N=193, N=183Perspectives of your community development N=185, N=156Overall satisfaction with how things going on in UkraineN=200, N=194Overall satisfaction with your life N=210, N=204ControlgroupMaingroup
  29. 29. 26health condition. Even though in some cases the difference between the main and controlgroup 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 thancitizens of non-pilot ones.Despite the fact that improving conditions for health care services is one of the prioritizeddirections of CBA activity, no statistically significant difference was found between the main andthe control groups as regards their satisfaction with the personal health condition. State ofhealth is a very complex issue, depending on numerous factors, while CBA Project activity wasdirected mostly on improving such issues as health post renovation and medical equipmentpurchase, 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 andcontrol groups were asked to assess changes in their life during the last years. According toresults of community members’ survey, 33% of interviewed citizens from pilot communitiesreported about significant or rather significant improvement of their life during the last year (seeChart - 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 changeshappened in their life during the last year (42% and 41%), while direction of negativeassessments in changes of quality of life was an opposite – 23% of respondents versus 36% fromcontrol one mentioned worsening in their life situation during previous year.Changes in Material Well-beingStatistical data demonstrate significant difference regarding subjective evaluation of materialwell-being between the main and control groups (Chart - XXIII). Even though, the difference isquite small (0.6), it is statistically significant (p<0.01). Additional analysis also revealed thatcitizens of those pilot communities that implemented micro-projects related to street lightingtend to assess their material conditions higher than those who implemented other projects15.15Coefficient of Pearson correlation is 0.203, p<0.056%27%42%18%5%2%4%18%41%22%14%1%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Significantly improvedRather improvedDid not changeRather became worseSignificantly became worseHard to sayControl groupMain group
  30. 30. 27Chart - XXIII: Changes in Material Well-beingSimple Mean (NTG = 209, NMG = 207)Analysis of the focus group discussions revealed that decrease of expenditures on publicservices allows saving financial resources. Besides, creation or renovation of additional servicesgives opportunities to create new temporary or permanent work places (teacher in akindergarten, driver for school bus etc.). Newly created objects of infrastructure require laborforce, and local citizens get employment opportunity. As the survey result shows, citizens of CBApilot communities assess opportunity to get a job in their village/town higher than those fromnon-pilot communities (even though difference is quite small, it is statistically significant, Chart -XXIV).Chart - XXIV: Opportunity to Get a JobSimple Mean, (NTG = 193, control group NCG = 192)Changes in health state conditionsFocus group participants mentioned that because of created or renovated conditions formedical services their health state improved. Improvement of teaching conditions in schoolsand kindergartens also contributed to the improvement of health condition, especially amongchildren. At the same time, statistical analysis did not reveal significant difference between thesubjective evaluation of health state among respondents from the main and control group.Changes in psychological well-beingImprovement of psychological well-being was mentioned among the most significant results ofthe Project. Focus group participants reported about the following important consequences ofthe participation in frameworks of CBA:0,01,02,03,0Main group Control group3,02,41,91,50,00,51,01,52,0Target group Control group
  31. 31. 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 pilotcommunity 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 renovatedrebuilt object, they tendto preserve it in good condition.Participation of citizens in micro-projects’ implementation significantly contributed a lot toincrease 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 CohesionAccording to the survey result, the increased level of social cohesion within pilot communitieswas 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 anecessity of common action, creation of CO. Furthermore, it was important to realize that theremust 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 discussionon common issues; better mutual understanding each other better; and improved skills ofconflict resolution.Regional experts also mentioned that the financial and in-kind contribution of communitymembers to community initiatives intensified feeling of cohesion within a community. As aresult, people became more active and enterprising in solving their own problems.3,02,40,00,51,01,52,02,53,03,5Target group Control group
  32. 32. 29Statistical data confirm the abovementioned statements. To mark CBA input main and controlgroups are compared (Chart - XXVI).Chart - XXVI: Changes in Social Cohesion, %As data show, distribution of pilot community members’ response indicates significant increasein social cohesiveness (56% of respondents reported about it), while only 18% of non-pilotcommunity members pointed out this.Level of mutual trust within community is an additional indicator to positive trend in the socialcohesiveness of their communities. According to survey results, members of pilot CBAcommunities demonstrated significantly higher level of trust to each other than the members ofnon-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-pilotcommunities is demonstrated toward family members. At the same time, there is statisticallysignificant difference between these two groups: respondents from the target group tend totrust family members more comparing to the respondents from control group16. The least bothgroups trust to the strangers – the value of index is 3.3 and 3.2 respectively. Trust to communitymembers is in the middle of the scale for the control group and closer to family members for thetarget group.16Difference is statistically significant, p<0.012%11%29%36%20%2%3%28%42%14%4%9%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Significantly decreasedRather decreasedDid not changeRather increasedSignificantly increasedHard to sayControl groupTarget group0,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,0Target group Control group7,96,1
  33. 33. 30Chart - XXVIII: Levels of Trust to Different Groups of PeopleSimple Mean (‘1’ – total distrust, ‘10’ – total trust)Level of trust to strangers and family members is quite similar both the main and the controlgroup, while regarding community members it differs significantly (value of index is 7.9 for thetarget group and 6.7 for control group)17.Subjective assessment of the perspective of further community development, satisfaction withpublic life in the village/town, and satisfaction with people’s attitude toward them are alsoindirect indicators of quality of life. Chart - XXIX presents the distributions of simple mean foreach 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 towardsthem: 4.4 and 4.2 (however, citizens of pilot CBA communities are still significantly more satisfiedwith this issue, p<0.01). Satisfaction with perspective of community development is significantlyhigher in the target group (3.9) than in control one (2.4). The same tendency was noted forsatisfaction with public life in their village/town – 3.4 for the target group and 2.3 for controlone18. Strong correlation was apparent between the satisfaction with perspectives of communitydevelopment and satisfaction with public life in a community19. For the target group theseindicators are significantly higher than for the control one.17Difference is statistically significant, p<0.0118In both cases difference is statistically significant, p<0.0119Correlation coefficient for control group is 0.551 and for the target group – 0.614 (p<0.01)9,77,93,29,36,13,30,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 12,0Family members (maingroup N=213, control groupN=204Community members (maingroup N=208, control groupN=163)Strangers (main groupN=211, control groupN=193)Control groupTarget group0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0Attitude of peopletowards you N=200,N=200Public life in yourvillage/town N=193,N=183Perspectives of yourcommunity developmentN=185, N=1564,43,43,94,22,32,4Control groupMain group
  34. 34. 31SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS5.1ConclusionsSociological research results and the data collected by monitoring department collectedduring 3.5 years of the Project’s activity provide sufficient grounds to conclude that communitybased approach to local development is effective, as it promotes consolidation of local self-government, contributes to improvement of service-rendering conditions and creates afavourable environment for enhancement of life quality of the population.The approach is effective for activating and combining efforts of local communities, localauthorities and self-government, and the private sector for common priority setting indevelopment of the settlement and joint implementation of initiatives to improve livingconditions.United by a common goal of their community development, local residents become an activepartner of local authorities and bodies of local self-government and contribute to sustainablelocal development.Indeed, in these communities overwhelming majorities of their members participate inactivities of these organisations, in particular, through participation in regular general meetingsand decision-making procedures.Almost all community members pay member fees for common initiatives to be realisedand community organisations to function. A considerable proportion of community memberscontribute more than the set membership fee; besides, residents who are not members of theirlocal community also make voluntary contributions for community project realisation.Community members feel more responsible for objects of public infrastructure and betterunderstand of their role in development of their communities.Community organisations enjoy high level of trust among local residents; their work istransparent and characterised by high accountability. Community organisation activistsregularly and fully inform local residents of all the steps in their activities and report on fundsexpenditures. Community organisations are guided by the principle of equality stating that allthe residents, regardless of their economic and social status, have equal opportunity for usingcreated or rehabilitated services.Community involvement in the process of priority setting for local development has a positiveinfluence on local development processes.Community development priorities are set considering interests of most communityorganisation members and almost without influence from local authorities.The strategic planning model with a bottom-up planning mechanism has becomewidespread: rural community interests are taken into account in the work of village councils andincluded in rayon strategic development plans; town/city community interests are documentedin town/city strategic development plans.Local communities, authorities and businesses acknowledge effectiveness of the jointinitiative 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 frominternational donors, another part – from local budgets, while the community itself and localbusinesses make their contribution too. Partners are willing to invest in joint projects moreresources than the set minimum and a part of them indeed provide additional funding.
  35. 35. 32A significant proportion of community organisation members make additionalcontributions in form of voluntary public works on community objects.Members of community organisations express their willingness and readiness to supportthe 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 intrust towards authorities and establishment of effective cooperation between communitiesand authorities. The key instruments of the methodology are created support structures thatensure regular dialogue in joint decision making.Oblast coordination councils and local development forums are platforms for discussionof priorities. They also assist in coordination of activities of communities, authorities andbusinesses as partners in project implementation.Oblast and rayon community resource centres provide valuable informational support tocommunities seeking self-organisation and looking for partners for fulfilment of joint initiatives.These centres accumulate the experience gained and information about potential donors. Theyhelp communities to implement other initiatives beyond CBA Project. These centres helpreplication of CBA model in communities not participating in CBA Project.Both communities and authorities assess these structures as highly effective, they arewilling 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 relationsbetween authorities and communities.There has been a noticeable improvement in the amount and quality of informationabout activities of local authority provided to the public. This serves as an evidence of increase intransparency of authorities. They are becoming more open to dialogue with communities.Cooperation between communities and local authorities is also improving. Cooperationmechanisms suggested by the methodology raises people’s interests in activities of localauthorities. As a result, citizens admit an improvement in work of authorities.Citizens expressed that their trust to local authorities is growing. There is a positivedynamics in people’s contentment with the work of local authorities. Citizens feel moreconfident in communicating with representatives of authorities.There is a noticeable growth in the quality of human resources and mutual learningamong community leaders and representatives of local authorities. Community leaders andofficials accumulate knowledge and apply the new skills.There is an increase in citizens’ satisfaction with the quality of services rendered throughcommunity projects. Creation or renewal of services involving participation of communities iscost effective. Moreover, the created or renewed communal infrastructures are actually andpotentially sustainable.Community projects definitely improve the quality of communal services and the publicis satisfied with the quality of these enhanced services. Community members apply efforts to usecommunal services more economically and contribute towards sustainability of communalinfrastructures.There has been improvement in economic conditions, the psychological self-feelingand significant growth in cohesion of communities.
  36. 36. 33Community self-organisation has led to improvement of quality of life of citizens. Theyassess prospects of their community development as positive. Community members working oncommunity project realisation experience growth of self-reliance and self-respect. Because ofcontinuous interaction and mutual cooperation there is significant increase in communitycohesion.5.2 RecommendationsRecommendations concerning perfection of approach and public policy concerning localdevelopmentCommunity based approach applied CBA Project has proved that community members andlocal authorities can be effectively mobilised for participatory governance and local sustainabledevelopment. Support structures such as COs, LDFs, community resource centres, co-ordinationcouncils are valuable assets to build on and, therefore, following opportunities should becapitalized to further promote the approach:5.2.1 Recommendations for UNDP• Methodology of community based development approach has introduced efficientworking mechanisms. It should be promoted widely through media outlets, lobby andadvocacy.• Capacity of the created community organizations should be further developed so thatthey can make independent decisions and maintain their status of an equal partner oflocal authorities.• Created rayon community resource centres possess great potential for becomingpowerful structures for supporting, informing, and implementation of community baseddevelopment initiatives and dissemination of experience. Capacity of these RCRCs andthe involved personnel should be further built through appropriate technical andcapacity building supports so as to and personnel boost their potential.• Support is needed for creation of a functional network of resource centres to enablesharing of experience and best practices.• It is necessary to consolidate and disseminate among communities and RCRCs theinformation about innovative technologies, especially on new energy savingtechnologies 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 theirpotentials towards self-help initiatives of local communities.• Incorporating the knowledge and experience on community based development intoteaching curriculum of academic institutions is recommended as a step towardssustained 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 partnersand possesses a significant value in the long term. Therefore, it should be furtherpromoted by local authorities through existing community resource centres and regionalmedia. COs can also be encouraged to share their experience in form of success stories,bulletins and hosting study/exchange visits.
  37. 37. 34• Pilot territories (rayons, local councils) practicing participatory governance through COs-participation enjoy more efficient decision-making, micro-project implementation, andmore dynamic local development. Settlements with mobilized communities demonstrateinitial increase in economic development, improvements in service delivery, high qualityof strategic planning, and corruption-free use of funds in implementation of localprojects. These phenomena and their factors should be explored, assessed andgeneralized by local authorities; the process should be standardized and prepared foradoption in non-pilot areas.• Local development forums as well as community resource centres possess greatpotential to sustain the practice of community based local development. However, theseare semi-formal, ad-hoc structures with rather normative than legal value. In order to fullyexploit their efficiency and build on the opportunities they provide, local authoritiesshould formalize these structures with appropriate logistic provisions and humanresources. A national level up scaling of this practice can be considered and supported bynational government.• In the longer term, local resources are to be generated for funding of communityinitiatives and sustainability of such initiatives. Such resources are to be mobilised bycommunity organisations in the form of community development fund, maintenancefund etc. However, creation and activities of such funds require legal provision.• Registered COs offer local businesses a legal and transparent means of channelling theirfunds for support of community initiatives. They also bear potential to receive localbudget to carry out community initiatives jointly. However, current legal provision causesdifficulties in full fledge utilisation of this opportunity and therefore appropriate legalprovision and budget code must be brought into force.• Strategic planning in participation of mobilised community is found to be efficient andtherefore should be continued and promoted further.• More than 4000 people across Ukraine have acquired know-how to implement CBAmethodology at local level. Local development processes initiated under thismethodology created favourable conditions for the natural leaders to unleash theirpotential.Their potential can be further utilized in local governance.Several demonstration sites have emerged at the local level for dissemination of CBAmethodology in practice. These can be used as learning ground by authorities willing tointroduce community based development.
  38. 38. 35Annex - IPilot CBA Community Organizations# OblastPilot COsFormedRegisteredin VC/CCLegallyregistered1 ARC 41 41 412 Cherkaska 42 42 423 Chernihivska 42 42 424 Chernivetska 47 47 475 Dnipropetrovska 42 42 426 Donetska 40 40 407 I-Frankivska 56 56 568 Kharkivska 42 42 429 Khersonska 45 45 4510 Khmelnytska 50 50 5011 Kirovohradska 45 45 4512 Kyivska 50 50 4913 Luhanska 46 46 4614 Lvivska 51 50 5015 Mykolaivska 45 45 4516 Odeska 45 45 4517 Poltavska 41 41 4118 Rivnenska 49 49 4519 Sumska 43 43 4320 Ternopilska 57 57 5721 Vinnytska 41 41 4122 Volynska 47 47 4723 Zakarpatska 58 58 5824 Zaporizka 44 44 4425 Zhytomyrska 40 40 40Total 1149 1148 1143
  39. 39. 36Annex - IIRayon Community Resource Centers created within CBA-I# OblastOblast CommunityResource CentresRayon CommunityResource Centers1 ARC 1 72 Cherkaska 1 83 Chernihivska 1 84 Chernivetska 1 15 Dnipropetrovska 1 66 Donetska 1 87 Ivano-Frankivska 1 58 Kharkivska 1 89 Khersonska 1 510 Khmelnytska 1 311 Kirovohradska 1 812 Kyivska 1 913 Luhanska 1 914 Lvivska 1 815 Mykolaivska 1 816 Odeska 1 617 Poltavska 1 818 Rivnenska 1 419 Sumska 1 820 Ternopilska 1 921 Vinnytska 1 822 Volynska 1 923 Zakarpatska 1 724 Zaporizka 1 825 Zhytomyrska 1 8Total 25 176
  40. 40. 37Annex – III (a)Trainings for CO members and Local Authority Representatives# OblastNooftrainingsTrainings onCOmanagementActivityplanningMPPpreparationFinancingMPimplementationPASPublicauditHandoverOther1 ARC 167 7 7 5 4 11 45 45 43 02 Cherkaska 50 8 8 8 1 1 0 8 8 83 Chernihivska 58 15 15 2 1 5 11 3 6 04 Chernivetska 36 9 8 8 0 11 0 0 0 05 Dnipropetrovska 60 9 9 9 1 9 17 1 0 56 Donetska 58 8 8 8 0 7 12 4 0 117 Ivano-Frankivska 65 13 13 13 2 16 0 0 0 88 Kharkivska 41 8 8 8 1 2 6 6 0 29 Khersonska 94 16 16 16 0 5 8 25 0 810 Khmelnytska 64 10 8 11 9 8 8 8 0 211 Kirovohradska 71 8 8 8 1 8 8 13 17 012 Kyivska 93 17 17 17 1 12 8 8 10 313 Luhanska 56 9 9 9 5 7 2 3 1 1114 Lvivska 45 11 12 13 0 3 1 0 4 115 Mykolaivska 63 8 8 8 5 8 8 8 8 216 Odeska 41 9 8 9 1 6 7 1 0 017 Poltavska 69 11 11 11 2 0 8 8 16 218 Rivnenska 63 8 8 6 1 9 4 10 9 819 Sumska 51 8 8 8 1 8 8 2 8 020 Ternopilska 59 12 12 12 2 10 0 0 0 1121 Vinnytska 179 12 12 6 15 22 43 29 39 122 Volynska 61 9 9 9 2 5 8 0 0 1923 Zakarpatska 103 16 16 12 9 9 12 12 8 924 Zaporizka 69 12 12 12 1 8 0 16 8 025 Zhytomyrska 60 9 9 8 2 8 8 0 0 16Total 1776 262 259 236 67 198 232 210 185 127
  41. 41. 38Annex – III(b)# OblastNo oftrainingsParticipantsTotal MaleFemaleCOmembersLocalauthorityrepresentatives1 ARC 167 1211 578 633 1075 1362 Cherkaska 50 1150 585 565 740 4103 Chernihivska 58 1414 659 755 1259 1554 Chernivetska 36 708 381 327 538 1705 Dnipropetrovska 60 2771 1127 1644 2448 3236 Donetska 58 1363 392 971 939 4247 Ivano-Frankivska 65 1515 548 967 1404 1118 Kharkivska 41 886 334 552 729 1579 Khersonska 94 1508 562 946 857 65110 Khmelnytska 64 1045 332 713 838 20711 Kirovohradska 71 1625 682 943 1413 21212 Kyivska 93 2052 810 1242 1507 54513 Luhanska 56 1119 233 886 737 38214 Lvivska 45 811 352 459 607 20415 Mykolaivska 63 1648 666 982 1474 17416 Odeska 41 734 318 416 573 16117 Poltavska 69 1140 663 477 927 21318 Rivnenska 63 1432 550 882 1131 30119 Sumska 51 1345 559 786 1060 28520 Ternopilska 59 1008 402 606 718 29021 Vinnytska 179 3102 1512 1590 2455 64722 Volynska 61 1755 887 868 1466 28923 Zakarpatska 103 2227 700 1527 1964 26324 Zaporizka 69 1723 848 875 1396 32725 Zhytomyrska 60 1637 595 1042 1147 490Total 1776 36929 15275 21654 29402 7527
  42. 42. 39Annex - IVNumber of Micro Projects Approved and Implemented Since Inception# Oblast# Appr.MPs# MPs by typologyHealthEnergysavingWatersupplyEnvironmentSchoolbus1 ARC 45 6 29 6 1 32 Cherkaska 54 26 22 6 0 03 Chernihivska 45 12 27 6 0 04 Chernivetska 50 10 37 2 0 15 Dnipropetrovska 55 20 23 10 0 26 Donetska 51 9 29 9 1 37 Ivano-Frankivska 69 5 62 0 2 08 Kharkivska 47 3 36 5 1 29 Khersonska 54 13 34 7 0 010 Khmelnytska 50 8 33 4 0 511 Kirovohradska 53 3 36 7 1 612 Kyivska 55 13 36 6 0 013 Luhanska 55 13 30 11 0 114 Lvivska 54 13 36 3 1 115 Mykolaivska 52 1 34 14 0 316 Odeska 45 8 20 17 0 017 Poltavska 50 5 16 22 0 718 Rivnenska 49 17 26 0 1 519 Sumska 49 10 15 19 2 320 Ternopilska 63 13 41 5 1 321 Vinnytska 41 8 20 5 0 822 Volynska 57 7 47 2 0 123 Zakarpatska 61 18 39 3 1 024 Zaporizka 53 8 25 16 0 425 Zhytomyrska 46 26 17 3 0 0Total 1303 275 770 188 12 58% 21% 59% 15% 1% 4%