The research evaluated the effectiveness and impact of the community based development approach implemented in four UNDP projects in Ukraine. Key findings include: 1. The methodology was found to be effective with high levels of community participation and priorities set independently from authorities. 2. The co-financing scheme was seen as effective, with stakeholders often investing more than required. 3. The approach had a positive impact on local self-governance by establishing appropriate support structures, increasing transparency and strategic planning, and improving citizen-authority relationships. 4. Support structures like community organizations were seen as very effective for development and are being replicated beyond project areas.

1. COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT IN UKRAINE
The results of sociological research
«Evaluation of the impact of community based development
approach to local development implemented by the UNDP Projects
in Ukraine financed by the European Union and other donors»
Kyiv – 2011

2. 2
This publication was prepared with financial support from the Community Based
Approach Project which is financed by European Union, co-financed and implemented by
the United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine.
All thoughts, conclusions and recommendations belong to the authors and editors of
this publication and do not necessary reflect the opinions of international donors of the
Community Based Approach Project. For more information on the Project activities see
www.cba.org.ua
AUTHORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project team
Volodymyr Paniotto, director general, KIIS
Natalya Kharchenko, executive director, KIIS
Dmytro Khutkyy, research fellow, KIIS
Anton Grusheckyi, junior research fellow, KIIS
Vitaliy Kisil, junior research fellow, KIIS
Kateryna Skrypka, head of fieldwork department, KIIS
Olga Zhykhoruk, junior research fellow, KIIS
Natalia Sevekina, head of a control department, KIIS
Oleksiy Gorbachyk, head of data processing department, KIIS
Andriy Androsiuk, junior research fellow, KIIS
Authors of report
Volodymyr Paniotto, director general, KIIS
Dmytro Khutkyy, research fellow, KIIS
Anton Grusheckyi, junior research fellow, KIIS
Vitaliy Kisil, junior research fellow, KIIS
Partners and acknowledgements
We would like to express gratitude to all participants of this research - members of
the communities, representatives of bodies of local self-governance, local and central
authorities, businessmen and external experts.
We also want to express gratitude to the experts of the UNDP Projects, who offered
valuable advice and consultations concerning the methodology of the community based
approach to local development and specifics of its application in Ukraine, and assisted in
organisational work on the field stage: Kurtmolla Abdulganiyev, Dzvinka Kachur, Olga
Osaulenko, Oksana Remiga, Galyna Smirnova, Iryna Skaliy, Tetyana Diyeva, Denis
Poltavets, Olena Ruditch, Jaysingh Sah, and Ganna Yatsyuk. We are also grateful to the
UNDP experts who extended important contributions to the report: Danylo Bilak, Antonina
Ishchenko, Tetiana Matiychyk, and Ayder Seytosmanov.

3. 3
TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACMH – Association of Co-Owners of Multi-Apartment House
BSP – Body of Self-Organisation of Population
CBA – Community Based Approach (UNDP Project)
CBDA – Community Based Development Approach (approach to local development)
CC – City Council
CDP – Community Development Plan
CIDP – Crimea Integration and Development Programme
CM – Communities Members
CO – Community Organisation1
CO-MT – Community Organisation Management Team
CRC –Community Resource Centre
CRDP – Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme
EU – European Union
FG – Focus-Group Discussion
II – In-depth interview
KIIS – Kiev International Institute of Sociology
LDF – Local Development Forum
MCSD – Municipal Council of Sustainable Development
MCSDF – Municipal Council of Sustainable Development Forum
MGSDP – Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme
MSU – Municipal Support Unit
OC – Oblast Council
OCC – Oblast Coordination Council
OSA – Oblast State Administration
OIU – Oblast Implementation Unit
RC – Rayon Council
RCRC – Rayon Community Resource Centre
RE – Regional Experts
RSA – Rayon State Administration
UNDP – United Nations Development Programme
VC – Village Council
1
According to CBA manual, Ukrainian law allows inhabitants of a given territory to assemble and discuss on
development agenda pertaining to their community (territory). They may decide and declare the formation of
their organization through a protocol. Such organisation is recognised as a CO. The inhabitants may register
this CO under a particular legal framework (such as BSP, cooperative, ACMH, NGO etc.) and may acquire a
specific legal name/recognition as defined by the law of the country. Therefore the generic name “CO” will be
used to designate all the forms mentioned above.

4. 4
CONTENTS
Information about the research…………………………………………………………………...6
Resume of research results……………………………………………………………………….8
Section 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...11
1.1.Methodology of community based approach to local development………………...11
1.2.Community based development approach implemented by UNDP Projects in
Ukraine…………………………………………………………………………………….12
1.3.Expected results of approach impact and efficiency…………………………………15
1.4.Research goal and objectives …………………………………………………………15
1.5.Report structure ………………………………………………………………………….16
Section 2. Research methodology…………………………………………………………..18
2.1. Spheres and components of evaluation of the approach effectiveness and
impact............................................................................................................................18
2.2. Focus groups discussions with citizens and local authorities…………………........19
2.3. In-depth interviews with regional experts……………………………………………..20
2.4. In-depth interviews with national experts……………………………………………..21
2.5. Survey of regional experts……………………………………………………………...21
2.6. Survey of community members ……………………………………………………….22
2.7. Methodology of data analysis…………………………………………………………..23
2.8. Research operational hypotheses…………………………………………………….24
Section 3. Evaluation of the approach methodology effectiveness……………………27
3.1. Involvement of population……………………………………………………………...27
3.2. Pattern of priorities setting……………………………………………………………...29
3.3. Effectiveness of co-financing scheme…………………………………………………30
3.4. Conclusions about the effectiveness of the approach methodology……………...33
Section 4. Evaluation of the approach impact on local self-governance……………..34
4.1. Appropriateness of support organisations created ………………………………….34
4.2. Level of transparency, accountability and equality…………………………………..43
4.3. Quality of the strategic planning, bottom-up planning……………………………….45
4.4. Access to information about activities of local authorities…………………………..46
4.5. Role of local business…………………………………………………………………..48
4.6. Citizen- authorities relationships……………………………………………………..48
4.7. Conclusions concerning influence of approach on local self-governance………54
Section 5. Evaluation of approach impact on service delivery in sectors, which are
supported by the UNDP Projects……………………………………………………………..56
5.1. Cost of service creation or rehabilitation………………………………………………56
5.2. Cost of service delivery…………………………………………………………………56
5.3. Quality of service delivery………………………………………………………………57
5.4. Sustainability of social infrastructures created…………………………………….....60
5.5. Conclusions concerning services delivery in sectors, which are supported by the
UNDP Projects………………………………………………………………………………..60
Section 6. Evaluation of influence of approach on living quality of target
groups................................................................................................................................61
6.1. Changes in material conditions………………………………………………………...63
6.2. Changes in economic conditions………………………………………………………64
6.3. Changes in health……………………………………………………………………….64
6.4. Changes in the psychological self-feeling……………………………………………65
6.5. Changes in the social cohesion………………………………………………………..66
6.6. Conclusions concerning impact of approach on quality of life of the target
groups………………………………………………………………………………………….69
Section 7. Evaluation of dissemination of experience, factors of success of the
approach, possibilities of improvement of public policy concerning local
development……………………………………………………………………………………...70
7.1. Dissemination of the gained experience……………………………………………..70

5. 5
7.2. Factors of successful approach implementation…………………………………….70
7.3. Possibilities of perfection of public policy concerning local development…………75
7.4. Conclusions concerning dissemination of experience, factors of success approach,
possibilities of improvement of public policy concerning local development…………..77
Section 8. Conclusions, recommendations and discussion…………………………….79
8.1. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………79
8.2. Recommendations concerning perfection of approach and public policy concerning
local development…………………………………………………………………………….83
Appendix A: Spheres and components of evaluation of efficiency and influence of the
approach.............................................................................................................................86
Appendix B: Detailed information on research realisation……………………………………88
Appendix C: Guide for realisation of focus groups discussions……………………………..92
Appendix D: Guide for realisation of in-depth interview with regional experts……………..96
Appendix E: Guide for realisation of in-depth interview with national experts……………100
Appendix F: Questionnaire for survey of regional experts………………………………….103
Appendix G: Questionnaire for survey of community members …………………………...107

6. 6
INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCH
The research «Evaluation of the impact of community based development approach
to local development implemented by the UNDP Projects in Ukraine financed by the
European Union and other donors» lead by the UNDP/EU Project "Community Based
Approach" was conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.
The goal of the research was to assess the impact and evaluate the effectiveness
of the community based development approach to local development that had been
implemented in the four UNDP Projects in Ukraine: "Crimea Integration and Development
Programme", "Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme", "Municipal
Governance and Sustainable Development Programme" and "Community Based
Approach to Local Development Project".
In order to attain this goal, the following objectives were determined:
– To collect the opinions of the representatives of involved parties on the efficiency of the
methodology of the community based development approach to local development;
– To collect the opinions of the representatives of involved parties on the impact of
approach on local self-governance;
– To collect the opinions of the representatives of involved parties on the approach’s
impact on the service delivery in the sectors, supported by the projects;
– To collect the opinions of the representatives of involved parties on the approach’s
impact on the living quality of target groups;
– To detect the factors of effectiveness of the approach implementation and to develop
recommendations concerning dissemination of the study results, improvement of the
approach and political initiatives.
Initially, a literature review was made. It helped to form a stronger understanding of
the community based development approach to local development and infer about
prospective results of the approach implementation among the population by the UNDP
Projects. The UNDP experts consulted with the KIIS team, whose assistance facilitated
qualitative research implementation. They explained the specifics of the functionality of the
project, advised how to form the sample and helped in the organisation of fieldwork. A
conceptual scheme of the research was developed, the structure of collection and analysis
of sociological data determined, and the approach effectiveness and impact evaluated.
11 Focus group discussions were conducted, lighting up different partners’ attitudes
towards the impact of community based development approach to local development. 27
In-depth interviews that were conducted with the regional experts (community members,
village and rayon authorities, and oblast project staff) opened up possibilities to improve
the understanding of different aspects and local peculiarities of the approach realisation.
206 Regional experts were interviewed: the data on these interviews represents the local
rayon and oblast authorities involved in the UNDP Projects; they helped to adopt the
approach in the MGSDP and CBA projects. The survey of 855 communities' members
provided important information about the impact of the approach on the lines of direct
beneficiaries. 9 In-depth thematic interviews conducted with the national experts were a
valuable source of the information regarding the dissemination of experience gained by
these UNDP Projects, the integral vision of propositions concerning further improvement of
the community based development approach to local development, and the
recommendation about desirable political executive initiatives that might help to replicate
this approach in Ukraine.
As a result, reports regarding the results if the research by each method were
prepared. The final published report accumulates and synthesizes the main results of the
research and recommendations.

7. 7
RESUME OF RESEARCH RESULTS
We have sufficient grounds to conclude that overall the methodology of community
based development approach to local development can be evaluated as effective.
Partners adhere to the requirements of approach methodology and are ready to assist in
its dissemination.
There is a high level of involvement of the population in activities of community
organisations.
Community members participate in activities of community organisations in a
number of ways. Almost all community organisation members (93.9% of surveyed
community organisation members) participated in community general meetings at least
once. The majority of community organisation members (86.8% of surveyed community
organisation members) are involved in the decision-making process of the community
organisations on the basis of consensus, vote or questionnaire. Members of the
community organisations (88.5% of surveyed community organisation members) are
widely informed about the activities of community organisations. Almost all members of
community organisations (95.1% to 100% of surveyed community organisation members
depending on UNDP Project) pay their membership fees. The majority of community
citizens (76.6% of surveyed community organisation members) reported that they know of
cases when non-members of community organisations participated in community projects
through voluntary contributions in the form of money or work. 29.9% of surveyed
community organisation members also reported that members of community organisations
made additional contributions on voluntary basis.
Priorities of community development are identified taking into account interests of
the majority of community organisation members and are mainly independently from
influence of authorities.
The majority of community organisation members (63.2% of surveyed respondents)
agree that priorities were set solely or mostly by the influence of community members.
The current co-financing sample is generally considered by partners as an effective
one, the stakeholders want and sometimes do invest more than is required.
The majority of stakeholders recognise the co-financing scheme as rather or very
effective (75.7% of regional experts and 81.8% of community organisation management).
71.4% of regional experts recalled cases when community members, local business or
local authorities made larger contributions than the specified minimal proportion.
It was discovered that the community based development approach has a manifest
positive impact on local self-government in terms of self-organisation of communities and
local authorities. This conclusion is supported by evidence regarding the general
appropriateness of the established support structures to the set objectives, their
transparency, accountability and equity, working strategic bottom-up planning, increased
access to information on activities of local authorities, participation of local business as
sponsors and improved citizen-authorities relationships.
The research demonstrates that the support structures established (CO, ACMH,
RC, MSU, LDF, MCSD, MCSDF and OCC) fully correspond to the established objectives.
They sometimes implement additional functionalities.
The established support structures contribute to the local development and
cooperation between citizens and authorities. 84.9% of all surveyed regional experts
assess community organisations as rather or very effective for the local community
development process. In CBA Project LDFs were valued by 92.7% of surveyed CBA
regional experts as rather or very effective. RRCs, ORCs and OCC were qualified as
rather or very effective by at least 80% of surveyed CBA experts. In MGSDP Project MSUs
were characterized as rather or very effective by 91.1% of surveyed MGSDP regional

8. 8
experts. While MCSDFs were rated as rather or very effective by 73.3% of surveyed
MGSDP regional experts.
Community organisations favour cooperation between communities and local
authorities – this is recognised by 92.7% of all surveyed regional experts. LDFs, OCCs
and MCSDFs have been rated as rather or very effective by 93.3%, 85.3% and 69.6% of
regional experts respectively.
These organisations are widely used beyond the UNDP Projects. The support
structures disseminate information materials, approach methodology and acquired
experience to other communities. 70% of all surveyed regional experts recalled cases
when communities not participating in UNDP Projects utilized the available resource
centres. The model of community based development approach is replicated by other
communities. 75.4% of surveyed regional experts reported they were aware of
communities which self-organised following the examples of communities participating in
UNDP Projects. 86% of surveyed members of the community organisations reported that
their community organisations implement their initiatives outside the UNDP Projects at
their own expense. 71.4% of COs apply for other grants or competitions beyond UNDP
Projects, and 60% of the COs which applied won at least one grant or competition.
The stakeholders are eager to support established support institutions in the future
and have a positive outlook for high sustainability. 70% of all surveyed regional experts
predicted that the institutions will rather or very probably function after cooperation with
UNDP Projects. Local authorities and UNDP Project staff expressed readiness to assist
them personally: 90% of all surveyed regional experts think it is rather or very probable
that they will support community organisations in the future.
There is an explicit increase in quality of human resources and mutual learning of
community leaders and representatives of local authorities. Accumulation of knowledge
and application of skills by community leaders and local officials has been promoted. It
should be mentioned that at least 97% of all surveyed regional experts report growth of
their knowledge of local governance and 98% – of skills in cooperation with communities.
The established support structures are characterized by a high level of
transparency, accountability and equality in their activities.
Activities of community organisations are virtually transparent. At least 59% of
surveyed members of community organisations are rather or fully informed about
tendering procedures, public auditing, at least 76.2% – about priorities setting, reports on
usage of CO funds, works on objects, and 90% – about decision making process. Only
0.6-8.8% of surveyed members of community organisations are completely unaware of CO
activities. Members of communities have relatively equal access to benefits created by
community projects. 95.7% of surveyed community members are confident that all
community members have potential access to the established or rehabilitated services.
The model of strategic planning with the mechanism of bottom-up planning is widely
disseminated. The interests of communities are accounted in the strategic plans of rayon
development and interests of urban communities - in the strategic plans of urban
development.
75.7% of all surveyed regional experts confirm that the priorities of community
development are rather of fully accounted in a rayon or city development plan. Only 1.5%
of the experts say such priorities are unaccounted. 67.8% of all surveyed regional experts
believe the community development priorities are literally implemented. Only 2.5% think
that they are not implemented.
It was revealed that there was improvement in access to information on activities of
local authorities, which indicates an increase in its transparency.
At least 80% of all surveyed regional experts have noticed an increase in the
amount and quality of informing of citizens regarding activities of local authorities. Among

9. 9
community members from the main (beneficiary) group comparing to control (where UNDP
Projects were not introduced) there are 26.5% more than those who have recognised an
increase in accessibility of necessary information about activities of local authorities. The
analogues difference in awareness of activities of local authorities is 25.4% for the benefit
of the beneficiary group.
Representatives of local businesses have expressed a desire to sponsor local
development by making contributions to the projects of community organisations.
There is a manifest improvement of democratic character and efficiency of co-
operation between citizens and authorities. As a whole the result of approach
implementation is a strong improvement of relationships between the citizens and local
authorities.
There are positive dynamics of transparency of the local government activities. At
least 89.8% of all surveyed regional experts note some or great increase in the level of
accessibility of the local officials and openness to dialogue. Simultaneously, 50.6% of the
community members from the main (beneficiary) group, in comparison to the 23.3% from
control group that believe that openness to dialogue has rather or very increased. Local
authorities in their activities more often take into account opinions of citizens. As much as
91.7% of all surveyed regional experts remarked that there was some or great increase in
consideration of citizens’ opinions. At the same time, 46.7% of community members from
the main (beneficiary) group, in contrast with the 20.8% from the control think that such
consideration rather or very increased.
There is a marked difference in the level of citizens’ trust towards local officials
amongst the communities who have participated in UNDP Projects and those which have
not. On a scale from 0 (“Absolutely do not trust”’) to 10 (“Completely trust”) the level of
trust towards local authorities differs from 6.4 in main (beneficiary) group to 4.9 in control
group. It can be seen that there are positive dynamics in citizens’ trust towards local
officials. It was found that in the main (beneficiary) group 41.2% admit their trust to local
authorities has rather or very increased, while in the control group only 20.8% responded
in such a manner. Furthermore, 71.3% of CO management feel confident in
communication with authority officials, while only 7.4% of them feel diffident.
Clearly, there is an increase in cooperation between communities and local
authorities. 53.8% of community members from main (beneficiary) group, in contrast to
19.5% from control group have noticed that cooperation between citizens and authorities
has rather of very increased.
The positive dynamics in satisfaction of citizens with work of local officials, should
also be mentioned. 47.9% of surveyed community members in main (beneficiary) group
have noticed that they are more satisfied with the work of local authorities in comparison
with 20.9% in the control group. Similarly, community members of the main group are
more satisfied with the current work of local authorities than the community members of
the control group.
From the study results it can be adequately stated that there was in increase in
satisfaction with quality of services that were covered by the projects. The creation or
rehabilitation of services is cost-effective. There is an increase of relative economy in the
use of these services. Moreover, the created or rehabilitated communal infrastructures are
certainly and potentially sustainable.
Some national experts remarked that the creation and delivery of services using the
community based development approach is cheaper than that by most local authorities or
other organisations without community involvement.
Community projects have an ambiguous influence on relative cost of service and
delivery. From the one hand, the cost of services is smaller compared to communities
where there are no community projects with the community based approach. However,

10. 10
while some community members see an increase in energy consumption, others see
decrease. The CO management claim that they apply efforts to save gas (77.9%), heat
(84.7%), electricity (91%). 79.8% of CO managers reported their communities try to save
water.
Community projects undoubtedly increase quality of community services. An
increase in quality of heating observe 65.2% of surveyed members in communities where
energy-saving projects of heating were introduced, compared to 36.3% in communities
with other projects and 39.2% in control group. Similarly, it is 66.4% in contrast with 32.7%
and 35% for street light projects. An analogues improvement was seen in the water
supply. An increase in quality of water supply observe that 75.9% of the surveyed
members in communities where projects of water supply were introduced, compared to
38.6% in communities with other projects and 38.5% in the control group. Similarly, it is
67.5% in comparison with 45.8% and 36.9% respectively for waste management projects.
The greatest difference in quality is for school transport and healthcare. For school
transport the difference is 32.6-37.7%, and for healthcare it is 42-42.4%. Members of
community organisations express eagerness to support established or rehabilitated
communal infrastructures.
As a result of this data analysis it is relevant to admit an increase in economic
conditions, psychological self-feeling and considerable increase of social cohesion of
communities.
Positive changes in life during recent years acknowledge 32.3% of community
members in the main (beneficiary) group compared to 22.3% in control group. There are
some reasons to suppose improvement in material conditions, however because of the
small sample, positive qualitative results are not supported by the quantitative data. Due to
community activities, the employment rate has increased in the main (beneficiary) group,
whereas it has not in the control group. One might pose certain considerations to suppose
improvement in health, but because of the small sample, positive qualitative results are not
supported by the quantitative data. As a result of community self-organisation there is an
increase in self-confidence of members of community organisations implementing
community projects. There is a marked difference between main (beneficiary) and control
groups in level of trust to members of their own community. On a scale from 0 (“absolutely
do not trust”) to 10 (“completely trust”) citizens from main group have a level of trust of 7.7
while citizens from control group have one of 6.1. 50.9% of members of communities
participating in UNDP Projects are sure that during the last years unity of their
communities has increased when only 18.8% of communities not participating in UNDP
Projects observe such an increase.
Community members from the main (beneficiary) group are more satisfied with the
social life in their village or town than from control group (on a scale from 1 (“do not
satisfied at all”) to 5 (“completely dissatisfied”) difference is 3.3 compared to 2.6
respectively). Similarly, community members from the main (beneficiary) group are more
satisfied with future prospects of community development than from the control group (the
difference is 3.8 compared to 2.7 respectively).
The impact of community based development approach differs in the four UNDP
Projects. We might imply several factors which positively influence the result.
Community based approach to local development has a stronger positive impact if
there is: a longer duration of institutional support, more intense financial and human
resource inputs per territory or per community, more intense involvement of partner local
authorities, work in initially more coherent rural communities.

11. 11
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Methodology of the community based development approach to local
development
According to the projects’ documents of UNDP Projects, the overall objective of the
approach is to create an enabling environment for long-term self-sustaining socio-
economic and community development at a local level by promoting local self-governance
and community-based initiatives that would contribute to overall human development and
attainment of Ukraine’s Millennium Development Goals.
By stimulating people’s participation in local debates about priority needs of their
communities, and by helping them find and implement solutions to local problems, UNDP
Projects aim to build a sense of confidence in citizens, enhance their role in local decision-
making, and facilitate the dialogue between citizens and the Government. Community
mobilisation and improved dialogue and cooperation between citizens, their associations,
donors and local government are aimed to lay the ground for local long-term development
planning.
This provides opportunities to ensure consistency of national policies and the way
the EU implements its own local development policies concerning local development. The
UNDP and the EC play its role in disseminating the community-based development
methods at a time where it is most needed for (a) supporting the government’s efforts to
deal anew with local development issues in an EU-compliant manner; and (b) preparing
ground by delivering immediate results for the longer-term regional development projects.
Specific objectives of the approach are listed as the following:
1. Improve living conditions in rural, semi-urban and urban communities throughout
Ukraine by promoting sustainable rehabilitation, management and operation of basic social
and communal infrastructure and services through community-based self-help initiatives.
Community organisations, relevant local (village and municipal), rayon and regional
authorities carry out the rehabilitation of basic social infrastructure and municipal services
within major national MDG-based priority:
• Health (local health posts network) (UMDG 4)
• Energy (energy conservation measures at local level, etc) (UMDG 3)
• Environment (UMDG 3)
• Water management (UMDG 3)
• Local transport systems (UMDG 1)
During the introduction of community projects, each participating community is
guided through the following steps of participatory community development:
• Sensitization and community self-assessment
• Formation of community organisations
• Community development planning
• Project identification, prioritization and implementation
• Follow-up (community progress review mechanism established so that
community members can codify past achievements and build on them)
2. Demonstrate effective participatory local governance and decentralized
management mechanisms throughout Ukraine for public service delivery by promoting
inclusive, self-governing community organisations undertaking self-help initiatives in
partnership with local authorities, private business entities and other stakeholders.
The dialogue between community organisations and local authorities is formalized
through the establishment of Local Development Forums (in case of CBA Project) and the
like. Such forums are composed of representatives of local authorities and community
organisations, private business, public utilities companies, and local NGOs.

12. 12
3. Enhance relevant professional skills and knowledge of community organisations
and local authorities to initiate and maintain participatory local development process on
social economic development and public services delivery.
UNDP Projects develop institutional capacities of community organisations and
local authorities to identify community needs and priority, to manage and monitor
participatory local process for a sustainable social-economic development and efficient
public service delivery. UNDP Projects provide training and support to ensure that efforts
are carried forward to implement community development plans. Various village,
municipal, rayon and oblast resource centres are created for community mobilisation.
For communities to become self-confident and raise their self-esteem, the approach
provides a transfer of previous positive achievements demonstrated by UNDP Projects in
a significant number of settlements in 24 regions of Ukraine and in Autonomous Republic
of Crimea.
According to the approach methodology, the interested communities gather general
meetings and create community organisations which might take various legal forms
(NGOs, BSPs, ACMH etc.). To form a community organisation, it must be formed by at
least 80% of households of the corresponding community. The priorities of community
development are settled in a democratic way (by vote or survey).
1.2. Community based development approach implemented by UNDP Projects in
Ukraine
In response to the acute challenges that Ukraine is facing, with the objective to
achieve sustainable development, UNDP applies the community-based approach to the
local development in Ukraine. UNDP supports the sustainable social, economic and
environmental development mainly through the introduction of the four projects in Ukraine
in close cooperation with international organisations and development agencies. The
community based development approach to local development mobilizes communities to
take responsibility for the improvement of their own life.
There are four UNDP Projects in Ukraine that have applied the community based
development approach to local development: Crimea Development and Integration
Programme (CIDP); Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme (CRDP);
Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme (MGSDP) and
Community Based Approach to Local Development (CBA). All of them employ the social
mobilisation approach, but they each have specific objectives, target populations and
institutional arrangements.
Crimea Integration and Development Programme is a joint initiative of the
international donor community: Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA),
governments of Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)
and Turkey. The Project goal is sustainable social and economic development of Crimea
taking into account its national and cultural diversity.
To reach this goal it was essential: (1) to facilitate the development of democratic
governance and to invite members of multiethnic communities to take an active part in
solving current issues in partnership with the local authorities. To accomplish this CIDP
encouraged the villagers to unite into population bodies of self-organisation of population
(BSP) – a specific legal form of community organisation, which define problems, develop
and implement projects aimed at overcoming these problems, while the emphasis is on
making the residents themselves the initiators of the change. In the course of the
programme realisation such direction as (2) economic development in the rural areas is
implemented. Thus, CIDP stimulates the establishment of the agricultural cooperatives,
while this form of self-organisation provides to the farmers joint problem solving. Another

13. 13
important programme direction is (3) encouraging tolerance and social cohesion within the
Crimean society through education and culture. Realisation of the set goal also envisages
(4) speeding up responsiveness to potential conflict zones through the human security
monitoring system.
Since 1995 and within the budget of USD 4.4 million over 629 community
organisations with 400 villages (approximately 200 thousand CO members), where 419
community projects for 143,000 beneficiaries which were implemented with a total cost of
11.9 million dollars, were supported in Crimea. For CIDP each party’s contribution in
community project was specified depending on the project. The community organisation
and community project activity of CIDP was closed by 2008.
More information about the CIDP project is available at http://www.undp.crimea.ua/
Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme was initiated by the UN and is
implemented with the aid of the donors, such as: UN Trust Fund for Human Security and
the Government of Japan, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). The project goal is to support the
Government of Ukraine’s efforts in mitigating long-term social, economic and
environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, creating favourable conditions of
life and providing sustainable human development in regions affected by Chernobyl.
Achievement of this goal includes work in the following areas. Firstly, this involves
promoting improvement of the state policy. Secondly, it requires assisting citizens in self-
organisation and self-governance, increasing their potential for defining, developing and
implementing priority programmes of social, economic, and ecological recovery and
development. Thirdly, strengthening the capacity of organisations and institutions that
should promote socio-economic development and ecological recovery of Chernobyl
affected areas.
The programme has been operating since 2002 in selected regions of Kyiv,
Zhytomyr, Chernihiv and Rivne regions. During this time, based on the USD 6.6 million
budget 279 community organisations in 192 villages (more than 20,000 members), where
190 community projects were implemented with a total cost of UAH 18.5 million for some
200,000 beneficiaries, were supported in these four regions. For CRDP the co-financing
scheme is the following: local authorities’ part – by 45%, CRDP – by 40%, local business –
by 10-15%, community – approximately 5%.
More information about the CRDP project is available at http://www.crdp.org.ua/
Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development Programme is implemented
by UNDP with the support from donors, such as: Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and Royal
Norwegian Embassy. The programme's goal is to build capacity of local communities and
municipalities to participate in joint decision-making and use this ability for multilateral
cooperation and activities aimed at strengthening of the local socio-economic and
environmental governance for sustainable development.
Implementation of this goal includes the following tasks. First, capacity building of
the central government concerning fiscal and administrative decentralization has to benefit
the local communities. Second, capacity building of the local authorities in defining,
developing and implementing strategies for sustainable local development needs to occur.
Thirdly, the capacity of communities in improvement of local social, economic and
environmental conditions through self-organisation should be increased. The main
approach is social mobilisation, which includes promoting the establishment of local
community organisations (Associations of Co-Owners of Multi-Apartment Houses and their
Federations, Civil-Society Organisations of schools and kindergartens and their Networks,
Service Cooperatives). These institutions are founded on the principles of self-help and
good governance. Through the Programme interventions, the institutional capacity of these

14. 14
organisations builds up so that they were able to plan, mobilize resources and identify
priorities to address their social, economic and environmental problems in a sustainable
way. This is supported by the respective city councils and other national / international
development agencies.
The programme has been operating from 2004, currently it operates in 24 towns
and 5 villages of 12 regions of Ukraine. During this time, based on the USD 6.6 million
budget 550 community organisations in 29 cities (more than 56,000 members of
community organisations) were created in these cities, and 272 community projects for
about 167,000 beneficiaries were implemented with a total cost of UAH 30.8 million. For
MGSDP the co-financing scheme is the following: local authorities’ part – by 45%, UNDP –
by 45%, community part – not less than 10% (each year municipal authorities’ part
increases by 5% and MGSDP part – decreases by 10%, if the same community
participates in the Programme for the second time its share increases by 10%).
More information about the MGSDP project is available at
http://msdp.undp.org.ua/index.php
The Community Based Approach to Local Development Project is a nationwide
project implemented in Ukraine funded by the European Union and UNDP with the goal to
create favourable environment for sustainable social and economic development at the
local level through self-organisation and social mobilisation of communities, development
and implementation of the small-scale community initiatives in all regions of Ukraine and
Crimea.
The Project aims at restoration and efficient operation of basic local infrastructure
facilities (especially in such priority areas such as the health care, energy, environment,
public water supply, and public transportation). In addition, project objectives include
improving professional skills and knowledge of community organisations, strengthening
the institutional capacity of self-governing community organisations and local authorities.
The accent is made on determination of needs and priorities of community development as
well as management practices of local self-government through community organisations.
The basic principle of this project dwells on direct participation of the community in solving
urgent problems. It relies on decentralized mechanisms for providing public services. It is
assumed that communities themselves can best identify critical issues and priorities for
development at the grassroots level. The key mechanism for the project implementation is
to create a network of self-governing local community organisations capable of initiating
and implementing activities aimed at improving the living conditions of the community
residents with local authorities, private business and other stakeholders’ participation. For
this purpose in the course of the project specially created teams that helped communities
to mobilize and organize themselves, conducted trainings for activists, and helped with the
development and implementation of the community development plans. Implementation of
the initiatives was held with the participation of the communities and other project
participants, including authorities. Initiatives were financed by the project funds, although
communities themselves were making money contributions (not less than 5% of the value
of a particular initiative).
The project has been operating from 2007 in 209 rayons of all 24 regions of Ukraine
and Crimea. During this time over 1151 community organisations in 1125 villages (418 789
members of community organisations), where 1310 projects were implemented on a total
budget of UAH 193,6 million serving 1,209,069 beneficiaries, were supported in all regions
of Ukraine. For CBA co-financing scheme is the following: 50% contributes CBA, 45% –
local authorities, 5% – community.
More information about the CBA project is available at http://cba.org.ua/

15. 15
Table 1.2.1.
Comparative statistics on the four UNDP Projects
UNDP Project /
Key information
CIDP CRDP MGSDP CBA
Start year 1995 2002 2004 2007
Project budget USD 4.4 million USD 6.6 million USD 8.8 million EUR 13.3
million
Geographical
scope
AR Crimea Kyiv, Zhytomyr,
Chernihiv and
Rivne oblasts
12 regions 24 oblasts and
AR Crimea
Community
organisations
created
629 279 550 1151
Settlements
involved
400 192 29 1125
Number of
community
organisations
members
200,000 20,000 56,000 418,789
Percent of
female CO
members
54% 55.5% 52.2% 57.8%
Percent of male
CO members
46% 44.5% 47.8% 42.2%
Number of
projects
supported
419 190 272 1310
Communities
projects’ budget
(total amount of
investments
from all
stakeholders)
USD 11.9
million
UAH 18.5
million
UAH 30.8
million
UAH 193,6
million
Beneficiaries 143,000 200,000 167,934 1.2 million
1.3. Expected results of the approach impact and efficiency
According to the tasks specified in the UNDP documentation, which apply the
community based development approach to local development, the effectiveness of the
approach should be expressed in clearly defined indicators.
In particular, community based development approach is considered “effective”,
when the following conditions are fulfiled: the majority of the community members (at least
80%) should participate in the activities of community organisations; significant part of the
community should be represented at the general community meetings; the vast majority of
the population should be involved in the decision making process on any matters
concerning their own communities. In addition, community organisations members should
be extensively informed about activities of the community organisations.
According to the requirements of the approach, priorities of the community
development should be determined taking into account interests of the overwhelming
majority of the community members and regardless of influence from representatives of
authority representatives’.

16. 16
In terms of contributions, all members of the community should pay membership
fees. Most stakeholders (community members, local authorities, local business and
international donors) should acknowledge the existing co-financing scheme as convenient
and effective.
For efficient project operation and sustainable local development established
support organisations and structures (CBO, CO, ACMHs, RC, MSU, LDF, MCSDF, OCC,
and OIU) should be adequate and useful to carry out the outlined tasks for the needs of
local development and for citizens/authority cooperation. All engaged parties should be
ready to support the established organisations in the future.
One of the approach implementation directions was the development of human
resources. More specifically, there should be an increase in knowledge and utilization of
skills by community leaders and local officials.
Activities of the community organisations should be transparent and accountable to
the community, and the outcomes should be available to all community members, who are
the potential beneficiaries.
Due to implementation of this approach, the cost of created or rehabilitated services
should be effective in considering the cost of implementation of the community projects by
the community organisations. Similarly, the cost of providing these services should be
lower in communities where community projects were introduced in comparison to
communities where no projects were introduced. Energy saving should also be taken into
consideration.
Citizens should be more satisfied with the quality of services, supported by the
community projects, and strive to maintain the established or rehabilitated infrastructure
facilities.
As a result of the approach implementation the communities should become more
organized, which should be manifested by a growing social cohesion within communities.
1.4. Research Goal and Objectives
To perform a comprehensive impact assessment of the community based
development approach to local development UNDP/EU Community Based Approach to
Local Development Project commissioned to the Kiev International Institute of Sociology
the study "Evaluation of impact of community based development approach to local
development introduced in the UNDP Projects in Ukraine”.
The goal of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the
community based development approach to local development, which was implemented
by four UNDP Projects in Ukraine: Crimea Development and Integration Programme,
Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme, Municipal Governance and
Sustainable Development Programme and Community Based Approach to Local
Development.
Following objectives were identified to achieve this goal:
– Examine the views of the target groups representatives about the effectiveness of the
methodology of the community based approach;
– Determine the views of the target groups representatives about the approach impact on
the local self-government of population;
– Identify views of the target group representatives regarding the influence of the
approach on the provision of services in sectors supported by the projects;
– Determine the views of the target group representatives about the approach impact on
the quality of life of the target groups.

17. 17
– Identify factors of the approach implementation effectiveness and develop
recommendations for dissemination of experience, improvement of approach and
policy initiatives.
1.5. Report structure
This report presents a number of structural parts that cover the methodology,
results and conclusions of this evaluation research study.
Section 2 of the research methodology explains in detail the areas of evaluation of
the effectiveness and impact of the community based development approach to local
development. In addition, it provides description of the methods, which were applied in this
evaluation. At the end of this part, the research hypotheses are defined, while clearly
specifying what results obtained by which methods should indicate the accomplishment or
failure of the expected outcomes of the approach implementation.
The section 3 deals with the assessment of the approach methodology
effectiveness aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of mechanisms of the approach
implementation by the stakeholders at the local level, particularly at the rayon level and at
individual communities.
Section 4 highlights the assessment of the approach impact on local self-
organisation of the population. It provides comprehensive examination of established
support organisations within the structure of local authorities, their level of transparency,
accountability and equality. The quality of strategic planning using the principles of bottom-
up planning is verified. The most attention is paid to the citizen-authority relationships,
including the accessibility and openness of the authority to dialogue, the attitudes of
citizens and authorities towards each other, changes in the co-operation between citizens
and government and citizen satisfaction with the work of local authorities. Additionally, the
role of local businesses in local development processes is clarified.
The next section reveals assessment of the approach impact on provision of
services in the sectors supported by the UNDP Projects, particularly with regard to the cost
of creation/rehabilitation and provision of services, quality of these services provision and
sustainability of the established community infrastructure. In addition, there is a part that
presents assessment of approach impact on the quality of life of the target groups, i.e. the
community members. An integrated assessment of changes in citizens’ lives is carried out:
changes in the material conditions of life, in economic conditions, in the state of health,
psychological self-feeling and social cohesion.
Expert evaluation is presented in a separate section which describes the
assessment of experience dissemination, search for success factors of the approach and
identifying the opportunities for improvement of the public policy regarding local
development.
The last section presents conclusions regarding evaluation of effectiveness and
impact of the community based development approach to local development, offers some
recommendations on improvement of the approach and public policy regarding local
development.

18. 18
SECTION 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1. Areas and components of evaluation of the approach effectiveness and impact
According to the objectives of this study, the evaluation was carried out in the four
areas: efficiency of the community based approach; the approach’s impact on local self-
government; the approach’s impact on provision of services in sectors supported by these
projects; the approach’s impact on the quality of life of the target groups.
In each of the above areas components were defined, and each component was
further evaluated by one or more criteria.
Efficiency of the community based development approach was evaluated by:
1) Involvement of the population, defined by the following parameters:
- Patterns of the population participation in the CO;
- Level of citizens’ participation in general meetings;
- Level of the population’s involvement in the decision-making process (on any issues,
including planning);
- Level of participation of the CO members in the joint co-financing of the community
projects);
2) Patterns of priorities setting (the degree of CO independence in setting priorities
for conducting community projects was verified);
And 3) the effectiveness of the co-financing schemes (the effectiveness of the
current co-financing scheme was examined).
The assessment of the approach’s impact on local self-government included six
components:
1) Appropriateness of the support structures established at various levels of local
self-government was evaluated by the following criteria:
- Relevance, effectiveness and usefulness of the established structures (LDF, CO, OCC,
OCRC) for the local development processes and for the cooperation between citizens
and local authorities;
- The extent to which created structures are used outside UNDP Projects;
- Level of the potential viability of the established structures;
- The quality of human resources development and mutual learning of the community
leaders and local authorities representatives;
- Degree of CO involvement in activities outside the UNDP Projects);
2) Level of transparency, accountability and equality is evaluated by the following
indicators:
- Transparency and accountability of the CO activities: in decision making, setting
priorities, regular reporting on the use of funds and financial protocols, carrying out
tenders, and public audit;
- Equality in the access to the benefits among the project target population (community
members);
3) Quality of strategic planning and bottom-up planning (the quality of strategic
planning, bottom-up planning and application of these strategic plans was examined);
4) Access to information (level of accessibility of information about activities of the
local authorities was measured);

19. 19
5) The role of local businesses (motivation of local business to contribute to local
development initiatives through the sponsorship of the CO projects was clarified);
6) The citizens/authorities relationships were defined by the following criteria:
- changes in the level of accessibility to the government officials and openness to
dialogue;
- changes in the attitudes of citizens towards the authority representatives (including
changes in the level of trust);
- changes in cooperation between communities and authority representatives (qualitative
and quantitative);
- Changes in citizens’ satisfaction with the government officials’ performance).
The approach’s impact on provision of services in the sectors supported by the
UNDP Projects was carried out by assessing four components:
1) The cost of creation or rehabilitation of services/or social/or communal
infrastructure (effectiveness was determined with regard to the cost of community projects’
implementation by the community organisations);
2) The cost of service delivery (assessment of relative changes in the cost of
services provision before and after community projects implementation);
3) The quality of service delivery (changes in the level of satisfaction with the
services provision was measured: energy efficiency, water supply, education (school
buses), health care, environmental protection, social sector, carrying out trainings and
level of energy savings);
4) Sustainability of the established social/community infrastructure (the degree of
value of the created or rehabilitated social/community infrastructure and the level of its
potential viability);
An important area was evaluating the approach impact on the quality of life of the
target groups by five components:
1) Changes in the material conditions of life (relative changes in the conditions of
life, comfort and quality of life, compliance with the UNDP Projects priorities were
examined);
2) Changes in the economic conditions (determined by direct and indirect relative
changes in the economic conditions);
3) Changes in the health status (respondents were asked about relative changes of
their health);
4) Changes in psychological self-feeling (in particular, relative changes in personal
confidence level were investigated);
5) Changes in social cohesion (relative changes in social cohesion were examined).
2.2. Focus group discussions with citizens and local authorities
For the successful implementation of such a large and complex evaluative research
study it is critically important to gather sociological data using qualitative research
methods. Taking into account this fact the approach implemented by various stakeholders,
to learn about opinions and views, that is most adequate is the method of the focus-group
discussion. This method makes it possible to identify a possible range of opinions about
perception of local development processes, including local self-government, service
delivery and changes in the quality of life of the citizens. A variety of responses were
received regarding the details of the community projects implementation and the extent of
benefits that the citizens obtain. Discussions between participants who express

20. 20
disagreement and opposing views about the same local development processes are also
of great importance.
Conducting focus groups provided a good opportunity for local development forums,
which were attended by the representatives of both the communities and the local
authorities. While these forums were held in various regions of Ukraine, the locations were
selected from a range of regions and rayons. Therefore, rayons for the survey were
selected mainly from among those at which local development forums were conducted
during the field stage of the research. Since the forums were held in different rayons in
different months without some consistent pattern, it is logical to assume that the forums
were randomly happening at the time of the research study and the generated sample is
not biased.
In total, 11 focus groups were carried out - 8 for the CBA project and 3 for the
MGSDP project. Since the diversity of ideas and fruitful discussions are among
advantages of this method, the optimal number of participants is in the range of 8-12, the
average was 10 participants.
For the CBA project 1 focus group was held in each of the 8 macro-regions of
Ukraine, specific to this project. Regions that, according to the expert opinion of two CBA
national project managers, are similar in nature in project implementation were combined
into clusters – macro-regions. Individual areas within each macro-region were selected, so
as to cover with the research rayons with varying degrees of effectiveness2
. Moderators
selected focus groups participants from the local development forums participants or (if
forums were not held at this time) from the various communities of different rayons, so that
they represented the greatest number of stakeholders. Representatives of different
communities, heads of village councils, representatives of Rayon State Administrations,
rayon councils, contact persons from Rayon State Administrations and coordinators from
Oblast State Administrations participated in the focus groups. Representatives of local
businesses had to provide a response to one extended question; therefore they were
interviewed individually instead of participating in the two-hour focus groups.
For the MGSDP project there was developed qualitative contrast sample of cities for
conducting focus groups, thereby views of the stakeholders’ representatives from 3 cities
with various levels of success3
were received. For partaking in the focus groups municipal
coordinators invited participants by quotas, so that there were both representatives of the
various communities and representatives of the local authorities (city councils employees,
municipal coordinators and employees of the municipal support units).
2.3. In-depth interviews with regional experts
Two other UNDP Projects - CIDP and CRDP – at the time of the research study
were almost completed; therefore, it was difficult to gather key participants to participate in
the focus groups. Thus, the most convenient method for obtaining quality information
about activities of these projects was to conduct in-depth interviews with the regional
experts. Stories of the representatives of the local population and local authorities on the
realities and specifics of projects implementation are among advantages of this method.
2
The degree of effectiveness of the project implementation by rayons has been identified by the 7 criteria
applying the method of expert questionnaire of the oblast project coordinators. For each rayon the resulting
indicator was the sum of ratings by the 7 criteria with a maximum of 100 points. The rayon was classified as
having high effectiveness if its indicator exceeded the median rayon estimate plus the standard deviation.
The rayon was classified as having low effectiveness if its indicator was lower than the median rayon
estimate minus the standard deviation.
3
Initially the expert questionnaire survey of project staff was conducted. On the ground of this survey results
28 cities were ranked in terms of effectiveness of the project implementation (the 29
th
city – Vynnytsia was
not considered due to its relatively recent participation in the Project in April of 2010). For the focus groups, 1
was selected as the most effective city, 1 as the least effective city and 1 city was selected with average
effectiveness.

21. 21
While potential respondents are geographically dispersed, telephone interview is the most
resource- efficient research method. In total, 27 expert structured in-depth interviews were
conducted over the telephone.
For the evaluation of the CIDP project, in total, 12 respondents were interviewed,
i.e. by 3 representatives of each of 4 target groups of respondents4
. To learn the opinions
and views of different stakeholders interviews were held with community representatives,
heads of village councils, representatives of rayon authorities and local UNDP project staff.
To evaluate the CRDP project, in total, 12 respondents, out of the three typical
rayons covered by the project,5
were interviewed, i.e. by 3 representatives of each of 4
target groups of respondents. Interviews with community representatives, heads of village
councils, representatives of the rayon authorities and local UNDP project staff were
conducted for this project as well.
An evaluation survey of the MGSDP project was conducted in the same 3 cities,
which were selected for the focus groups. Expert interviews with the mayors were
conducted in each of the selected cities.
2.4. In-depth interviews with the national experts
At the end of the research study a generalized assessment of the effectiveness and
impact of the UNDP Projects applying the community based development approach to
local development should be obtained. From this perspective, within the scale of the
UNDP Projects, the most knowledgeable and competent subjects generally are national
experts: those who have worked or are currently working with these projects either as
senior managers or at the national level. Their general conclusions on the effectiveness of
the use and dissemination of the approach methodology, local self-government, public
policy and strategic planning are based on their own long-term management experience.
Such opinions are crucial to understanding the systemic patterns of implementation of the
community based development approach to local development.
To obtain both professional and weighted estimates, 4 internal experts (by 1
representative of the top-management from each of the UNDP Projects under evaluation)
and 4 external experts (those having experience of working in the project or cooperation
with the project and representing the organisation external to the respective UNDP
project)6
were interviewed. In addition, it was decided to interview an internal expert
among the UNDP management, who was the supervisor of all four projects. This helped to
identify general patterns of the approach’s implementation in Ukraine (without the specifics
of individual projects). Thus, in total, 9 expert thematic in-depth interviews with national
experts were carried out.
2.5. Survey of regional experts
Some aspects of the approach can be professionally evaluated precisely by local
officials or employees of UNDP Projects, who have worked at the rayon or regional level.
Moreover, they are most knowledgeable about the situation in the respective rayons and
regions, and thus, can provide accurate assessment of the relevance of the established
4
For the CIDP project 4 in-depth interviews in 3 randomly selected rayons of AR Crimea were planned. From
the list of rayons provided by the CIDP representatives 3 rayons were selected randomly. To increase the
probability of the quotas realisation, interviews with the representatives of rayon councils were conducted on
a first priority basis. In the process of the sample realisation it turned out to be impossible to interview
representatives of some quotas in selected rayons, therefore, by 1 community representative and 1 project
employee from the 4
th
randomly selected rayon were interviewed.
5
CRDP expert and representative selected 3 rayons together, typical in terms of community projects
implementation.
6
Internal experts were selected on the criteria of the maximum experience of participation in the respective
project (number of years in project) and the largest scale of conclusions (the highest level of management).
External experts were selected by recommendation of internal experts out of the project partners among the
non-governmental organisations or governmental agencies.

22. 22
support structures and citizens/authorities relations. Considering this, municipal, rayon and
regional coordinators from the local authorities and CBA project employees were
interviewed.
Standardized telephone survey via a computer is a quite suitable and cost effective
method for these interviews. For the assessment of the CBA project 150 respondents7
were interviewed, for the MGSDP - 56 respondents8
were interviewed using quota sample.
The quantitative responses obtained represent the rayon, municipal and regional
coordinators of the CBA and MGSDP projects, i.e. they provide the grounds to draw
conclusions about the views of not only those surveyed, but also all coordinators at 0.05
level of significance with an error not exceeding 4%9
.
2.6. Survey of community members
Since the residents of the respective communities obtain direct benefit from the
community projects, the most accurate information on the realities of implementation and
assessment of approach impact on the quality of life can be obtained from surveys of
community members. Therefore, to obtain quantitative data that would enable us to draw
conclusions regarding the approach’s impact on the target groups, a survey, by personal
interview, was conducted of the community members.
For the survey we stratified the communities and from each set of communities we
selected the most typical community. We believe that this approach makes it possible to
extrapolate respondents’ answers onto all communities of the respective UNDP project10
.
To ensure a sufficient number of responses 855 respondents were interviewed. The
response rate comprised 72%. 111, 112 and 106 respondents were interviewed to
evaluate the CIDP, CRDP and MGSDP Projects respectively. Whereas for the CBA, the
largest project by regional coverage and community involvement, 213 respondents were
interviewed. In total, 542 respondents were interviewed as a main group.
In order to examine the projects’ impact, a survey of control groups was planned11
:
208 respondents for the CBA, 105 respondents for the MGSDP in total, and 313
7
For survey of experts of the CBA project all 25 oblasts of Ukraine were designated. It was planned to
interview 1 project employee in each oblast (by 1 out of 2 possible), 1 oblast coordinator of OSA or OC (by 1
single possible, while in one oblast he refused, it was decided to interview one more rayon coordinator) and
4 rayon coordinators (4 out of 8 possible). If there were more potential respondents than it was required by
the sample task, the respondents were selected from the list using the step.
8
For the survey of experts from the MGSDP project the objective was to interview representatives of all 28
cities. For each city the sample task specified 2 representatives of the municipal support unit. Since the
respondents also were selected according to the defined step, municipal coordinators were either sampled
or skipped in the selection process. If it was impossible to interview the last respondent in any city (due to
the absence at the work place or refuse to participate), the city mayors were interviewed instead.
9
All statements in this report pertinent to the frequency distributions are based on statistical laws according
to which, given the implementation of simple random sample, the distribution of variables values and
relationships between variables inherent to the respondents will be observed in the general population (in
this research study - among community members) with certain (here - with 95%) probability and with a
specified error.
10
The most theoretically feasible scheme of the assessment of the projects’ impact on communities would be
generating two representative samples for each project- the main (for the population that the projects’ impact
is targeted towards) and control (for the population not covered by the project) and making two
measurements - at the beginning and at the end of each project. However, the complete implementation of
this approach would be too resource-consuming and the ratio of resources for the project itself and for its
effectiveness assessment would be inadequate. Therefore, we used some more economic modification of
the approach to the projects impact assessment by using control groups, which, nevertheless, allows
evaluation of the most significant project results.
11
The experts suggested control communities for the survey. Those communities were to a maximum
degree similar to the main ones, in particular, by such parameters as the number of citizens and economic
development, but they should not have participated in the UNDP Projects.

23. 23
respondents in the control group. For the CIDP and CRDP projects surveys of control
groups were not carried out, however preliminary research studies were conducted that
may be used as a basis for comparison. Therefore, assuming that initially all variables of
these communities were similar, all changes in the population’s self-organisation, quality of
services and quality of life should have been caused by participation in the UNDP project.
In the sub-sample for the CBA project the survey was conducted in all 8 macro-
regions, i.e. in each macro-region a typical region was selected, in each typical region - a
typical rayon, and in every typical rayon - a typical village (in total, 16 villages12
). In the
sub-sample for the MGSDP 8 typical cities were selected and in each typical city - a typical
community (in total, 8 communities)13
.
In the sub-samples for the CIDP and CRDP 8 typical rayons were selected and 1
typical village was selected in every typical rayon (a total of 8 villages) 14
.
2.7. Methodology of data analysis
To analyse the data of the focus groups and interviews (qualitative methods)
complete transcripts were prepared based on video and audio records. While reading the
transcripts data, participants responses were classified by themes based on the
conceptual scheme of the study. Then, for each theme typical responses were singled out;
they are presented in this report. Individual citations inserted in this report were selected
for the illustrative purposes, based on how precisely they illustrate the research
conclusions.
12
In the sub-sample for the CBA project on the first stage of sampling there 8 macro-regions were identified
that are typical for this project implementation, a process similar to that of the focus groups. In each macro-
region the national managers selected 2 typical oblasts. In each of the selected oblasts according to the
recommendation of experts, i.e. project staff in relevant oblasts, 2 typical rayons were selected, and in each
selected rayon, 1 village was selected for the survey (usually with a typical project for this rayon). For the
main sub-sample group of this project 16 villages have been identified. In each village of the main group
according to the list of the community organisation members, potential respondents were selected by
applying the step with the randomly generated base number. The step was equal to the number of citizens
on the list divided by the number of interviews to be conducted in the given community. The base number
helped to identify the first respondent on the list. As a result of this procedure, the sample of respondents in
each community was random. In the villages from the control sub-sample group, selection of respondents
was carried out by the route method with randomly assigned base number for the selection of households
and respondents in the households.
13
In the MGSDP project the cities involved differ in patterns of project implementation, the 2 most successful
and 2 lest successful were eliminated from the population as extreme cases. Among the rest 24 cities 8
typical cities for the survey were randomly assigned – by generating random numbers in the SPSS program.
In each of the selected cities experts, i.e. municipal coordinators, determined by 1 community for the survey
(usually, those were ACMHs.) For the main sub-sample group of this project, 8 cities/settlements of urban
type have been identified. In every community from the main sub-sample group by the list of community
organisation members potential respondents were selected randomly according to the abovementioned
procedure. For the control sub-sample group the same experts have suggested to interview 8 communities
(usually ACMHs), similar to those involved in the project, but which have not participated in the UNDP
Projects. We assume they were not funded according to the model replicated from UNDP Projects. In the
communities from the control sub-sample group, selection of respondents was carried out by the route
method with randomly assigned step for the selection of households and respondents in the households.
14
CIDP project was implemented only in Crimea, therefore 8 typical rayons and typical villages (not the best
and not the worst, rather medium in effectiveness) in the selected rayons were defined by experts –
programme managers. As we applied typical sample, for the survey of community members the procedure of
selection of rayons and settlements for CIDP and CRDP was essentially analogues to the procedure for the
CBA. – The final decision of selection a rayon and a settlement was made by an internal expert and a KIIS
representative. In each village, by the list of the community organisation members, potential respondents
were selected randomly according to the abovementioned procedure. For the CRDP project adequate
clusters were presented by 4 oblasts where the project was implemented. The CRDP expert together with
the KIIS expert selected 2 typical rayons per each oblast and at each of these rayons 1 village for the survey.
In each village sample of respondents in every community was generated randomly according to the
abovementioned procedure.

24. 24
The analysis of respondents’ answers in the surveys of regional experts and
community members was carried out in a certain sequence. Initially, researchers
examined the frequency distributions of answers to specific questions in the questionnaire;
for accuracy of comparisons all distributions of responses were calculated as a percentage
of those respondents who answered the relevant question. After this, the statistically
significant differences between sub-groups were identified (for example, between different
socio-demographic categories) 15
. All statistically insignificant results were not included in
the argument because they lie within sample error and might be accidental (that is in
another sample they may be different). Therefore, in this report all statements regarding
the revealed differences imply that the differences are not random, but statistically
significant. In addition, analysis of statistical relationships between variables was carried
out (for example, between age and improvement of knowledge and skills)16
. Therefore,
within this report all mentioned relationships between variables are statistically significant.
The optimal sequence of analysis is as listed in the following: identifying typical
patterns of the approach implementation using qualitative methods (the range of possible
views and assessments) and verifying quantitative distributions of the corresponding
opinions of the community members and regional experts (the prevalence of these views
and assessments among target groups) based on data collected by quantitative methods.
In addition, estimates obtained by different methods were compared, for example,
responses in surveys of regional experts and community members.
2.8. Research operational hypotheses
According to the objectives identified in the statutory UNDP Projects, which apply
the community based development approach to local development, the effectiveness of
the approach should be demonstrated by the following results17
:
Efficiency of the community based approach:
• Participation of community members in community organisations (the actual
participation of community members in the activity of community
organisations18
);
• Majority of community organisation members at least once participate in general
meetings (> 80%);
• Involvement of the majority of community organisation members (> 80%) in the
decision-making process in community organisations on the basis of consensus,
vote or questionnaire;
• Extensively informing members of community organisations (> 80%) about the
activities of community organisations;
• Solid (100%) payment of membership fees by the members of community
organisations;
15
All statements about identified differences suggest that within the 0.95 confidence interval the statistical
hypothesis about percentage or arithmetic means difference can not be rejected. Hypotheses about
significance of the percentage differences were tested by Х
2
-criterion, and hypotheses about the significance
of mean differences were tested by the Student t-test.
16
Hypotheses regarding the presence of relationships were checked by the Kendall's tau-b rank correlation
coefficient.
17
For detailed structure of evaluation see Appendix A.
18
In the CBA Project the level of participation of community members in community organisations is calculated in
terms of households against target households in the community. However, this criterion was not anticipated and
consequently not utilised in the survey. According to our data, the share of unique households comprises from 94.6% to
100% for samples in different UNDP Projects, 97.7% on average. But as we do not know for sure the exact percent in
responses to different questions, the distributions are calculated for community members, not for households.

25. 25
• Participation of non-members of community organisations in the implementation
of community projects through voluntary contributions in the form of money or
work (presence of cases of such participation);
• Additional contributions of the members of community organisations on a
voluntary basis (presence of cases of additional contributions);
• Identifying priorities for community development taking into account interests of
the majority of community organisation members independently from the
authorities influence (percentage of those who think that the opinion of the
community members was more important is larger than the percentage of those
who believe that the opinion of local authorities was more important);
• Majority of stakeholders recognise the co-financing scheme as effective
(percentage of those who define it as effective is larger than percentage of those
who define it as ineffective);
• Desire of local stakeholders (not UNDP Projects) to make larger contributions
than the specified proportion (such a desire is articulated);
The approach’s impact on the local self-government:
• Established support structures (CO, ACMH, MSU, LDF, MCSD, MCSDF, OCC,
OIU, RC) accomplish their objectives for the local development and for the
cooperation between citizens and authorities (percentage of those who define
them as effective is greater than percentage of those who characterize them as
ineffective);
• Utilization of the established support structures (CO, ACMH, MSU, LDF, MCSD,
MCSDF, OCC, OIU, RC) for dissemination of information materials, approach
methodology and acquired experience to other communities (presence of cases
of such dissemination);
• Willingness of stakeholders to support established support institutions in the
future (confidence in the functionality of institutions after completion of the UNDP
Projects prevails over the opinion that they will not function);
• Accumulation of knowledge and application of skills by the community leaders
and local officials (presence of positive dynamics in the competence of
community leaders and local authorities representatives);
• Implementation of initiatives by community organisations outside of the UNDP
Projects at their own expense (presence of cases of such initiatives);
• Participation of community organisations in other competitions outside of the
UNDP Projects (presence of cases of such participation);
• Significant transparency of activities of community organisations (> 80% of the
members of community organisations are informed about activities);
• Target population has equal access to the benefits created by community
projects (> 80% of the members of the community organisations are confident
that access is possible);
• The interests of rural communities are accounted in the strategic plans of rayon
development and interests of urban communities - in the strategic plans of urban
development (presence of cases of development of such plans with the
participation of communities);
• Increase in transparency of the local government activities (presence of a
positive dynamics of transparency in the local government activities);

26. 26
• Willingness of local businesses to sponsor local development by making
contributions to the projects of community organisations (such a desire is
articulated);
• Increase in the level of accessibility of local officials and openness to dialogue
(presence of the positive dynamics of transparency of local government
activities);
• Improvement of citizens’ attitudes towards local officials (presence of positive
dynamics of citizens’ trust towards local officials);
• Increase in cooperation between communities and local authorities (presence of
positive dynamics of cooperation);
• Increase in citizens’ satisfaction with the work of local officials (presence of
positive dynamics of such satisfaction);
The approach’s impact on the service delivery in the sectors supported by these
projects:
• Cost-effective establishment or rehabilitation of services relative to the cost of
the community projects implementation by community organisations (higher
effectiveness in comparison with the projects without community involvement);
• Reducing the relative cost of service delivery (the cost of services is smaller
compared to the communities where there were no community projects with this
approach);
• High satisfaction with the quality of received services, supported by the
community projects (percentage of satisfied respondents is larger than the
percentage of those unsatisfied);
• Energy saving (greater savings in comparison with communities where there
were no community projects with this approach);
• Members of the community organisations want to support established or
rehabilitated infrastructure facilities;
The approach’s impact on the quality of life of the target groups:
• Relative changes in the quality of life of the community members (presence of
positive dynamics in the quality of life - material conditions, economic conditions,
health status);
• Relative changes in the psychological self-feeling of the community members
(presence of positive dynamics of self-confidence);
• Relative changes in the social cohesion of the communities (presence of positive
dynamics in social cohesion).

27. 27
SECTION 3. EVALUATION OF THE APPROACH METHODOLOGY
EFFECTIVENESS
3.1. Involvement of the population
Analysis of focus-group discussions demonstrates that the members of
communities which joined the project believe in themselves and try to change the life of
their community.
We can distinguish the factors inducing citizens to join the work of community
organisations including community projects:
• Persuasion by informal leaders of public opinion,
• Support of local authority representatives,
• Awareness of other communities’ positive experience.
In-depth interviews and surveys of regional experts allow us to clarify some
peculiarities this process has. According to some representatives of communities and local
authorities, initially, when creating community organisations and launching community
projects, difficulties occurred with involving local citizens as some of them were sceptical
and others could not or did not want to invest their own money into the project. UNDP
project staff and local authorities have made a wide range of efforts to persuade citizens.
They organised meetings to explain how community self-organisation should work,
showed educational films and short clips on the local television. Resource centres of
different kinds were extremely helpful. Consequently, as citizens saw that community
organisations really worked and it was possible to implement community projects, they
participated in projects more actively.
According to the data received by surveying community members, the total number
of citizens holding managerial positions in the board of a community organisation (for
instance, heads, secretaries, treasurers, members of functional groups or monitoring
groups) is 18.7% (14.4 to 20.3% in different UNDP Projects), which is a rather high figure
and evidence of democratic management of community organisations.
A prerequisite for real involvement of local residents in self-governance is their
participation in forms of direct democracy, in particular, in general community meetings.
Community member survey findings demonstrate high level of involvement as for
Ukrainian realities (compared to 50-70% suggested in the initial hypothesis) – overall,
general community meetings involve from 88.5% to 96.6% of community members in
different UNDP Projects, the average proportion being 93.9% among all the respondents.
The model approach in fact promotes a participatory form of governance.
It is also worth noting that an equally high involvement level is seen both among
men and women, citizens with different levels of education and those who live in unequally
wealthy households. By virtue of their requirements, the projects focus on women’s
participation and thus they have succeeded in the fulfilment of this requirement.
Naturally, a significant proportion of the community organisation took part in
decision making concerning community development issues, ranging from 71.2% to 95.5%
in different UNDP Projects, the average being 86.8% among all the respondents, which
makes it an undoubtedly overwhelming majority. This involvement level is nearly equal in
different social-demographic categories of respondents.
The decisions taken are announced to the community, on average 88.5% (78.9 to
92% in different UNDP Projects) of community organisation members are informed of
them. There are no statistically significant differences in awareness levels between
different social-demographic population groups.

28. 28
Graph 3.1.1.
Levels of population involvement in decision making
(Percentage of the main group, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are
indicated in the graph below)
For successful microproject realisation, community organisation members have to
pay membership fees. The survey demonstrates that 95.1% to 100% of the respondents
paid fees with exceptions ranging from 0% to 4.9%. Thus the poll of community members
in various UNDP Projects revealed that 0% to 4.9% of the respondents claim that they do
not belong to any community organisations and do not pay membership fees. As the
survey only listed community organisation members, some explanations are possible.
These respondents may have misunderstood the question or may have already left the
community organisation. It is also probable that they created informal organisations which
developed into a formal organisation at the settlement level, so the members of the
informal organisations became associated members and it is natural that some of them
might not be paying fees. The rest of respondents invest money regardless of their form of
membership in a community organisation.
Findings of in-depth interviews with regional experts lead to the conclusion that they
supported projects in various ways:
• With the help of membership fees,
• With additional money investment,
• With free voluntary work,
• By managing the work of the community organisations.
Surveying community members has fully confirmed researchers’ preliminary
hypothesis about the population actually investing amounts of money exceeding the
necessary minimum (all respondents who gave an affirmative answer personally
contributed more than is required from an individual as an additional voluntary
contribution) – from 18% to 36% in different UNDP Projects, the average was around
29.9% for all of the respondents. As it could be expected, the number of benefactors
increases with growing wealth of the household that the respondent lives in. Thus, while
23.7% of respondents living in poorer households sometimes invest larger sums than
necessary, the proportion of such respondents from wealthier households is 45.3%.
86.8
93.9
88.5
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
% respondents, who
participated in decision
making (n=538)
% respondents, who
were informed
about decisions taken
(n=539)
% respondents, who
participated in general
meetings of community
at least once (n=539)

29. 29
Graph 3.1.2.
Occurrence of larger investments than necessary for project realisation
(Percentage of the main group, subsample sizes n of responses on each question are
indicated in the graph below)
As it was repeatedly noted in focus-groups and in-depth interviews, it is more
possible for citizens to express their readiness to provide additional help in the community
project realisation by doing certain work on community projects than by extra investments.
This statement has been fully confirmed by the survey – over a half (from 54.8% to 84.8%
in different UNDP Projects, the average being 76.6%) of respondents helped by doing
work on community projects.
It would be appropriate to note that there are more male citizens who have done
some labour contribution than female ones (84.8% men compared to 73.5% women). The
number of those who provided some help in doing certain work is also somewhat larger
among respondents from ‘wealthy’ households (86.0% compared to 72.9-75.6% of
respondents from ‘poor’ and ‘medium’ households).
3.2. Pattern of priorities setting
According to focus-group participants (both those representing communities and
those who represented local authorities), setting community priorities could be influenced
both by various interest groups and by heads of village councils, while representatives of
higher authorities did not have the tools to directly influence community priorities.
Regardless of the initial idea source and activity, community decision making was
democratic: everyone could voice their suggestions and take part in general meetings –
and an overwhelming majority of the community expressed their suggestions and
participated in general meetings (or at least in the community polls). The democratic
procedure of priorities setting guaranteed that they did reflect urgent needs of the majority
in a community.
Similarly, the interviewed regional experts note that community priorities were set by
local residents themselves by discussing and voting either in general meetings or through
a poll. Both community representatives and local authority representatives say that
communities set their priorities themselves.
According to the concept of local development involving the local community,
community organisations are to be independent of local authorities in setting priorities for
community project realisation. However, answers to a neutral question presenting various
scenarios of priorities setting that was asked while surveying community members
revealed the fact that local authority representatives exert indirect influence on community
29.9
76.6
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
% respondents, who
sometimes
contributed more
than demanded
(n=538)
% respondents, who
contributed
by performing works
for community
projects (n=539)

30. 30
priorities setting by announcing their own opinions: from 0.9% to 9.6% of respondents
involved in different UNDP Projects (an average of 4.1%) note that authorities’ opinions
were mostly or solely determinative in setting community priorities.
This can be partially caused by ignorance and existing stereotypes, as the more the
respondents are aware of CO activity, the more they tend to consider that the community
opinion is deciding. It is probable that views on the issue are really connected with citizens’
awareness of their community organisation activity – as shown by correlation analysis, the
more aware the respondent was, the more likely he was to speak of the deciding role of
organisation members in setting community priorities19
.
Though the maximum proportion of those who believe that only authority opinions
mattered is 3.8% in one of the UNDP Projects, it remains a point at issue and corresponds
to the reality where communities are partly dependent on funding from local budgets. In
spite of this fact, from 58.7% to 71.2% of respondents involved in different UNDP Projects
(on average 63.2%) are convinced that deciding priorities setting were mainly or only
based on community opinions.
Graph 3.2.1.
Respondents’ opinions of whose view is the most important in setting priorities for
community development
(Percentage of the main group, subsample size n=538)
3.3. Effectiveness of co-financing scheme
Considering statements of focus-group participants, all the interested parties regard
the co-financing scheme as generally good and efficient20
. They sometimes suggest
reducing bureaucracy, accelerating the process of document registration and funding.
Another request is to make the UNDP financial contribution share part bigger as both
communities and local authorities are objectively unable to considerably augment their part
of the funding.
19
Kendall tau-b correlation coefficient is 0,264 (p<0,001).
20
For CBA, the co-financing scheme is as follows – 50% contributes UNDP/EU, 45% – local authorities, 5%
– community. For MGSDP: 45%+45%+10% (each year municipal authorities’ part increases by 5%,
community part – by 10%). For CRDP the municipal authorities’ part was by 45%, UNDP – by 40%, local
business – by 10-15%, community – approximately 5%. For CIDP each party’s contribution was different in
each case.