Читаем Позитивные изменения. Том 3, № 4 (2023). Positive changes. Volume 3, Issue 4(2023) полностью

Позитивные изменения. Том 3, № 4 (2023). Positive changes. Volume 3, Issue 4(2023)

• State entities: municipalities, individual politicians (party representatives, lawmakers), and executive branch representatives;

• civil society: volunteer centers, NGOs, and universities;

• market representatives: business and state corporation representatives;

• direct beneficiaries.

It is crucial to ensure triangulation in the study, validating findings through interviews with representatives from at least three stakeholder groups (e.g., beneficiaries, their families, state administration representatives, businesses involved in the project, etc.).

An impact assessment questionnaire is recommended for gathering feedback from the beneficiaries. This can be used for online and offline interviews or surveys.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT MODEL

The Fund was also tasked with developing an Overall Assessment Model, encompassing the assessment of all projects that receive grant support. The final report collates all project coverage indicators and types of impact. The overall assessment of the cumulative project impact on regional development is designed to record three categories of data: UAP-based universal social impact criteria, overall change significance index based on indicator analysis, and an optional integrated qualitative impact assessment protocol. These are operated as follows:

• Projects are assessed against universal social impact criteria based on UAP;

• Data is aggregated into the change significance index;

• A separate study is conducted to learn the cumulative project impact on regional development, using a qualitative impact assessment protocol.

Econometric modeling analysis can be employed to further refine the overall assessment of social impact indicators based on the UAP. This approach can be viable once a comprehensive database of indicators is collected, enabling the establishment of causal relationships.

CONCLUSION

Summing up, we would like to mention a few characteristics of the model developed, which are noteworthy in our opinion.

The model, while not designed as a decision-making tool for supporting specific projects, has the potential to serve this purpose. Its primary function is to act as a “system of mirrors,” allowing for a multifaceted examination of the project-initiated changes from various perspectives. This approach helps to better appreciate the “beauty” of the changes being made in the lives of the beneficiaries and the territory as a whole.

It is essential not to interpret the UAP (Unique Assessment Profile) criteria as definitive markers of “good” or “bad” projects. For instance, a project contributing to workforce retention in the region should not be automatically deemed “good,” and vice versa. These criteria simply suggest that if a project aims to tackle workforce retention, in addition to other significant changes, specific relevant data should be requested and considered, especially if it addresses a key regional issue effectively. A project not addressing this does not inherently become “worse”; it simply focuses on different changes. Similarly, not all projects are based on mechanisms to achieve economic sustainability etc., but if they do, that aspect should be analyzed separately to potentially recommend such solutions for replication in other regions. Most importantly, this approach allows the project itself to gain deeper insights into its impact and to plan future activities based on these insights.

In our opinion, the model proposed can be adapted for the tasks of other organizations and for different territories. The combination of UAP criteria and qualitative change indicators remains a constant feature. However, the specific UAP criteria can vary to reflect the important indicators for a particular territory or organization. The “hygiene” criteria (8 to 11) are universal and can serve as a basic checklist for any project, offering foundational guidance. The second component, focusing on qualitative change assessment, can be implemented through various methodologies suited to identifying change indicators.

It is therefore safe to describe the model as “open source,” allowing for customization and refinement to meet the specific challenges and objectives of different organizations and territories.