merely summarize the data furnished by the projects. The third module, however, requires a separate study in the form of a regional survey based on the qualitative change assessment protocol methodology.

PROCEDURE FOR FORMULATING THE PROJECT ASSESSMENT MODEL

1. Any applicants seeking financial support from the Fund must assess their project against 11 criteria outlined in the Unique Assessment Profile (UAP). Each criterion is rated on a 1–5 scale, with 1 representing the lowest expression and 5 the highest. The application includes comprehensive descriptions for each criterion. For instance, the criterion “Development of the Region’s Human Resource Potential” is described as follows:

• Very low manifestation (1): The project does not incorporate measures to enhance professionalism and retain human resources in the region.

• Low manifestation (2): The project includes limited measures, which are not central to personnel retention.

• Medium manifestation (3): The project incorporates some measures for professional development and retention, but there is room for improvement.

• High manifestation (4): The project incorporates significant measures for retaining human resources in the region.

• Very high manifestation (5): The project presents a comprehensive strategy aimed at increasing personnel professionalism and retention, effectively addressing the issue of migration.

2. Once the application is approved, an evaluation model is created based on the ratings given to the individual profile criteria during the application. This model includes an assessment against the universal criteria (1 to 7) for all the projects that have declared the presence of the respective area of impact, with scores 3 to 5 for the respective criteria. For the additional UAP criteria (8 to 11), recommendations are provided only for low scores (1 and 2) to develop necessary modules like evidence base, monitoring system, etc., to be incorporated in the project outcomes.

Our Norilsk Fund is a model organization, prioritizing institutional support for projects driving territorial development. This quality was one of the factors in formulating the assessment model.

3. Throughout the project, the team collects data based on the declared UAP criteria (model component 1) and the developed social impact indicators (model component 2).

4. The Fund aggregates project data from all projects for subsequent use in the overall assessment of their impact and effectiveness.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROJECTS (UNIQUE ASSESSMENT PROFILE, UAP)

Based on the analysis of projects supported by Our Norilsk Fund and other sources, such as publications and regional development project assessment experience, the following universal criteria for project assessment have been identified:

1. Development and Retention of Human Resources in the Territory

This criterion measures the project’s effectiveness in enhancing professional opportunities for both the project team and its target audience, thereby aiming to reduce staff turnover rates. Considering the significant migration issues in Norilsk and Taimyr and the high propensity of people to leave the region, this metric is deemed universal for all projects. Projects with a specific focus on retaining human resources in the region are likely to score higher on this scale. Evaluating this aspect in projects requires an analysis of staff turnover dynamics within participating organizations, taking into account dismissals related to ‘professional burnout.’

The evaluation model comprises two primary components: developing a Unique Assessment Profile and project assessment via social impact indicators. Additionally, an algorithm for conducting an overall assessment of all projects has been formulated.

Typical indicators for assessment:

• Employee Turnover Rate: Calculated as the number of employees who left the company during a period divided by the average number of employees in that period, multiplied by 100 %.

• Attrition: The number of employees resigning during the period due to issues the project aims to address.

• Absolute Reduction in Staff Attrition: The difference in attrition rates before and during the project.

• Monetization of Personnel Retention: The decrease in attrition (from before the project to during the project) multiplied by the hiring cost per employee in the region.

Periods subject to evaluation: The assessment covers three phases: the project implementation period, a comparable period before the project start, and a similar duration following the project’s completion. Indicators should demonstrate a decline in staff turnover during and after the project period.

2. Developing a New Standard for Consuming Social and Cultural Services

This criterion measures how much the project contributes to either introducing new or enhancing the quality of existing social and cultural services. Essentially, it determines whether the project leads to the creation of new products or services or the transformation of existing ones.

To evaluate the establishment of a new consumption standard for social and cultural services, it is essential to analyze the changes in revenue and income before, during, and after the project. This assessment would typically involve examining comparable financial data, such as ticket sales for events or information on the variety and pricing of provided social services. This analysis helps gauge the effectiveness of the new standard and its impact on the organization’s financial metrics.

Key indicators for evaluation:

• Average Revenue (RUB/month): calculated for the project implementation period, a comparable period before the project start, and a similar duration following the project’s completion.

• Average Net Income (RUB/month): Similar to revenue, the average net income is calculated for the project implementation period and comparable periods before and after the project implementation.

The average indicators can be followed up after the project is completed, to monitor residual changes over extended periods of time:

• Average Income Growth: (Average Income During Project / Average Income Before Project — 1) × 100 %

• Average Net Income Growth: (Average Net Income During Project / Average Net Income Before Project — 1) × 100 %

3. Replication to Secondary Audiences

This criterion reflects the project’s capacity to disseminate its outcomes to secondary audiences, which are not directly involved in the project’s core activities. Secondary audiences are those who benefit from the project’s results without significant additional investment or with comparatively lower investment than the primary audience.

This type of changes is assessed over two indicators. The first one is expressed as an estimate of the cost of training the secondary audience, compared to that of the