primary audience. It is characteristic of projects aimed at disseminating knowledge and skills to specific professional groups. The second indicator is a cost-benefit analysis between the original project and its subsequent extension. This parameter applies to projects that create and replicate new social models.

A set of indicators for assessment:

• Numerical coverage of the secondary audience (number of people who received new knowledge / skills from the project participants).

• Cost of training per participant in the primary (secondary) audience: equals the total cost of training activities divided by the number of people trained. The formula is based on a comparable volume of training for the primary and secondary audience. Both the company’s own funds and grant funds are factored in.

The cost of training per participant must be lower in the secondary audience than the cost of training for the primary audience.

• Absolute difference in the cost of training per participant: cost per primary participant less cost per secondary participant.

Relative difference in training = (Cost per primary audience member / Cost per secondary audience member — 1) × 100 %.

• Economic benefit of replication = absolute difference in cost of training per participant × number of secondary audience participants.

This is an “open source” model, allowing for customization and refinement to meet the specific challenges and objectives.

• Number of confirmed replications of the project models in other organizations.

• Subject to data availability, the assessment should also include third-party replications of the model created under the grant project. This includes monetization of personnel retention, changes in earnings, profits, and economic benefit from translating the training to tertiary audience, based on the figures published or obtained during consultations. The total third-party effects are considered part of the economic benefit of the original project.

4. Financial Sustainability of the Project (Sustainability of Project Results)

This criterion evaluates a project’s ability to continue its operations and maintain the results even after the financial support from the Fund is cut off.

In order to assess financial sustainability of a project, the dynamics of service provision at the end of project financing need to be analyzed. The following indicators need to be considered for this purpose:

1. Number of services provided.

2. Revenue from services provided.

Periods subject to evaluation:

• The project implementation period.

• A comparable period before the project commencement.

• A similar period following the project’s completion.

• To assess financial strength, we can calculate the sustainability ratio using the following formula:

• Sustainability ratio = amount of revenue from services provided after the end of the project / amount of revenue from services provided during the project.

Any ratio above 0.8 is considered sustainable. It implies that the project maintains a level of service revenue post-completion close to that achieved during its active phase.

5. Increasing the Share of Own Contributions in Subsequent Projects

This aspect reflects the extent to which an organization’s own funding increases in future projects, thereby demonstrating the project’s contribution to creating a socio-economic foundation that reduces future dependence on external financial support.

Primary function of this model is to provide an opportunity to consider the changes being made from various perspectives.

Dynamics of the organization’s own funding in each subsequent project are assessed using the following formula:

• Own contribution share growth = contribution share of new project / contribution share of previous project — 1) × 100 %

In case of a singular project, establishing an organization’s own development fund is advisable. All forms of contribution need to be factored in (premises, equipment, other in-kind resources) in cash equivalent.

6. Increase/Decrease in Statistics on the Problem Being Addressed at the Territory Level

This criterion reflects the extent to which the project aims to bring about changes that are reflected in the existing municipal statistics of Norilsk and Dudinka.

To evaluate the increase or decrease in statistics concerning the problem at the regional level, an analysis of the dynamics of municipal statistics is necessary, focusing on the selected indicators the project attempts to impact. The changes can be assessed by comparing the baseline and final values of the chosen indicators. If the indicators are increasing, the growth can be monetized by using the economic benefit assessment method, which takes into account additional revenue or decreased costs resulting from improved statistics.

Indicators assessed at the territory level and relevant to the scope of project implementation to date include those for which several years’ worth of data is[134]. These figures can be used to compare and assess the changes in various indicators, the degree to which those indicators were impacted by the projects, etc., namely:

• the number of students attending additional education institutions;

• the count of children in orphanages;

• the seating capacity of cultural and leisure centers;

• the number of attendees at cultural and leisure events;

• the count of movie screenings/viewers;

• the number of library visitors;

• the frequency of visits to museums and other similar institutions;

• the enrollment numbers in municipal sports establishments;

• the student count in children’s sports schools;

• the number of visitors to special interest clubs.

If a project claims to rank high on this criterion’s scale, the following data will be needed for assessment:

• The specific indicator targeted by the project for which statistics are published;

• Indicators before, during, and after the project implementation.

These dynamics must reflect the project’s focus — reducing negative indicators and enhancing positive ones.

7. Territorial Coherence

This criterion reflects how well the project is tailored to address the specific issues of high relevance to the territory.

Evaluating territorial coherence requires analyzing the reach of the audience that gained access to the social technology aimed at solving relevant problems of the area.

The assessment can utilize quantitative analysis of projects that address issues whose significance for the territory is affirmed by external sources, such as those mentioned in the region’s Quality of Life Index and other similar indices. For instance, “N% of successfully completed grant projects were directed at resolving issues confirmed to be of high relevance for the region.”

The following set of criteria,