The Transparent Cities program is about to launch a new round of assessing the transparency of Ukraine’s 100 largest cities.

We have reviewed and updated our assessment methodology.

So, what exactly has changed and how will it affect the cities? Here’s what’s new:

1. A new area added to the transparency measurement methodology
   Until now, we assessed transparency across 13 areas. We have now added a 14th area — Investment and Economic Development.
   Previously, we used 17 investment-related indicators to compile a separate ranking — the Investment Transparency Ranking. However, this ranking often remained overshadowed by the main City Transparency Ranking, and cities tended to focus on the 13 original areas, neglecting the less visible investment component. To address this, we have merged the two rankings. From now on, a city’s overall score will reflect performance across all 14 areas.

2. Adjusted weighting of certain indicators
   While most indicators in our methodology are still scored at 1 point, implementing some recommendations requires much more effort — such as adopting regulatory acts, holding broad stakeholder consultations, developing custom tech solutions, or investing time, skills, or funding.
   To reflect this, we introduced a new set of complexity criteria and carefully reviewed the methodology to assign weights accordingly.
   For example, publishing draft council decisions 20 working days before a plenary session is not considered a complex task — it now earns 1 point instead of 2 (as in 2018).
   In contrast, developing a general plan, detailed spatial plans, or obtaining a credit rating involves more time, money, and expertise — so we increased their weight to 2 points.

3. Outdated or redundant indicators removed
   Over the past year, we collected feedback from city councils and civic activists about indicators that are no longer relevant in practice.
   As a result, we’ve removed items such as:
   – publication of the mayor’s biography on the city website,
   – information on housing allocation procedures and criteria,
   – regulating conflict-of-interest issues for executive committee members via separate legal acts,
   – publication of target audiences and job vacancies for each social protection institution, and more.

4. Clearer wording and legal alignment
   We revised the wording of several indicators to make them more precise and easier to understand, and we updated terminology to match current Ukrainian legislation.
   This improved format will help us ensure greater clarity and objectivity in the upcoming assessment.