The Transparent Cities program is about to launch a new transparency ranking of Ukraine's 100 largest cities.
We have reviewed our assessment methodology and made alterations to it.
What exactly was changed and how will it affect cities? Read on:
1. Transparency measurement methodology is complemented by a new sector.
To the 13 spheres of city transparency we have added another one: Investment and Economic Development. Previously, based on 17 indicators of the investment sphere, we have formed a separate ranking of cities. However, often the Investment Transparency Ranking of cities remained in the shadow of the main Ranking and cities neglected a less renowned investment ranking in favor of 13 other sectors. To iron out misunderstanding, we have decided to combine these two rankings. Henceforth, city rank in the Ranking will be influenced by up to 14 spheres.
2. Significance of some indicators changed.
Although most methodology indicators equal 1 point, implementing some of the recommendations from our methodology requires much more efforts: for example, the adoption of a legal act, consultation with numerous stakeholders, developing our own technological solutions, special skills, time or financial resources. To take this into account, we have developed specific criteria for assessing the complexity of the indicators and have carefully reviewed the methodology to determine the significance of each indicator. For example, as a result, the publication of draft decisions of the council for 20 working days prior to the date of their consideration at the plenary meeting is not a complex indicator, and therefore for its implementation the city council may receive not 2 (as in 2018) but only 1 point. Instead, developing a master plan, detailed site plans or estimating a city's credit rating requires not only significant financial costs but also time and special skills. That is why we increased the significance of these indicators to 2 points.
3. Duplicate or irrelevant indicators are excluded.
Throughout the year, we have been carefully collecting feedbacks from city councils and activists on out of date indicators.
Therefore, we decided to refuse from the mayor biography estimation on city council websites, information about the methods and criteria for housing distribution, the resolution of the conflict of interest of the executive committee members in a separate legal act, the promulgation of information about the target audience and vacancies in every other social institution.
4. In addition, to provide more clarity and understanding we updated the indicators articulation and brought the terminology in line with the legislation.
The updated assessment format will allow us to be clearer and more objective.