Council of Europe’s Guide to Developing Well-Being / Progress Indicators with Citizens – Application of the Governance Module in Timisoara (Romania)

The well-being indicators aim to foster, among those concerned in a particular area or institution, shared responsibility for the well-being of all and ensure that the parties concerned actually take part in fulfilling this responsibility.

Data (both subjective and objective information) are collected through statistical records, studies, activity reports, well-informed persons and citizens’ surveys.

The Indicators were elaborated and measured through a five-stage process, involving about 250 citizens. In the first stage, different citizens’ categories were organised in small, homogeneous groups of eight to ten people. These groups were invited to consider well-being issues individually (by writing “post it” notes) and then  collectively (taking stock of their thoughts together) in light of three simple and completely open questions:

1) What do you understand as “well-being” in Timisoara?
2) What you understand as “ill-being” in Timisoara?
3) What do you do to ensure your own well-being in Timisoara?
 

This generated almost 300 highly varied criteria for well-being. In the second phase, these criteria were pooled and organised according to the main facets of well-being, so as to produce a consolidated, inclusive set of 31 indicators organised along 7 principal dimensions.

Each indicator of progress/well-being can be evaluated on the basis of a 5-point scoring scale expressing the existent situation with respect to each indicator: from 0 = very bad situation to 5 = ideal situation.

In the case of the application in Timisoara, a specific women group was formed to evaluate all indicators.
 

In terms of a poverty focus, a specific Roma group was formed to evaluate all indicators. Furthermore, some indicators take into account the level of family revenues such as the indicator on the purchasing power (access to essential resources dimension).

Indicators chosen for the dimension on governance:

1. institutional relations with citizens
2. non-discrimination in rights
3. rule of law
4. social services
5. civic dialogue and public consultation in decision-making process
6. Table 24: Scoring scale for the indicator on “Institutional relations with citizens”

Scoring scale for the indicator on “Institutional relations with citizens”

0 – nothing Absence of communication between public authorities and citizens as well as absence of aid efficiency, corruption and favouritism
1- Very bad situation Information on public services superficial and/or wrong, disinterest from public authorities towards citizens, absence of aid efficiency, corruption and favouritism, high local taxes
2 – Bad situation Information on public services superficial and/or wrong, disinterest from public authorities towards citizens, lack of public consultations, bureaucracy and long waiting-time for aids, corruption, favouritism, reduced capacities of public officers, high local taxes
3 – Average situation Correct and complete information but lack of transparency for decisions, disinterest, formal organisation of public consultations, long waiting-time for aids, equal access for everybody, reduced capacities of public officers, high local taxes
4 – Good situation Information with transparency for decisions, public authorities open to citizens, organisation of public consultations with support for citizen participation, bureaucratic simplification, equal access for everybody, good capacities of public officers, reasonable local taxes
5 – Ideal situation Information with transparency for decisions, citizens’ opinions are taken into account. Public authorities interested and proactive for citizens participation, bureaucratic simplification, on-line services, equal access for everybody, good capacities of public officers, reasonable local taxes