• How are the scores on the heat maps calculated?

    The heat map scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates that an indicator is not observed at all while 10 indicates that the indicator is observed strongly and prevalently. The scores are measured with multiple questionnaire items, robustly designed in line with global best practices and then calibrated to the eastern Ukraine context.
  • Can I compare USE scores over time?

    The majority of the indicators are the same for 2017 and 2018, and they can be compared to detect trends and developments. However, following the 2018 consultations with stakeholders and revisions of the 2017 results, some indicators have been added, others removed, and some modified to better reflect the reality on the ground. The indicators that are not directly comparable over time are highlighted with an asterisk (*) in the indicator drop-down menu on the website.
  • What is the difference between outcomes and indicators?

    Outcomes are desired end results for achieving social cohesion. There are four outcomes in the USE 2018 wave: readiness for dialogue, tolerant and active citizenship, mitigating violent tendencies, and mitigating negative migration trends. Each of these outcomes are made up by a number of indicators/questionnaire items.
  • How were the USE indicators selected?

    USE is based on participatory research principles that emphasize inclusive stakeholder consultations in the design and data interpretation phases. While there is a SCORE repository of global indicators, each context requires extensive consultations with local, regional and national stakeholders during the design process. These consultations result in a conceptual model that maps out salient issues and hypotheses. The conceptual model is then translated into indicators, which are then validated with evidence and various statistical analysis tools to understand the relationships between them (e.g., path analysis).
  • What can USE results be used for?

    Combining the USE heat maps with the demographic breakdowns and the path analysis provides a detailed understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the different aspects of social cohesion in different locations and within different groups. This provides an evidence-based starting point for designing social cohesion interventions in eastern Ukraine.