This guide remains an operational backbone for any actor who needs to build a shared territorial diagnosis, manage a multi-actor action plan, or assess access to rights for vulnerable groups — all requirements that public funders now systematically impose. The inequalities it documents (housing, health, employment, education, vulnerable groups) have worsened since 2005, and its question grids by area of life remain directly usable without major adaptation. The limitation it identified as early as 2004 — the absence of the people concerned in the co-construction of indicators — is precisely the central issue of citizen participation policies and "outreach" approaches today.
Source: 📒 Concerted development of social cohesion indicators - Methodological guide
📜🔗LINK
Number of pages: 226
1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
Context and issues: social cohesion as a shared political project
Published in 2005 as part of the revised Social Cohesion Strategy of the Council of Europe (approved on 31 March 2004), this guide is aimed at public, private, and associative actors in any territory wishing to measure and enhance the well-being of their members. It starts from a demanding reference definition: social cohesion is "the capacity of a society to sustainably ensure the well-being of all its members, including equitable access to available resources, respect for dignity in diversity, personal and collective autonomy, and responsible participation." It addresses the structural difficulty of measuring a qualitative concept in rapidly changing societies — globalisation, migration, poverty, institutional crises — and is directed at a very diverse audience: national decision-makers, regional statisticians, local coordinators of inclusion plans.
Operational contributions: a framework for four levels of analysis and concerted action
The guide proposes a methodological architecture with four levels of evaluation — general trends, overall social cohesion, analysis by life domain (employment, health, housing, education, culture, etc.), analysis by vulnerable groups (migrants, women, the elderly, children, people with disabilities, minorities) — each accompanied by structured questions and indicators. It values the collaborative construction of indicators among local actors rather than their top-down imposition, and proposes a five-step methodology to arrive at a shared action plan with a distribution of responsibilities. Application tests were conducted between June 2003 and June 2004 in Strasbourg, in the Walloon region, in Portugal, in France, in the Czech Republic, and in Bulgaria.
2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT
1. A definition of social cohesion rooted in human rights and democracy (p. 23-27)The Council of Europe distinguishes its reference definition from communitarian or purely economic approaches. It articulates four dimensions of well-being: equity in access to rights, dignity and recognition of diversity, autonomy/personal development, participation and engagement. This definition is rooted in the tradition of human rights (European Convention on Human Rights 1950, European Social Charter 1961) and opposes approaches based solely on community belonging or the sharing of homogeneous values, which risk excluding the plurality inherent in modern societies.
2. A methodological architecture with four nested levels of analysis (p. 68-75 and p. 107-109)The guide proposes a logical progression: level 1 — assessment of general trends (approximately 20 synthetic indicators); level 2 — assessment of public action as a whole according to the four dimensions of well-being; level 3 — detailed analysis by area of life (employment, income, housing, health, nutrition, education, information/communication, culture); level 4 — targeted analysis of six vulnerable groups (minorities, migrants, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, women). Each level is operational: questions structured according to four sub-levels (existence, effectiveness, sensitive situations, sustainability) and corresponding indicators.
3. A system of concerted construction of indicators, not imposed (p. 203-204)One of the most valued contributions in the application tests is the freedom given to local actors in the choice and development of indicators. The guide functions as a pedagogical tool: it provides examples of indicators for each question but allows the actors to adapt them to their context. The tests showed that it was possible to identify around twenty common indicators across countries while preserving local specificities. This approach facilitates the ownership and legitimacy of the results.
4. Explicit quality criteria for questions, indicators, and data (p. 87-89)The guide formalises 13 quality criteria divided into four perspectives: relevance to the objective, intrinsic contribution, ease of use, and cost of acquisition. For the indicators: representativeness, unambiguous nature, clear and accepted normative interpretation, and not excessive cost. For the data: reliability, significance, non-manipulation, comparability, availability, and regularity. These criteria, articulated in a summary diagram (diagram 10, p. 88), constitute a quality assessment tool applicable to any local indicator system.
5. Initial lessons from real tests in six territories (p. 199-204)Between June 2003 and June 2004, the guide was tested in Strasbourg (Oscar system, 'Elderly People' sheet), in the Walloon region (level 2, Pan Inclusion indicators), in Portugal (level 1, Economic and Social Committee), in France (level 1, INSEE Alsace), in the Czech Republic and in Bulgaria (ad hoc multi-actor groups). The tests validated the relevance of the conceptual framework, identified limitations (difficulties in finding indicators for the basic components of life; lack of direct participation from the people concerned) and highlighted a recurring dilemma between local choice freedom and comparability between territories.
3. ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS
1. Use the framework of four successive questions to structure a territorial diagnosis (pp. 90-96)For each area of life or priority vulnerable group in the territory, apply the four-question framework: are the conditions met (existence)? Do these conditions effectively translate into well-being (effectiveness)? What is the situation of the most vulnerable people (sensitive situations)? What are the risks of degradation (sustainability)? This framework is directly transferable to diagnostics regarding access to care, housing, or digital inclusion.
2. Establish a multi-actor group to co-construct local indicators (pp. 199-204)Drawing inspiration from the model tested in Strasbourg (Oscar system): bringing together representatives from municipal services, the state at the local level, associations and NGOs, service companies, and — a point of caution identified in the tests — directly integrating representatives of the affected populations (unemployed individuals for employment indicators, elderly people for their profile, etc.). This enriches the indicators on the basic components of life, a dimension often under-documented.
3. Apply indicator tables by vulnerable group to guide specific action plans (p. 163-194)The guide proposes operational indicator tables for six vulnerable groups. For each group, four types of actions are distinguished: foundational (legal provisions), regulatory (regulations and support), reparative (compensation for deficits), and facilitative (spaces for dialogue and access). These typologies allow for the quick identification of gaps in the existing local system and guide budgetary priorities.
4. Conduct the evaluation in five steps to arrive at a concerted action plan (p. 204)Step 1: concerted choice of indicators on the priority dimensions of well-being. Step 2: verification of the existence of data or definition of complementary surveys (valuing existing data from NGOs and unions). Step 3: mapping of 'who does what' by actor. Step 4: identification of gaps between actions taken and situations observed. Step 5: development of an action plan with explicit distribution of responsibilities among actors.
5. Integrate the dimension of temporal comparison to identify trends (p. 84-86)The first level of evaluation (general trends) requires data to be collected at two different points in time. This allows for the prioritisation of action: deteriorating indicators call for immediate concerted action; improving indicators may justify maintaining existing measures without new investments. This level functions as a territorial alert system and can inform the diagnostics of local health plans or city contracts.
4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the topic of inequalities ➡️🔗https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/2-1-inegalies-sociales-territoriales
5. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES
Literacy:The document is designed for expert use (decision-makers, statisticians, planners); it does not provide tools suitable for varying levels of understanding nor a simplified version, and assumes prior mastery of social policy and statistical concepts.
Empowerment:The guide explicitly acknowledges the limitation of its tests — the absence of direct participation from the individuals concerned in the choice of indicators — and identifies this participation as a priority research area to be further explored (pp. 202-208).
Participation:The co-construction of indicators among multi-sectoral actors is at the heart of the approach; the model tested in Strasbourg (Oscar system) serves as a concrete example of an institutionalised participatory mechanism (pp. 199-200).
Community health:The domain of 'Health and social coverage' is one of the eight areas of life analysed at level 3, with indicators concerning access to care, health inequalities, and vulnerable groups; the collective dimension is integrated through the analysis of public policies and associative actors (p. 136-141).
Ethics:The guide identifies potential biases related to the use of standardised indicators that are unsuitable for certain national contexts (transition countries vs. Western countries) and warns against the top-down imposition of indicators that would undermine the democratic legitimacy of the process (p. 203-204).
Human rights:The entire framework is explicitly based on human rights as defined by the European Convention (1950) and the European Social Charter (1961); equity in access to fundamental rights is the first of the four constitutive dimensions of well-being (p. 15-16, 23).
Intersectorality:The guide covers eight areas of life (employment, income, housing, health, nutrition, education, information, culture) and recommends the involvement of the state, local authorities, businesses, and NGOs in the four types of actions (foundational, regulatory, reparative, facilitative).
Partnership:Formalised models of multi-actor collaboration are described for each territorial test; the distribution of responsibilities among actors constitutes the final step of the methodology for developing a concerted action plan (p. 204).
Combating discrimination:Vulnerable groups are the subject of a dedicated level of analysis (level 4); non-discrimination and dignity in diversity are two of the four constitutive dimensions of well-being; the indicators explicitly cover the situations of minorities, migrants, women, disabled people, and children (pp. 163-194).
6. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE
Scientific relevance:The guide is based on a solid bibliography (Durkheim, Rawls, Habermas, Dahrendorf, Eurostat sources, European Commission, academic works — University of Paris XIII, New Policy Institute in London, ZUMA in Mannheim). The methodology is rigorous: it explicitly articulates reference definitions, levels of analysis, quality criteria for indicators, and subjects the whole to real application tests in six territories and countries. Notable limitation: published in 2005, it does not take into account subsequent methodological developments (OECD well-being indicators post-2011, European framework for National Reform Plans, SDG indicators post-2015).
Operational relevance:The guide is directly usable to structure a concerted territorial diagnostic approach; the tables of questions and indicators by area of life and by vulnerable group are ready to use as a working basis. Its main operational limitation is its level of technicality: it requires management by individuals who master the basics of social statistics and the conduct of participatory processes. It is not designed as a standalone tool for volunteers without methodological support.
7. MCQ — 5 QUESTIONS
PART 1 — Presentation (without answers)
Question 1:According to the reference definition proposed by the Council of Europe in this guide, social cohesion is defined as: a) The ability of a community to share the same values and cultural traditions b) The ability of a society to sustainably ensure the well-being of all its members, including equitable access, dignity, autonomy, and participation c) The absence of social conflicts thanks to effective employment policies d) The level of interpersonal trust measured by regular opinion surveys
Question 2:Among the six vulnerable groups subject to a specific level of analysis in the guide (level 4), which one is NOT mentioned? a) People belonging to minorities b) Migrants c) Homeless people d) Women
Question 3:During the application tests between 2003 and 2004, which existing framework in Strasbourg served as the basis for applying the guide on the 'Elderly People' sheet? a) The local public health plan of the urban community of Strasbourg b) The Oscar system (Concerted social observation for renewed action) c) The regional network of social observatories of Alsace d) The economic and social committee of the Alsace region
Question 4:According to the guide, what are the four types of public actions used to analyse social cohesion as a whole (level 2)? a) Preventive, curative, palliative, and promotional b) Legislative, regulatory, budgetary, and communicative c) Foundational, regulatory, reparative, and facilitative d) National, regional, local, and associative
Question 5:Among the quality criteria for the indicators identified in the guide, which one concerns the user's perspective? a) The reliability of the data b) The not excessively costly nature c) The clear and accepted normative interpretation d) The representativeness in relation to the question posed
PART 2 — Commented correction
Question 1 :✅ Correct answer: b) The ability of a society to sustainably ensure the well-being of all its members, including equitable access, dignity, autonomy, and participation 📝 Explanation: This definition is taken from the revised Social Cohesion Strategy of the Council of Europe (approved on 31 March 2004). It articulates four constitutive dimensions of citizen well-being. The guide emphasises that this definition differs from approaches based on community belonging or the sharing of homogeneous values, which risk excluding the plurality of modern societies. — Source: p. 23
Question 2 :✅ Correct answer: c) People without a fixed abode 📝 Explanation: Level 4 of the guide covers six vulnerable groups: people belonging to minorities, migrants, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and women. People without a fixed abode do not constitute a distinct vulnerable group in the structure of the guide, even though they are occasionally mentioned in some indicators (for example, regarding the difficulties of comparing data on homelessness between countries). — Source: p. 163-194 and p. 203
Question 3 :✅ Correct answer: b) The Oscar system (Concerted social observation for renewed action) 📝 Explanation: The guide describes the Oscar system as a pre-existing mechanism in the urban community of Strasbourg, articulating the construction of shared knowledge among territorial actors and an action plan. The application of the guide on the 'Elderly People' sheet mobilised municipal services, state social services, associations and NGOs, reception centres, and service companies. — Source: p. 199-200
Question 4:✅ Correct answer: c) Foundational, regulatory, reparative, and facilitative 📝 Explanation: These four types of public actions structure the analysis at level 2 and are detailed in all the tables of levels 3 and 4. Foundational actions concern legal provisions and normative frameworks; regulatory actions, support and control systems; reparative actions, compensation for welfare deficits; facilitative actions, spaces for dialogue and access. — Source: p. 91-92 and tables of life domains
Question 5:✅ Correct answer: c) Clear and accepted normative interpretation 📝 Explanation: The guide distinguishes four viewpoints for assessing the quality of indicators: adequacy to the objective (representativeness), intrinsic contribution (unambiguous nature), user perspective (clear and accepted normative interpretation), and cost of obtaining (not excessively expensive). Reliability concerns the data, not the indicators; representativeness concerns adequacy to the objective. — Source: p. 87-89
8. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
1. Why did the Council of Europe develop this guide in 2005?The guide addresses the methodological need inherent in the revised Social Cohesion Strategy, approved by the Committee of Ministers on 31 March 2004. It follows the 2nd Summit of Heads of State in Strasbourg (1997), which made social cohesion "one of the priority needs for an enlarged Europe." The aim was to provide member states with a common operational reference framework to measure, monitor, and evaluate social cohesion, regardless of the territorial scale. — Source: p. 13-18
2. Which professionals is this guide specifically aimed at?The guide targets a broad but demanding audience: decision-makers in social policy (ministries, local authorities), statisticians (territorial observation services, INSEE, Eurostat), action plan coordinators (city contracts, local health plans, Pan Inclusion), association and union leaders involved in social governance, as well as the thematic operational services of the Council of Europe (children, disability, migration, culture). It assumes a capacity to conduct multi-actor participatory processes. — Source: p. 17-18
3. How does the guide distinguish the four levels of evaluation of social cohesion?Level 1: evaluation of general trends through around twenty significant indicators — alert function. Level 2: evaluation of society's capacity to ensure well-being according to the four dimensions (equity, dignity, autonomy, participation) — strategic function. Level 3: detailed analysis by area of life (employment, health, housing, education, etc.) — operational function by sector. Level 4: analysis by vulnerable groups — targeted operational function. Levels 3 and 4 allow for the development of a concerted action plan. — Source: p. 68-75
4. What is meant by "basic components of life" in this guide, and why are they difficult to measure?The basic components of life refer to the socio-psychological elements that underpin social ties: trust, social connections, shared values, knowledge, feelings of belonging and security. They constitute the third component of the social cohesion analysis framework, alongside well-being situations and public actions. Application tests have shown that it is generally difficult to find relevant indicators for these components, particularly because the individuals directly concerned rarely participate in collaborative analysis exercises. — Source: p. 56-57, p. 202
5. How can we prevent indicators from becoming unfair comparison tools between different territories?The guide clearly acknowledges this tension: imposing common indicators would be contrary to the goal of local ownership, but too much freedom undermines comparability. The proposed solution is educational — the examples of indicators serve as inspiration, not obligation — and tests have shown that it is possible to identify around twenty common indicators across countries while preserving specificities. Comparisons should focus more on the trends in statistical series than on absolute figures. — Source: p. 203-204
6. What indicators does the guide specifically propose for the health sector?The area of "Health and social coverage" (level 3) is analysed according to the four dimensions of well-being and the four types of public actions. The indicators cover: equitable access to care (social coverage rates, access to care for disadvantaged groups), dignity in care (consideration of the cultural specificities of minorities), patient autonomy (access to medical information, preventive medicine) and participation in health policies (health democracy, patient associations). Specific indicators for people with disabilities, the elderly, and migrants are developed at level 4. — Source: p. 136-141
7. What were the main limitations identified during the application tests of the guide?Four main limitations were identified: (1) difficulty in finding relevant indicators for the basic components of life (trust, social ties, values); (2) lack of direct participation of the concerned individuals in the choice of indicators — representatives of unemployed people, patients, students, and the elderly were rarely involved; (3) unresolved tension between local choice freedom and comparability between territories; (4) no tests were conducted up to the complete development of an action plan and its follow-up/evaluation — the knowledge-action-evaluation cycle remained incomplete. — Source: p. 202-204
9. REWRITING IN EASY LANGUAGE
What is this guide?
This guide was written by the Council of Europe in 2005. The Council of Europe is an international organisation. It works for the rights of people and democracy.
This guide is called:Concerted development of social cohesion indicators.
What is social cohesion?
Social cohesion is when a society takes care of all its people. It ensures that everyone can access their rights. It respects the dignity of each person. It allows everyone to develop and participate.
What is the purpose of this guide?
This guide helps professionals measure social cohesion. It also helps to act together to improve it.
How does it work?
The guide proposes 4 steps to analyse social cohesion in a territory:
- Step 1: Look at the major trends.
- Step 2: Evaluate what public authorities are doing.
- Step 3: Analyse specific areas. For example: employment, health, housing.
- Step 4: Focus on the most vulnerable people. For example: the elderly, disabled people, migrants.
Important points to remember
- Indicators are numbers or information that allow us to measure a situation.
- In this guide, the indicators are chosen together by several stakeholders.
- The same indicators should not be imposed on everyone.
- Each territory can choose the indicators that suit it.
- The ultimate goal is to build an action plan with shared responsibilities.
What this guide concretely provides
It provides specific questions for each area of life. It proposes indicators for each of these questions. It has been tested in several countries: France, Portugal, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic.
What remains to be improved
The people directly concerned do not participate enough in the analyses. For example: the unemployed for the indicators on employment. Or the elderly for the indicators on ageing.