Total = 41 possible points.
A1 (1) + A2 (8) + A3 (1) = 10
A1. Service Spending Per Capita (1)
The following service spending is taken into account:
The service spending is calculated the latest audited financial statement. If a recent audited financial statement (as of April 30, 2024) is not available, the most recent budget is used.
Score | Description |
0 | Total spending is below national average or all the numbers necessary to calculate the service spending aren’t available. |
0.5 | n/a |
1 | Total spending is above national average. |
A2. Essential Services (8)
Score | Description |
0 | Absence of an essential service. |
0.5 | Provides basic support through documented partnerships with service providers, with clear referral processes and student access information. |
1 | Student union manages a service or funds an external option. |
Essential services
Health aid (1)
Score | Description |
0 | No healthcare and dental plan or psychological support services offered. |
0.5 | Refers students to external resources, or offers minimal support via partners. |
1 | Student union manages or promotes a health plan (e.g., insurance or coverage), with student-facing info easily available. |
Financial aid (1)
Score | Description |
0 | No bursaries, grants, or emergency funding available. |
0.5 | Some funding programs exist but limited, irregular, or poorly publicized. |
1 | Offers structured financial aid (e.g., needs-based bursaries, emergency funds) with clear eligibility and access info. |
Academic aid (1)
Score | Description |
0 | No tutoring or academic support services provided. |
0.5 | Peer support or academic help offered informally or by referral; access to offline or virtual academic services provided by the union. |
1 | Clear tutoring/peer academic support program available and promoted. |
Legal and/or mediation aid (1)
Score | Description |
0 | No legal aid or conflict mediation offered. |
0.5 | Referral to external services only or limited access. |
1 | Legal aid or mediation service offered directly (e.g., housing, academic appeals) or via dedicated partnership. |
Food aid (1)
Score | Description |
0 | No food support or aid initiatives available |
0.5 | Occasional food events or informal support, but no structured program |
1 | Food bank, voucher program, or permanent aid solution (e.g., subsidized meals) managed by a student union is in place and is easily accessible to students |
Counseling aid (1)
Score | Description |
0 | No counseling related to student life offered. |
0.5 | General advising or referrals offered; limited clarity or scope. |
1 | Provides accessible counseling sessions (academic, personal, or career) that are clearly promoted to students. |
Transportation Aid (1)
Score | Description |
0 | No transportation-related service offered. |
0.5 | Discounted transit available without student union’s funding or supervision. Other transportation services are available on campus, like assistance with walking or bikes. |
1 | Union manages or advocates for discounted/free transit pass clearly integrated into student services; there are other transportation services available, like bike rental/repair; assistance with walking on campus. |
Social & Entertainment Facilities (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There is no student union-run social and/or entertainment facilities on campus. |
0.5 | There is evidence that social and/or entertainment facilities used to exist, but there aren’t any in the present. |
1 | Student union owns, leases, or has dedicated access to spaces used primarily for student social activities (e.g., lounges, pubs, event spaces). |
A3. All other services (1)
Score | Description |
1 | At least one additional documented service beyond the eight essential services listed in A2, with evidence of regular student usage. |
B1 (4) + B2 (5) + B3 (8) + B4 (5) + B5 (3) = 25
B1. Is the union's governance structure clear and transparent? (4)
Clearly outlined governance structure (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The governance structure is not clear based on the student union’s website pages. |
0.5 | The different parts of the governance structure are explained, but it’s not clear how they are related to each other. |
1 | The governance structure is clearly outlined and explained using plain language, with visual aids such as infographics or flowcharts. |
Defined authority and accountability at each governance level (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The Constitution and Bylaws do not specify areas of authority and accountability of the student union’s governance levels |
0.5 | The Constitution and Bylaws define the areas of authority and accountability of the student union’s governance levels, but with errors and lack of clarity |
1 | The authority and accountability at each governance level are clearly defined with no confusion, and are well-balanced without a substantial risk of exploits by a particular governing branch and/or faction. |
Transparent removal and succession procedures (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The governing documents do not specify removal and succession procedures of the elected student leaders |
0.5 | The governing documents specify removal and succession procedures of the elected student leaders, but these procedures are not sufficient or convoluted to a point the actual removal is difficult to achieve |
1 | The governing documents clearly specify removal and succession procedures of the elected student leaders, and such procedures can be implemented without unnecessary constraints |
Periodic and impartial performance evaluations of staff (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The governing documents do not provision for the performance evaluation of the student union staff |
0.5 | It is implied the performance evaluations of the student union staff take place, but there is no definitive proof |
1 | The governing documents provision for the performance evaluation of the student union staff |
B2. Is the union actively involved in representing its students? (5)
Membership in national/provincial student unions (1)
Score | Description |
0 | Student union is not a member of any provincial or national student union |
0.5 | n/a |
1 | Student union is a member of a provincial or national student union |
Proof of student representation in school’s decision-making structures (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There is no evidence that representatives of a student union are represented in the decision-making structures of their school |
0.5 | There is a position for a student in the decision-making structures of their school, but it is not given to a representative of a student union |
1 | There is a position for an elected student leader from the union’s governance structure in the decision-making structures of their school |
Student consultations (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There is no evidence that student union organizes consultations with students |
0.5 | n/a |
1 | At least one documented in-person or online consultation, as well as a survey per academic year |
Advocacy campaigns that bring tangible results (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There is no evidence that student union organizes advocacy campaigns. |
0.5 | In the last three academic years, student union has organized advocacy campaigns that did not result in measurable outcomes. |
1 | In the last three academic years, student union has organized advocacy campaigns that resulted in measurable outcomes such as policy changes, new services, or cost reductions that directly benefit students, with the documentation of the union's role. |
Participation in municipal affairs (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There is no evidence that the student union participates in municipal affairs or community-level initiatives. |
0.5 | The student union occasionally communicates with municipal officials but there is no publicly available evidence of sustained advocacy or substantial impact. For example, the student union posts on social media that they had a discussion with city councilors but there is no clear, structured advocacy campaign going on. |
1 | There is documented evidence that a student union has achieved policy changes on a municipal level through engaging with municipal government officials or processes, carrying out sustained advocacy campaigns, and partnering with other stakeholders. Alternatively, a student union participates in community-level projects (neighborhood, district, or local initiatives) that make tangible impacts on specific communities. |
B3. Are there opportunities for democratic engagement? (8)
Voter turnout (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The voter turnout is below the national average. |
0.5 | n/a |
1 | The voter turnout is above the national average. |
Election Policy (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The election policy does not exist or is not publicly available. |
0.5 | The election policy is not enacted and modified by students. |
1 | The election policy is enacted and modified by a legislative body composed of students. |
Election Integrity Measures (2)
Structured Process (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The election policy does not outline a structured process with notice periods, nomination periods, campaign periods, and voting days. There is no evidence of a secure voting process. The eligibility requirements either do not exist or can bar candidates from running because of a decision of a committee or one person. |
0.5 | The election integrity measures exist but are flawed and have a potential to enable unfair elections. |
1 | The election policy outlines a structured process with notice periods, nomination periods, campaign periods, and voting days. The voting process is secure through an online application. The eligibility requirements are reasonable, and candidates cannot be barred due to subjective opinion. |
Eligibility Requirements (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The eligibility requirements either do not exist or can bar candidates from running because of a decision of a committee or one person. |
0.5 | n/a |
1 | The eligibility requirements are reasonable, and candidates cannot be barred due to subjective opinion. |
Electoral Speech Protections (2)
Negative campaigning (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The election policy explicitly prohibits legitimate criticisms of candidates’ platforms or track records. |
0.5 | The election policy contains ambiguous language that could be interpreted to restrict legitimate criticism of opponents' platforms or records. |
1 | The election policy does not prohibit legitimate criticism of opponents' platforms or records. |
Campaign Spending Cap (1)
The maximum available spending cap is taken into account when calculating the average.
Score | Description |
0 | No spending cap on personal spending and/or in-kind contributions exists, or it is below the Index average. |
0.5 | n/a |
1 | The campaign spending cap on personal spending and/or in-kind contributions is above the Index average. |
Election Oversight: Submission of Complaints and Appeals (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The governing documents do not contain provisions for students to submit complaints and appeals related to elections. |
0.5 | The governing documents contain provisions for students to submit complaints and appeals related to elections, but there is no opportunity to appeal the decision. If the appeals committee exists, it is composed of people overseeing the election, people who serve in the student union’s partisan roles, or people who belong to an external organization not affiliated with the student union. |
1 | The governing documents contain provisions for students to appeal election rulings to a body within the student union that is not composed of people overseeing the election or who serve in the student union’s partisan roles (e.g. members of the executive body, legislative body, or partisan staff roles). This non-partisan body can be understood as the student union’s equivalent of a judicial branch. |
Referenda (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The governing documents do not provision for students to initiate referenda. |
0.5 | The governing documents provision for students to initiate referenda but limits the voting topics; or allows for blocking initiated referenda. |
1 | The governing documents provision for students to initiate referenda, and such referenda can be initiated without being unduly limited to voting topics or blocked by partisan officials and/or unelected staff. |
B4. Is the student union transparent in its operations? (5)
Governing documents (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There are no publicly available governing documents. |
0.5 | There are some publicly available governing documents, but others are missing. |
1 | All governing documents (constitution, by-laws, policies) are available publicly. |
Annual audited/reviewed financial statements (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There are no publicly available audited financial statements for the last three years. |
0.5 | There are publicly available financial statements, but only most recent ones; or the available statements aren’t audited. |
1 | There are publicly available audited financial statements and there is an archive of such statements going back 5+ years. |
Annual Budget (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There is no publicly available annual budget. |
0.5 | The publicly available budget provides only summary totals without line-item breakdowns for major spending categories (>5% of budget) |
1 | There is a publicly available, detailed annual budget. |
Meeting minutes of a legislative body (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There are no publicly available minutes of a legislative body. |
0.5 | There are publicly available minutes of a legislative body, but only the most recent ones. |
1 | There are publicly available minutes of a legislative body and there is an archive of these minutes going back 5+ years. |
Annual Report and/or Strategic Plan (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There is no publicly available annual report and/or strategic plan. |
0.5 | There is a publicly available annual report and/or strategic plan, but it is not recent nor up to date. |
1 | There is a publicly available annual report and/or strategic plan. It is recent and up to date. |
B5. Does the student union have an accessible communication strategy? (3)
Up-to-date, organized website (1)
Score | Description |
0 | There is no website, or the existing website has not been updated for a while; or the student union only has a page on the university’s website. |
0.5 | There is a website, but it is disorganized and/or not updated frequently. |
1 | There is an up-to-date, well-organized website. |
Active and current social media channels (1)
Score | Description |
0 | The student union does not maintain any social media pages. |
0.5 | The student union maintains social media pages but does not post frequently (less than two posts a month on all social media pages) |
1 | The student union actively maintains all publicly listed social media pages |
Availability of contact information of student union executives and student union office (1)
Score | Description |
0 | No contact information of student union executives and student union office is available to the public. |
0.5 | Only the contact information of student union executives or student union office is available at a time. |
1 | The contact information of student union executives and student union office is available to the public. |
C1 (1) + C2 (1) + C3 (1) + C4 (1) + C5 (1) + C6 (1) = 6.
C1. Management of the Club System
Score | Description |
0 | Club system is managed entirely by another body (e.g., university administration); union plays no role |
0.5 | Student union plays a partial role (e.g., co-administers, or oversees only some club categories) |
1 | Student union is the primary governing body of the club system (approval, recognition, oversight) |
C2. Funding for clubs
Score | Description |
0 | No direct funding mechanism for clubs exists. |
0.5 | Limited or inconsistent funding, which not all clubs can access easily; a reimbursement-based model. |
1 | Structured, transparent, and direct funding system for clubs, with a clear budget and access criteria. |
C3. The number of students per club
Score | Description |
0 | Low number of students per active clubs (below national average). |
0.5 | Moderate number of students per active clubs (below, but within 5-10% of the national average). |
1 | High number of students per active clubs (within 5% of the national average if below, or above). |
C4. Provision of Extra Support to Clubs
Score | Description |
0 | No visible support services for clubs beyond recognition |
0.5 | Only either room booking service or equipment rental service is provided |
1 | Comprehensive infrastructure available — e.g., venue bookings, printing, training, equipment loans, or staff support clearly accessible to all clubs |
C5. Does the student union have club policies and guides to help clubs navigate them?
Score | Description |
0 | There are no club policies. |
0.5 | There are some rules that exist for clubs but they are not clear, are relegated to some webpage text, or are not robust enough; or a club policy exists without any additional explanations for students. |
1 | There are clear club policies and guides that help students to navigate them. |
C6. Organization of Events
Score | Description |
0 | No club or society-related events are organized by the student union. |
0.5 | Only 1 event per academic year outside of welcome week. |
1 | 2-4 documented events per academic year outside of orientation week. |
Penalty | Description |
-1 to -5 | D1. Financial Deficits |
-1 to -5 | D2. Scandals and Negative Publicity Scandals and negative publicity from the four (4) years preceding the most recent academic year are taken into account, as the impact of such events carries over mandates and influences student trust. The grading scale is based on the severity of the incident and its impact on student trust. Minor incidents receive a grade of -1, moderate scandals affecting union operations receive a grade of between -2 and -3, and major scandals involving mismanagement or legal issues receive a grade of between -4 and -5. -1: Students are expressing concerns about an alleged action the student union has taken, but the student union’s democracy is not affected, its finances are largely unaffected, and the situation can be remedied with an election and/or other democratic action. -2: Students are expressing concerns about alleged minor to moderate scandals of a financial nature (less than 1% of annual revenue) or an alleged ethical scandal involving one individual, but the student union’s democratic processes remain intact. -3: Students are expressing concerns about alleged serious scandals of a financial nature (over 1% of annual revenue), or an alleged serious ethical scandal(s) involving a group of personnel, but the student union’s democratic processes remain intact. -4: Alleged major financial and/or ethical scandals have compromised and/or cast serious doubt upon the student union’s democratic processes and ability to function. However, the student union still has a reasonable chance of survival and can ameliorate its situation through an electoral change and passing substantial reforms to its guiding documents. -5: Major financial and/or ethical scandals have compromised the student union’s democratic processes and ability to function, to the point where the student union’s survival is at risk. The solution does not appear to be easily solvable by a typical democratic action and may require an unusual democratic option, including but not limited to: voting to dissolve the student union, replacing the existing student union with a new one, etc. |
Please use this form to let us know about any errors, inaccuracies, or missing information in the analysis. If you have general feedback, please use the Connect form to get in touch with us.
When reporting an error, please specify which clauses need to be changed and suggest specific wording changes as well as links to any relevant sources to reinforce your claims.