The significant information from this data relates to the percentages of the number of units in each of these categories and the percentage of population. Out of the 806 units, there are 288, or 35%, that are under the 5,000-resident population. This accounts for only 11,8% of the total population of the amalgamated units. Additionally, there are 268 units in the 5-10,000 population group representing 33% of the units and 22,5% of the population. Taken together these two groupings account for approximately 2/3 of the units and only 1/3 of the population. This is not particularly encouraging data that would ensure amalgamated units of sufficient population size to be viable. The revenue per capita data for these units does not provide much further encouragement either. For the 208 units under 5,000 residents, there were only 108 units, or 13%, that have revenues per capita above the average of all the 806 amalgamated units. Within the 268 units of 5-10,000 residents, only 81, or 10%, that have revenues above the average of all the 806 amalgamated units. Therefore, only a small percentage of the units have revenues per capita above the average. What is more concerning is that the difference between the highest and lowest amounts of revenue is very substantial within these groupings. For the under 5,000 resident group, there is a difference of 47 times from the lowest to the highest. For the 5-10,000 resident grouping, the difference from lowest to highest is 26 times. A similar pattern emerges with the indicators looking at the expenses of the general fund budget to the per capita in these groupings. For the 288 under 5,000 residents, there were only 97 out of the 806, or 12%, that had expenses above the average per capita of all the amalgamated units. For the 268 units in the 5-10,000 units, there were only 55, or 6%, that had expenses per capita above the average. The data for the other indicators tends to follow the same relationships among the groupings with substantial disparities among the groupings, with the weakest relationships in the lowest population groupings. If these trends continue for the remaining amalgamation of units, Ukraine will only end up with a modest improvement in the decentralization effort, or an even more dependent and weaker level of fiscal capacity and service delivery of the amalgamated units.