2025, Action Plan, Web page
2022, IRM Report, Web page
2022, Guidance Document, Web page
2021, Web page
2019, IRM Report, Web Page
2019, IRM Report, Web page
2018, Action Plan, Web page
2018, Report Comments, Web page
2016, Action Plan, Web page
2016, Letter, Web page
The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.
No IRM data
Pending IRM Review
Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.
Stars (Global average 7%)
Focus on implementation
Focus on design
Pending IRM review
No IRM data
Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)
Focus on relevance to open government
Focus on verifiability
This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.
Participation was closed
Participation was open to any interested party
No IRM data
Forum
Pending IRM review
Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda
Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs
Consult: Public gave input
Inform: Government provided public with information on plan
The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.
This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.
These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.
Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.
(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.
Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
Three African regional governments converged in Elgeyo Marakwet County, Kenya on May 2 to share experiences and successes of efforts made in making their governments more transparent and accountable to citizens. It was the first time the local governments were…
This photo was taken in Kapyego Ward, Elgeyo Marakwet County, Kenya, where the county government was holding a public participation meeting on how the ward’s annual development budget should be spent. It was beautiful, sunny, but cold (5°C or 40°F)…
Esta fotografía fue tomada en Kapyego, Condado Elgeyo Marakwet, Kenia, en donde el gobierno del condado llevó a cabo una reunión pública para definir cómo sería utilizado el presupuesto anual de la región. Era un día soleado pero frío (5ºC…
Click here for more information about the Open Government Partnership's terms of use.
Terms & Conditions Close
