Skip Navigation
Italy

Equip Public Administrations (PA) for Participation (IT0018)

Overview

At-a-Glance

Action Plan: Italy, Second Action Plan, 2014-2016

Action Plan Cycle: 2014

Status:

Institutions

Lead Institution: DPA

Support Institution(s): AgID

Policy Areas

Capacity Building, Democratizing Decision-Making, Public Participation, Regulatory Governance

IRM Review

IRM Report: Italy End-of-Term Report 2014-2016, Italy IRM Progress Report 2014-2015

Early Results: Did Not Change

Design i

Verifiable: Yes

Relevant to OGP Values: Yes

Ambition (see definition): Low

Implementation i

Completion:

Description

Organize the management of the participation processes (inform, consult, involve, collaborate), taking into account already existing experiences, establish guidelines shared with civil society and identify a centre of expertise at the Prime Minister’s Office. Develop skills and culture both for Public Administration1 (PA) and citizens in order to manage and participate in the processes of participation, including through the use of open data. Ensure external monitoring on participation.

IRM Midterm Status Summary

Commitment 2. Equipe the PA for participation

Commitment Text:

Organize the management of the participation processes (inform, consult, involve, collaborate), taking into account already existing experiences, establish guidelines shared with civil society and identify a centre of expertise at the Prime Minister’s Office. Develop skills and culture both for Public Administration[Note 4:  The original text in the Action Plan only states “PA”. The words “Public Administration” have been added for clarity.] (PA) and citizens in order to manage and participate in the processes of participation, including through the use of open data. Ensure external monitoring on participation.

Specific objectives:

-Define a policy document/guidelines for the participation processes of the PA to be tested by applying an iterative model and also through the analysis of the previous experiences of participation, so as to achieve a consolidated version of the document as a basis for a next update which restarts the cycle;

-implement a monitoring process with members outside the Administration to follow the participation processes since the definition of the guidelines;

-set up a central coordination, which spans over all the administrations and acts both as a network of exchange and sharing and also as a center of expertise for the dissemination and implementation of best practices on participation.

Responsible institution: DPA

Supporting institution(s): AgID

Start date:  January 2015                                                     End date:  June 2016

Commitment Aim:

While the first commitment aimed at the digital tools necessary to improve participation, this second commitment aimed at innovating the methodological approaches, policies and guidelines in order to set up effective mechanisms for consultations and participation. More specifically, the commitment set out to:

- Define a policy and guidelines for the participation initiative promoted by the PA;

- Implement monitoring mechanisms involving members of the public and stakeholders;

- Set up a coordination unit and center of expertise for best practices dissemination.

Status

Mid-term: Not started

According to the IRM researcher and official government sources, the implementation of the commitment did not start during the first cycle of implementation. The IRM researchers found no evidence of any implementation of this commitment. As stated in the 2014-2015 mid-term IRM report, this commitment falls within the wider scope of the public administration reform being carried out by the DPA.

End of term: Not started

As stated in the IRM progress report, the implementation of this commitment has been undermined by the need to carry out a larger set of public administration reforms. As legislative reforms are pending, the IRM researchers did not find further evidence of progress from interviews or the desk research conducted. This end was also corroborated in the government’s end of term self-assessment report.

Did it open government?

Civic Participation: Did not change

This commitment intended to procure effective participation through effective and user-friendly digital tools but also innovative methodological approaches, policies and guidelines that define the rules of engagement and the possible concrete outcomes. However, the government did not move forward in developing that type of methodologies and guidelines, nor the coordination unit.

The IRM researcher believes that if implemented, it could have a positive effect on participation as it allows for a more accountable and participatory policymaking process. In the long term, this commitment would allow civil society organizations to monitor and report on this process and share information to the wider public.

Carried forward?

Although in a much more simplified version, this commitment has carried over to commitment 14 of the next action plan called “Strategy for Participation”. The scope of the new commitment is to develop a clear methodology for public consultations, thus avoiding the proliferation of platforms that has in the past contributed to decrease the interest and willing to engage of many stakeholders.


Commitments

Open Government Partnership