|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
It was reported that the initiative was selected at a meeting of one of its working groups; and a letter of support was provided by one member of that same WG.
A stronger evidence of consulting others, could be the minutes of meeting signed by all the participants; and consultation could have be done in more than 1 of the 12 WC of the forum. |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.5 |
It seems more an initiative of e-government (under what can be understood by public participation) |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Tiago Peixoto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.9 |
While there is some evidence that partners have been consulted it is not clear the extent to which the initiative is jointly implemented or not. |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Juanita Burgos |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.8 |
|
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Jorge Soto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.6 |
There is not a clear leader from the non-government sector of this project |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Tiago Peixoto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.3 |
It is unclear how the participants are selected and the extent to which it is an inclusive process of the target population. |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Jorge Soto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.3 |
They mention products around the digital agenda but not a clear relationship between the forum and those products nor the participation of regular citizens |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
The initiative is an area of ongoing work with various stakeholders to discuss issues related to the digital agenda, that relate to the topics of OGP (open data, public information reuse, interoperability, etc.) |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.3 |
The general public is set as part of the target population, as well as non governmental organizations, experts and government representatives.
The way that contributions are made by this target could not be found, as well as how their feedback is used.
On the Forum website, discussion tools are restricted (username and password is needed), so there is no evidence of how ordinary citizens can make their contributions.
While it is understood that meetings are conducted in person, there is no evidence of decisions taken in them.
Policy documents for the period 2012-2015 could not be found, as well as information on compliance with agreed commitments, so citizens could at least monitor the progress. |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Juanita Burgos |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Jorge Soto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
1.6 |
It is a targeted group of experts and there is no clear evidence that shows that the products are result of the discussion of the forum |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Juanita Burgos |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.6 |
|
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.1 |
There is no evidence on how citizens are informed or if their contributions have change or improve a public policy or service. The application states that citizen participation is benefited by the projects executed as part of the decisions made in the forum, but this does not means that citizen engagement influence the development of the initiative. |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.2 |
Nominally influenced a public policy or service; and shows some benefits to citizens as a result
In the proposal, are mentioned and include the 12 working groups are active, and commitments to develop under the OGP action plan, but little evidence on the outcomes and impact to date (the digital agenda forum exists since 2009) |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Tiago Peixoto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
It is unclear to which extent the initiative actually had an impact on policies or services. While outcomes such as "hackathons" and "open data portal" is mentioned, it is unclear to which extent the FAD actually had an impact on the implementation of these activities. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever on the extent to which the open data portal, hackathons, or the Digitalization Manual have had an impact on either policies or services. In other words, there is evidence of outputs, but none about results (i.e. outcomes). |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Tiago Peixoto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.0 |
The fact that the initiative has been going on since 2009 and the fact that the ADA follows a presidential decree shows some degree of sustainability. Nevertheless, it is not clear how future challenges will be addressed nor how the initiative will be scaled up in terms of stakeholders or influence over policymaking and service delivery. |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Jorge Soto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.5 |
It is already institutionalized but not a scale strategy |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Juanita Burgos |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
|
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.8 |
This is an initiative that has been developed since 2009 by what is assumed to have a high level of institutionalization and sustainability |
|
|
|
Argentina Team |
60.2 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.5 |
Being a mechanism that accompanies a public policy, to maintain an active discussion on the issues related, it can be assumed that sustainability is guaranteed at least until next year (which is the period set for the policy). But there is no information on how the initiative will scale-up or how potential challenges will be addressed. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Chris Vein |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.6 |
The application states that the "Idea Bank is in the
center of attention of various NGOs, societies and communities." While Idea Bank is obviously a successful program, it is not clear that more than one organization was consulted for this submission and that it was jointly implemented. Claims are made of its success but are somewhat anecdotal. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.3 |
“Constitution” Researches Foundation confirms in the letter that it was consulted in nominating the idea. It is mentioned as a contact and several other public, private and civil society agencies are mentioned as among partnerships which confirms information provided. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.3 |
The initiative focuses on a feedback mechanism for a consolidated service center. I see the co-ownership of efforts to improve the ASAN center approach to service delivery. i was looking for more info on whether beyond the center itself, the improvement of the services offered by the center were also co-owned and jointly implemented or the ideas for improvement of service delivery were implemented mainly by the ministry concerned. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Juanita Burgos |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
|
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Marija Novkovic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.8 |
The initiative is jointly implemented with an NGO, who also claims to act on behalf of other NGOs (as stated in the letter of support from CRF). CRF is a partner in evaluating and implementing civic ideas. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.7 |
Given that the Idea Bank started in 2012, an average of 20 ideas submitted per day is a good baseline. It is difficult to benchmark what is the total number of a target population for generating service delivery improvement ideas. But I believe the expansion to kiosks and iclubs will increase the engagement and reach of the initiative |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Juanita Burgos |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Chris Vein |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.0 |
The application states that "Several methods used to
attract more citizens. Therefore Idea Bank is advertised in the centers with
specially designed roll-ups. Some media materials about Idea Bank are
periodically spread on social networks, TV, radio and newspapers to raise
awareness about this initiative." While this is impressive, the application is not clear about incentives or on how citizens become partners rather than just participants. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Marija Novkovic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.6 |
The video pitch is very compelling, it brings to the fore citizens of Azerbaijan whose ideas were in fact implemented. There seems to be evidence of a feedback loop as "Consequently all new ASAN service centers are built based on lessons learned by considering citizens’ ideas." Incentives for citizens to take part are in place. i.e. awards, recognition and actual implementation of ideas. The only issue is the scale: with the population of over 9 mil, 2000 ideas does not seem that ambitious. On the other hand, 30% of ideas was enforced which is a good ration. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.1 |
Idea Bank allows citizens to make suggestions on specific improvements needed on basic services. Public sector responsiveness provides incentive for more ideas to be proposed. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
It is clear that Idea Bank has positively impacted service delivery and improved practices. Would have been great for the application to mention specific cases of instances where replication has been done. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.3 |
My understanding of this initiative is that it is the ASAN center and its efficient and transparent function as a consolidated service center that benefits directly from citizens' ideas. There is good information on the influence of the citizen/submitted idea on the improvement of ASAN centers. There is no information or example whether the public services themselves housed in the centers are improved by submitted ideas. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Marija Novkovic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.1 |
Stories presented in the video demonstrate actual changes in the delivery of public services, e.g. Skype Box, ExitPoll Machine for assessing quality of public services. The submission would have been stronger if we could learn more about the ways citizens of Azerbaijan are evaluating public services.
On a positive note, it seems that lessons learnt are taken in consideration when opening new ASAN centers. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Chris Vein |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
The application states that "The establishment of Idea Bank positively influenced citizens and ASAN
service as ultimate beneficiaries. Around 2000 citizens come to each ASAN
service every day. This number is rising as the service quality of services
increases by receiving ideas." It would have been helpful to better understand results. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Juanita Burgos |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Marija Novkovic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
The sustainability plan seems well designed, with a number of actions in the pipeline. There is a plan to boost Idea Bank's online presence, as well as introduce kiosks for offline participation. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.6 |
The scale up of the Idea Bank through kiosks and iClubs is discussed. There was no mention or discussion of challenges or potential threats to the initiative. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Juanita Burgos |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Chris Vein |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.2 |
The application states that "Idea Bank kiosks will be set-up everywhere in the country (specially
out-reached areas) to create an opportunity for non-internet users to share their
ideas as videos directly to Idea Bank.
Idea Bank forum will be held twice in a year where citizens will present their
inventions to public." This is really positive. The application doesn't address challenges that need to be overcome however.
iClubs as a co-brand of Idea Bank will be established in the universities to
create an environment for students to generate social ideas. The club will be
equipped with all modern technological infrastructures to encourage young
brains.
Workshops and seminars will be held with people to help them to formalize
ideas and design them. |
|
|
|
Azerbaijan Team |
66.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.2 |
It is also not sufficiently clear how planned activities will sustain citizen engagement institutionally or financially. No mention of plans for policy action has been suggested. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.6 |
I did not get a link to the public nomination results on the web. This accounts for my judgement to score that claims about public voting cannot be validated. However, I still respect the inclusion of wide network of NGOs. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
According to the public, the nomination process was web-based and open to the public. A large number of civil society organizations have participated in the implementation of the initiative, including an initiative to allow civil society to use the training material to train others, which would expand the project's already impressive reach considerably. The pairwise methodology used to select initiatives is interesting although I think it may have been limited because it does not give the voters a wide choice for selection, so they could end up with two projects that they would not have picked where they given the choice and they would be forced to select one. I also did not understand how it is possible for the chosen initiative to have only 82 points when there were 1438 votes and only 4 projects, unless the points do not represent actual votes. Further clarification on the selection methodology is required here. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
The applicant displays an extremely impressive breadth of NGO's partners and has provided evidence of this claim. Given the over 420 partners it is understandable that they have not chosen to single out a single partner in submitting this application. However, the section of the project for submission to the OGP was undertaken through a transparent, participatory process which is commendable. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.3 |
The “Keeping an eye on Public Money” Program is a strong example of a government-led initiative that finds support and roles in implementation from civil society and local governments. The nomination was by government with an online vote to select among the nominees. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Stef van Grieken |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
It seems the initiative and design of the program was executed by the government and local ngo's were contracted for it's execution. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.7 |
The initiative provides an excellent platform for encouragement of citizen engagement in social auditing and has reached tens of thousands of participants through innovative approaches (importantly including face-face training). |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
Access to free courseware and also engagement with focus group civil society is commemdable but the current engagement has not reached half of target population. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.2 |
The reach of this project is impressive although it has been in existence for a long time both of which are evidence that the population values its service. Given Brazil's federal system of government it makes sense to apply a collective action approach between citizens and local government to solve local problems. From the number of people who have been through their training, it seems that the public sees the value of this training in addressing issues that are important to them. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Stef van Grieken |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.6 |
The program has reached an impressive amount of citizens through e-learning. I believe that education can be a strong driver of engagement. However, the application fails to address what the actual influence of the program was in reducing waste and corruption in public spending. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.9 |
There is strong and clear commitment as presented to deepen the engagement of both the public servants and the citizens. My understanding also is that a primary target population of this capacity-building and mobilization initiative are the municipal councils for public policies. It would be good to milestone how many of the 5,570 municipalities have utilized this program for their councils. The 1800 municipalities mentioned did not specify if these were the councils or citizens from these municipalities |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.7 |
The “Keeping an eye on Public Money” Program as presented shows a government commitment to build the capacity and interest for constructive engagement between informed citizens and a receptive government bureaucracy. The presentation showed an increase in interest from the citizens. It mentions highest changes in health, education and social care policies. It would be good to know more about what these specific changes were. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
While the initiative itself in ensuring more informed and meaningful participation by citizens is well articulated, the submission is silent on how the CGU uses the feedback it obtains from this participation to improve its work. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Stef van Grieken |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.5 |
The program delivered in terms of educating the public. The application provides no tangible insights into the actual benefits or change in public spending or corruption. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.9 |
This is very good and some evidence is presented to validate this by partner organizations. However, the submission does not display an example of 'measurable' impact. A few case studies would have been very helpful to understand what the impact has been over time of this extremely ambitious and clearly important project. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.6 |
Good approach on raising citizen understanding on Keeping Public Eye on Money. It is not clear if after the courses have been taken, if there is a dialogue between the civil society and government insitutions to discuss issues of corruption raised. However, this has raised the interaction between citizen and institutional engagement. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.9 |
This initiative seems to be institutionalized already since it has been in existence and growing for over 11 years. The use and expansion of multipliers to enable others to use their training methodology for their training makes sense. However, how they will address such issues as quality control for training that is no longer delivered or managed by them is not made explicit in the submission. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Stef van Grieken |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
The program has been running since 2003 and thus proved it can be sustainable over time in Brazil. Wether it scales to other countries is not clear from the application. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.7 |
This is clearly a project that has proven a measure of sustainability (spanning multiple administrations), with political will to make it work and broad engagement and support by civil society organizations. There are also ambitious plans for increasing the scope of the work and deepening channels of engagement. Very impressive. One element that is not fully addressed is how challenges will be dealt with (which must exist with a project of this scale and focus) - what happens when there is resistance to implementing the project or citizen social auditors are placed under pressure from authorities - does the project provide support? It would have been helpful to address this. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
A good approach to distill this down to the local and municipal level is commendable and it is obvious that the program is planned to scale. Effectively results of that will have reinforced sustainability. However, a good case of how challenges will be managed was not stated. |
|
|
|
Brazil Team |
73.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.9 |
The presentation cites specific steps and milestones in scaling-up the reach of this government initiative. It would be interesting to know how citizens and civil society are contributing to, and also beginning to have ownership of the shape, content and focus of this capacity-building and mobilization program. There was no specific challenge mentioned. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.9 |
While the criteria for selection is listed, the process for selecting this particular initiative is not articulated in the submission. The involvement of the open data community is shown in the development and implementation of the initiative but not in the nomination for these awards. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Don Don Parafina |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.7 |
No participatory process was mentioned in selecting the entry. Details in the nomination box pertain to the factors considered why CODE was selected as entry to OGP awards. The testimonies, however, indicate coordination with the partners in nominating CODE. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.2 |
The project has a number of private sector partners but no visible non-governmental partners engaged at any level in nomination, implementation and validation of claims. This is a great pity as it could no doubt have contributed to the impact to have NGO partners more actively engaged in shaping the approach to the project and ensuring a possible broader reach of the apps and other outputs of the project |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.9 |
It seems that the only partner consulted by the nomination was XMG studio. There is no evidence of a broader consultation exercise with stakeholder (e.g. developer community) or civil society in general. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.1 |
Nomination of initiative with approval of the implementing partner is placed in the zip doc with validation on the CODE website that actual apps were built. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Don Don Parafina |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.3 |
The big turnout in the events proves that CODE has attracted and incentivised participation. The relationship, however, is one-way: government is opening up the data and citizens are developing applications out of it. The government agencies' direct use of the apps as feedback to improve performance needs a clearer mechanism. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.5 |
The fact that given that Canadian society, and particularly the target audience for this initiative, is very IT-literate made this a very appropriate method of eliciting strong participation. A hackathon, with prize incentives, was a new and interesting way to engage the private sector to achieve the government objective of increased awareness, use, and improvement of its open data systems. it will be interesting to monitor future events of this nature to see whether the reach can be sustained and improved now that they plan to make this an annual event. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.2 |
The application had a lot of discussion on the code events and release of data. Uptake of applications by citizens was not properly stated in empirical figures to judge the usability of the apps. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.7 |
The project appears to be largely focussed on a one off hackathon event. By all accounts this was the largest of its kind in Canada and engaged over 900 citizens. However, there is no indication of how the concerns informed this process and how citizens as end users will as a result engage in outputs. It does seem that one app has been of assistance to new Canadian resident. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.7 |
While the hackathon seemed to have mobilized a satisfactory number of participants, it is unclear whether incentives were in place to promote the participation of those beyond the usual suspects of a hackathon. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.4 |
There is unfortunately insufficient evidence of result. This may well be because this was a singular large event that has not yet had time to show significant evidence of results. However, its unclear how the production of a multitude of new apps might truly benefit citizens and government. A few more examples (and an indication of uptake) would have been useful. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.1 |
Good approach with a lot of potential in a developed society but the results of the impact of delivering apps from open data have not been communicated. However, there is a lot of potential with the settlement/skill matching app. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.4 |
This is a very new initiative and therefore it is too early to see evidence of concrete resulting change in how government operates. While it was stated in the submission that the feedback received from developers will inform future open data releases, no evidence was presented that this has already happened. There is definitely evidence of benefits to citizens who from this have gained a better sense of what government data is publicly available. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
There is limited evidence on how CODE produced benefits to citizens beyond those participating in the hackathon. For instance, the development of new mobile and web apps, or adding new datasets to data.gc.ca tell very little about actual benefits to citizens or any influence in the design of government policy and services. . |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Don Don Parafina |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
Data openness as a policy has significantly advanced. Outcomes reported are the extent of participation in the event and the number of applications developed. Federal departments' have reported insights that pertained to the quality of their data, but the benefit of "client-centric" services has yet to be experienced. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.8 |
There is a commitment to hosting this as a regular (annual?) event but no indication of dealing with challenges. In particular no commitment to partnering with civil society organizations in this process which seems to be a key missing ingredient in what could no doubt become an impressive initiative in future. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Don Don Parafina |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.8 |
The continuation of the events on a regular basis is still at the level of "intending", "hoping" and "planning". No direct or convincing commitment has been secured for it. The relationship with the partners also needs a more stable basis to address the sustainability of the effort. The government and sponsors' support for it, however, indicate a promising start. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.4 |
I think that the case for sustaining this initiative is strong and well-explained in the submission. The creation of an annual event leveraging resources form other sectors of society is a compelling case for this. I also think that improving readability and 'mashing' of data across levels of government is also very interesting and speaks to the scaling up of the initiative. What I think could be looked into more is how they will sustain and improve the reach of this initiative beyond the traditional open data and developer enthusiasts who, to me are fairly mainstream. I would be interested to know whether this can be used to reach truly marginalised groups who are less techno-savvy and may not be so easily reached through this method. What future adaptations could be made to this initiative to obtain their feedback? |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.7 |
As stated, the applicant as stated the way to improve scaling the apps and reuse of data at lower district levels but does not explain how to manage challenge with viral use of application by target audience. |
|
|
|
Canada Team |
60.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.3 |
While there seems to be some will towards the sustainability of the initiative, there seems to be no clearly defined strategy to achieve that sustainability. Threats or challenges to the initiative, and ways to be addressing them, are hardly considered. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Juanita Burgos |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Jorge Soto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.1 |
No consultation nor point of contact nor partnership with civil society is shown |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
1.9 |
Even when there is a letter attached from the Chamber of Importers, in which they explain clearly the interest and benefits of the initiative here is no evidence of a consultation process or joint implementation. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
1.8 |
No information was provided on how other partners were consulted in nominating the initiative nor demonstrated compelling mechanisms for consulting others in nominating the initiative. A letter of support was provided by a representative of the key “client” of the solution, the Chamber of Importers, Distributors and Representatives, so initiative was not jointly implemented but provided validation of claims. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.9 |
It is less clear that this initiative falls within the scope of citizen participation, more like a project on electronic procurement with involvement of other actors. There is not enough support on the alliance with other organizations outside government (especially civil society organizations, beyond the private sector) |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Jorge Soto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
It is only for contractors and there is no feedback, nor innovation |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.2 |
The proposed platform, an Observatory within thee-procurement system, might provide useful information to oversight bodies, and probably competitors in bidding processes might find the information useful for their activities and to control the fairness of processes. Nevertheless, it is not clear how either regular citizens and bidders would use the information and be incentivized to participate and provide feedback. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Juanita Burgos |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.4 |
|
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.7 |
As pointed out by CRECEX (the partner that supported the initiative), Mer-link is an e-commerce solution. Transparency and efficiency are the main drivers of a e-procurement platform solution, more than be a citizen engagement initiative. Open Contracting is mentioned but there is not indication on how it has been developed. It seems that this is more an issue planned to be incorporated in the future. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
Provides information and interaction spaces for specific actors (preferably within the public sector market)
While the purpose of the initiative involves expanding spaces of transparency and participation, it is more linked to the field of business and private sector's ecosystem rather than civil society
It seems more an initiative of e-government (under what can be understood by public participation) |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
There is no evidence on how citizen engagement influenced the design of Mer-Link or the services it delivery. Being a solution that impacts the way the Government buys, there has been a positive change in the service but which is not necessarily linked as a consequence of the citizen engagement. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
It offers concrete benefits in terms of transparency and access to information related to public procurement processes (especially for the market and the suppliers of goods and services to government)
No further details on outcome data and impact of this initiative to allow better evaluation to this effort |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Juanita Burgos |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.8 |
|
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Jorge Soto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.7 |
Clear transparent channels for public procurements |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
1.6 |
Contingently the collection of information within the e-platform by the observatory would provide oversight bodies, private firms competing for contracts, journalists and citizens in general of information about the prices, providers, and kinds of competition in each procurement process. It is not clear the way in which all these stakeholders would be engaged, how would they use the information and therefore, how the observatory would provide any improvement in the procurement policy. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.8 |
Costa Rica counts with an institutionality that can make the initiative dure, learn and improve. Nevertheless, there is no clear indication of challenges and how to address them. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Juanita Burgos |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.0 |
Mer-link constitutes a platform which builds citizens’ trust in the procurement process and also promotes transparency and efficiency. It is a great initiative to involve citizen participation. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
|
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.0 |
The applicant does make a compelling case that the initiative will be institutionalized and scaled-up over time. The initiative has been institutionalized and they are working in increasingly improve their services and functionalities. Also the next steps and are clearly identified and they made a good case on how potential challenges will be addressed. |
|
|
|
Costa Rica Team |
61.8 |
Jorge Soto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
The observatory is a good and clear next step that will also open up spaces for civil society |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Jorge Soto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
There is a horizontal communication and feedback between organizations and government around OGP |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.8 |
This initiative is notable for focusing on the issue of expanding opportunities for citizen participation and promote greater accountability and improvements in government policies |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
The selection of Transparency Intl as the partner demonstrates seriousness. The additional cooperation with the government office on cooperation with NGOs demonstrates government buy-in, and also the mere existence of such an office points to seriousness on the part of the government to engage civil society. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.2 |
The reports on the evolution of consultation processes and the letter from the local chapter of Transparency Internationl show that consultation and participation are key inputs of this propososal. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Alex Irwan |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.3 |
It is not clear whether the CSO representatives are at par with their government counterparts in the Croatia's OGP Council. Did the CSO representatives participate meaningfully in the decision making or did they just rubber stamp what was proposed by the government representatives? |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.7 |
A great merit of this initiative is the change in attitude generated in the processes of consultation and participation, and the results achieved (eg 374 public consultations in 2013)
It is a comprehensive strategy that goes beyond the regulatory and institutional mechanisms, incorporating a look inside the public sector (building the capacity of governing bodies) and innovative ways to incorporate a process with more dialogue with civil society |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Jorge Soto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.7 |
The channels for participation are not clear but the results and feedback shows impact |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Alex Irwan |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.4 |
There is no online system for public consultations. Results of consultations have yet to be integrated into the government portal for easier public access. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
Given the evidence of the increase of citizen responding government consultations, strengthening the institutional channels look like adequate incentives to steward this progressive evolution. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.2 |
New legislation that a. requires that all new draft legislation demonstrate citizen consultations and b. designs access to protect citizens' right to information and offers an enabling agency to support that right, are evidence of serious intent to seek citizen participation. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
The idea of fully informing the citizenry about the result and impact of citizen participation in consultation processes is significant in terms of legitimizing and making sustainable participatory policies. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Alex Irwan |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
The program should show how much public inputs are accommodated in the final regulations. It should have a mechanism for the public to ensure that what they have proposed really change public policies to become more responsive to their needs. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Jorge Soto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.7 |
Clear evidence on the participation but not on how it was implemented and institutionalized |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.4 |
While evidence that presented on the results of applying the model is clear (as a process and openness to citizen participation), not the same for purposes of concrete results in terms of legislation or policy design |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.8 |
The focus is more on formats of cooperation rather than the actual outcome of cooperation. If public policy or service is inclusion as a target itself, then it can be said that inclusion bred greater inclusion. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Jorge Soto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.8 |
It is institutionalized but needs more concrete steps for what they are doing with the feedback |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Alex Irwan |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.6 |
While the program has been institutionalized and training has been carried out to promote sustainability, mechanism to allow the public to monitor the implementation of the regulations has yet to be set up. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.6 |
Even when the strategic outline of the initiative is clear in terms of providing citizens information to follow up to what extent participation works, it is not clear the series of steps neither the challenges the initiative would face. |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
The model can scaling and develop better because it has a strong normative and institutional basis, and an concrete experience that can expand your results and impact on the future |
|
|
|
Croatia Team |
76.3 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.6 |
The initiative has been transformed to legislation that affects government agency activities, and establishes the office of commissioner to oversee continuous public access to information. This can only scale-up demand. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.8 |
This was an open nomination process which enabled everyone to nominate initiatives. The process has been led by civil society organisations. Danish Red Cross and Transparency International Denmark have actually selected the initiative which shows great willingness to allow civil society to have more ownership of the process. It would be good to know why these two CSOs were chosen to lead the overall selection process. Nevertheless, the whole nomination process is truly bottom-up and praiseworthy.
The only small dilemma which prevented me from giving the highest score in thie category - it is not clear from the application which government institution is formally endorsing the initiative. NASCC is mentioned as Government contact point, but its status is not fully clear - it seems to be a civil society organisation. In other words, it is a bit vague whether the initiative was actually formally nominated in Government-CSO partnership. As this should be the partnership initiative, a validation letter from local government bodies would be helpful to assess to what extent the initiative has been embedded in local decision-making practices, and owned from local government side as well.
If NASCC is considered as network of SCC (as public consultative bodies), this comments is to be neglected. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Tri Mumpuni |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.4 |
This initiative shows clearly how every party partnering to address the issues hat become a common problems. And by looking at the result, it seems that the group have been working together for so many years and successfully making any different, |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Chris Vein |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
The application shows strong evidence of consultation in the nomination process, implementation, and a strong validation of claims. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.9 |
The applicant has provided evidence that the idea was originated by civil society/ citizen groups and eventually recognised by Government through a legislative action. Information has been provided that civil society took lead in nominating the idea. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.6 |
Statutory Senior Citizens' Councils, as presented were jointly nominated and implemented. The strengthening of this sector-specific representation is a fine example of a jointly owned and implemented citizen engagement strategy. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.0 |
This is a marvelous and very original initiative which has the potential to inspire other countries and be replicated as best practice example throughout OGP community. Senior citizens councils members are elected by and among local senior citizens which is an excellent example of democratic participatory engagement of citizens in local decision making.
The fact that the turnout for SCC elections is 50% shows that this mechanism of citizens involvement is widely recognized.
I would need more details on the actual functioning of SCC sessions and their links with local government bodies to assess the innovation aspect of the methods used and give highest score. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.1 |
The legal requirement for municipalities and Government to consult Senior Citizens' Council provides citizens a sure way for their participation and confidence that their needs are addressed. A significant number of would be voiceless citizens participant in influencing decisions- on matters that affect a special category of people. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.8 |
Because the target population is clear, the engagement strategy has clear incentive and the correlation of engagement to decision-making power is direct, i would give this high marks on depth of engagement |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Tri Mumpuni |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.9 |
The activities done by the group showing a good result and they provide a very clear goal in their activities to achieve the common objective that become a common problem for them to solve. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Chris Vein |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.6 |
Of particular note in the application is the following: "In addition to consulting the local SCC in formal decision-making processes, many
local city councils involve the SCC earlier in the process, such as in the planning
phase of construction of new care housing, relocation of bus stops, developing
special measures for people with Alzheimer's, etc. The Council members are
critical, but also view every issue as a whole and respect that it may be necessary
for politicians to prioritise and make tough choices." |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.0 |
The initiative as presented has influenced and transformed local political representation of senior citizens. The submission speaks of SCC influence in health, public safety, local budget and elderly policy. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Chris Vein |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.6 |
According to the application: "A national survey among SCC chairmen, civil servants and local politicians show
that all three parties generally agree that hearing statements from SCC are taken
seriously by city councils and that SCC have a real impact on local politicians'
decisions. Most importantly, the SCC have proven their worth, merit, and
legitimacy." In this context, the actual impact of the SCCs in local government policy making is perhaps the greatest accomplishment. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.4 |
The model of Senior Citizens Councils seems to have transformed the way how policies that affect elderly people have been taken at local level across Denmark. This is a great example of institutionalizing structures for dialogue with key target groups and enabling them to have direct access to design of public policies.
More information and concrete data from the mentioned national survey among SCC chairmen, civil servants and local politicians should be provided in order to fully assess the outcomes of the initiative. For example, the actual number of local government acts that were submitted for consultations to SCC and concrete examples of changes in local decisions/policies would be useful to get better overall picture on the impact of SCCs. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Tri Mumpuni |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
5.0 |
The problems they solve such as an elderly problem, disabled etc give them a confidence to move more forward in solving the common problem they face in Denmark |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.3 |
Information provided that what started as a push for the right to participation resulted in the enactment of a law that establishes Senior Citizens Councils and obliges government entities to consult them. Planning of public services like housing, transport and healthcare ensures that senior citizens are not excluded. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.7 |
The sustainability of the initiative seems to be ensured by the fact that city councils are required by Danish Law to consult local SCCs before making final decision on issues relevant for elderly population. The initiative is obviously institutionalized in local government decision-making practices. Also, there is a Danish Government financial support provided for NASCC - the national organisation supporting the work of SCCs. This is a great example of sustainable model of vast experience and skills of senior citizens across the country in decision making.
Congratulations! You found the way of taping into the wisdom of society before making important local decisions.
The only dilemma I have in scoring this criterion is whether the initiative would still be sustainable without Danish Government grant provided to NASCC that provides everyday support to SCCs in their work.
|
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
The initiative is presented as durable and with public support funds for the organization of SCCs. other challenges discussed are the voluntary nature of the post and the ability of the SCC to be both opponent and partner. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Tri Mumpuni |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.8 |
For years it found this activities has shown some evidence from the goal they achieve in their activities and the fund support guarantee that the government put a good intention in making this initiative work well. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Chris Vein |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.8 |
According to the application: "NASCC's members are the 98 SCC of the 98
municipalities in Denmark, and the organisation is supported by the Danish
Government with DKK 1,000,000 a year (approx. EUR 134,000) and is backed by
the Danish Ministry of Children, Gender Equality, Integration and Social Affairs." Therefore, there is political support and government funding to back-up that support. The application also suggests that the model is being used in two other areas of government. |
|
|
|
Denmark Team |
87.4 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.9 |
The initiative is already recognised through statutory action and mainstreamed in municipalities. In addition, it enjoys great interest of members with half of the membership participating in key decision making such as elections. These two elements are strong pillars for sustainability. |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.4 |
It has participation from various institutions (government and international character) but do not appear national civil society organizations more closely linked to the issues of transparency, accountability and anti-corruption (eg transparency international chapter) |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.2 |
The letters and the narrative of the IPAC initiative shows involvement and consultation with Civil Society partners |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Juanita Burgos |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.6 |
|
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Jorge Soto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.4 |
It is a clear multi stakeholder strategy from different sectors |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.5 |
They said that they launched an extended scheme of IPAC Assemblies to postulate the initiative, but no evidence of that process was provided. The initiative was jointly implemented. And letter from two organizations were presented as validation of claims. They could have provided links to show strong evidence of consulting others in nominating an initiative. |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.4 |
The incentives are not clearly expressed but the fact that contributions have actually been taken into account, and from the highest level, is in itself a great motivator. However it must be remembered that while expressing their interest to revive the initiative, these exercises were performed between 2010 and 2012. |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Jorge Soto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.5 |
There is no clear which channels nor the innovation of them, or what is happening with the citizen's feedback |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Juanita Burgos |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.5 |
Rather, it is an initiative whose focus is transparency and the fight against corruption, from a consultation process with specific institutions in these areas. Moreover, it is not clear that there is a wider space for other actors and civil society
According to the information provided, there are no clear results achieved beyond consultation processes developed |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
A series of accomplished targets described in the proposal show that participation has been effective so far, at least to a reasonable extent. Even when the incentives and channels are, in a way, "traditional" (workshops, multistakeholder tables), the will of following up shows an innovation and a stronger incentives for participants. |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Jorge Soto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
Evidence can be improved as from what is happening with the citizen's participation |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.8 |
The proposal describes a series of accomplishments of goals that had been a result of the consensus between govt. and CSOs. |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Juanita Burgos |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.6 |
|
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
The initiative was created in response to a request from the Presidency of the Republic and, after different stages, presented a series of recommendations that were incorporated by the government and went through a proper follow. In this way, it has influenced public policy and showed benefits to citizens as a result. |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
1.7 |
Little evidence is available and the impact of the proposals generated from consultation process developed are unknown (no more detail on the subject) |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.5 |
The initiative was implemented between 2010 and 2012, a period in which it is shown that there was a high institutional commitment in accordance with the information provided on its website. In this website, there is no information on activities carried out during 2013 and 2014, although in the application they pointed their interest to reactivate the initiative as a permanent official mechanism.
|
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
1.9 |
Shows some commitment to institutionalizing the initiative; but presents unrealistic ways of managing challenges faced by the initiative |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Jorge Soto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.5 |
They don't show a scaling strategy nor concrete next steps |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Juanita Burgos |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.8 |
The initiative represents an example of citizen participation and engagement, where the citizens can be part of the decision making process. The initiative could be institutionalized, but also, depends on the willingness of the national authority. |
|
|
|
Dominican Republic Team |
66.2 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
Yes, the idea of taking this initiative from the point it was developed so far, and giving institutional support in a specific agency of the Public Administration is a good indicator of sustainability. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Igor Vidacak |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
Estonian National OGP Steering Committee, composed of equal number of CSOs and Government agencies, proposed the initiative. The application also shows convincing validation of claims. The whole initiative is highly collaborative, especially in implementation part.
For highest score, more information of involving other CSOs (non-members of OGP Committee) in the nomination process would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Tri Mumpuni |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.3 |
This initiative seems quite new to be judge at the moment even it shows that they are successfully making many parties committed to join this effort |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
Street protests were taken seriously by civil society organizations whose interest, in turn, was validated by the government which offered them a platform to bring change. Serious! |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Alex Irwan |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
The OGP SC Committee consists of six government and six CSO representatives, and it was an program that was initiated by civil society that was nominated. It gives the impression that CSO representatives are at par with their government counterparts. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.2 |
The Rahvakogu is a good example of a citizen/CSO-led initiative supported by the state and implemented in a partnership.The steering committee served as nominator and decision maker for the submission of this initiative. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
Rahvakogu was an innovative response to a political crisis. The crisis was the main opportunity, incentive and driver for participation. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Igor Vidacak |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
Rahvakogu is a very ambitious and inspiring e-participation project focused on crowd sourcing policy proposals that have the potential to reform Estonian electoral system, financing of political parties and ensuring more extensive civic participation between the elections. More than 6000 ideas and comments gathered from citizens, and then assessed by scholars and practitioners, before being presented to the Parliament for formal discussion. Rahvakogu seems to have found the way to strike a good balance between citizens and expert participation.
To give the highest score, I miss the information on the criteria for recruiting representative sample of 500 citizens that were invited to take part in Deliberation Day. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Alex Irwan |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.8 |
The People's Assembly offers incentives to citizen in form of participation in amending legislations to become more responsive to their needs. It uses innovative crowd sourcing modern communication technology to reach as may citizen as possible. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.2 |
Street protests are a stark form of citizen feedback. By responding to them with such a civic mechanism, the message to citizens is that their feedback matters, even off the street. The solutions are innovative and direct. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Tri Mumpuni |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.7 |
It seems very hard to have a proof yet how deep is their engagement, still need sometimes to prove it but I consider this is a good starting point |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Igor Vidacak |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.4 |
Out of 15 proposals presented by People's Assembly (Rahvakogu) to the Parliament, 3 were actually adopted. This is a great example of the power of collaborative citizens and experts effort in agenda setting.
|
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Alex Irwan |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.9 |
Several legislative ammendments have been adopted. But the proposal does not give evidence whether the ammendments provide real benefits to the citizens or not. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.5 |
The public policy that was influenced was the active, pro-active solicitation of public opinion on matters of policy. So, the policy that was influenced was a policy that would serve as a tool to further enhance specific policies. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Tri Mumpuni |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
The issues that has been recorded in their activities is mostly political issues and they starting to involve the NGOs, but not yet confirm how the involvement will proceed of solve the problem in the future. The result in their work mostly on political issue development, not yet touching on the real community issue. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.0 |
Direct petition in a democracy provided in law redefines the relationship between the Estonia parliament and its citizens. For the Silvergate political crisis, the initiative presents Rahvakogu as component to the resolution of important aspects of that crisis such as political party finance and reform while enshrining in law peoples participation |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
The continuation, institutionalization or expansion depend directly on the legislature's willingness to take public input seriously. The quantity of input implies that the public will be its own monitor and expect / demand appropriate legislative responses. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Alex Irwan |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.7 |
Being included in the OGP National Action Plan promises sustainability in the shorter term. Sustainability in the longer term would only be ensured if the government passed a legislation to institutionalize it as part of the political system. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Tri Mumpuni |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.0 |
Since the initiative is not yet in place for so many years, we still need to wait. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Igor Vidacak |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.1 |
It is still unclear under which arrangement Rahvakogu will continue operating, but it is encouraging to see that a similar, upgraded web-based discussion forum is planned to be developed as part of next Estonian OGP Action plan.
More information on how the potential challenges of upgraded Rahvakogu would be addressed is needed for higher score. |
|
|
|
Estonia Team |
77.7 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.6 |
The team has a very clear understanding of the challenges faced by the initiative. The submission lays out the political and technical principles for the solution (bipartisanship and crowd sourcing) with the details for discussion. The initiative is presented as included in the Estonia OGP Action Plan as a flagship project |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Tri Mumpuni |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.4 |
Many actors in this group seems giving a promise that participation in the initiative will run smoothly and the government involvement has already shown clearly. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Chris Vein |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
The application clearly shows this initiatives was nominated in a consultative manner, jointly implemented and has a strong validation of claims. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.6 |
The consultation took place in the form of an online vote, during almost two weeks. The submission includes a link to the poll, as well as consultations via Facebook page. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.3 |
Demokratia.fi is presented as a technology tool box that builds on, and strengthens, existing citizen engagement and trust of the state. The initiative, as described, shows a progression from pilot to scale of eDemocracy and gives clear indication of the citizen-side of use and access. The nomination and selection of Demokratia.fi was done by the steering committee with online voting. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.3 |
The applicant has provided evidence on the participation of citizens in nominating Online Democracy Services. It is worthy noting that NGOS and citizens were not only invented to comment on the nomination of the proposed idea but were allowed to suggest counter proposals for nomination. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.8 |
"Online citizens' initiative was opened in December 2012 and has so far activated more than 300 000 users per month. More than 500 000 people have signed one or more of the 246 initiatives made electronically. This is a high percentage in a country with a population of 5.4 million. Many of the citizens which have participated have previously been uninterested in politics."
Many thanks for the statistical data. I am confused as to how the applicant could have know which citizens were reticent to participate, but are participating in the new online democracy tools. I am also not convinced that there are incentives for citizens to participate, besides the fact that online tools make it a bit easier to get involved. The feedback system seems to be in place, which is why points are in order. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Chris Vein |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
The application clearly shows, through the Democracy online services, a four part approach to incentivize, involve, and reach an ambitious level of engagement. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.1 |
Demokratia.fi offers a viable platform for its users to achieve their intended results in influencing policy. That is the incentive whether at local or national levels. As long as policy-makers and public audience are receptive to this platform, users will be incentivized to use it. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.7 |
The initiative allows all citizens to propose ideas and make inputs on proposed policies and programmes without limitation to any group or location of country. It is anchored on Finnish Citizens' Initiative law that guarantees space for engagement and given weight to citizen views. Information has been provided on high level of trust between citizens and government which further builds an environment of constructive engagement and provides incentive for participation. It is encouraging that Government is motivated by the desire to strengthen and maintain a high level of trust through initiatives like Democracy Services.
Democracy services has clearly positively impacted programmes and policies. However, this normally takes time and there are variations between the nature and character of policies and programmes, mechanisms for immediate feedback to citizens could be explored. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Tri Mumpuni |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.4 |
The government support and the other parties shown that this initiative can be implemented elsewhere with very strong cohesiveness in term of creating awareness amongst the society. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.5 |
The initiative has transformed ways in which people consult and make suggestions to government. This interest has attracted visits of over 300,000 visitors to the portal which demonstrates to users that suggestions are taken seriously and they are encouraged to use the system. Various initiatives have been stated to be associated with this platform key of which is the contribution to consultation for law-making. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Chris Vein |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.1 |
The application states: "Online citizens’ initiative has reached wide scale citizens’ awareness
and participation. 6 initiatives have reached parliament and many have
received wide-scale public visibility. The citizens' initiative has
constitutional support and therefore actual influence on the political
agenda. Being able to participate online makes campaigning without big
budgets possible for grass-roots citizens’ movements. Before the
collection of physical signatures required too much resources. Unlike in
any other country, the law proposals that reach the necessary support
get full parliamentary proceedings, similar to government bills. Online
citizens' initiative was opened in December 2012 and has so far
activated more than 300 000 users per month. More than 500 000
people have signed one or more of the 246 initiatives made
electronically. This is a high percentage in a country with a population of
5.4 million.The actual outcome of the initiative is a big step forward. Hundreds of
thousands of people, many of whom were previously unengaged in
politics, have participated in citizens’ initiatives. Six national citizens’
initiatives have reached the threshold required for parliamentary
proceedings. Many initiatives have sparked public interest and
deliberation. In addition, many municipalities have opened up their
decision-making processes and asked for feedback via the otakantaa.fi |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Tri Mumpuni |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
This initiative is completely new due to the initiative which started in 2012. There is no evidence to show that the group has done something to solve the real problem, it is true that the institution play a significant role but yet need to show how to do it. There is not clear in term of the real program that will give direct benefit to the whole society.soon unless on the political issue. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.4 |
The reason for 2.6 points under this criterion lies in the fact that there were only 6 initiatives which reached the Parliament, and that is in the period of 2 years since the establishment of the service. 3 initiatives per year do not achieve a "significant influence" over policy or service. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.1 |
Demokratia.fi as a toolbox presents a new platform for engagement with lowered costs and higher efficiency of response. It would have been interesting to have information on the 6 initiatives that have reached the thresh hold for parliamentary deliberation. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Tri Mumpuni |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
One of the reason this initiative will be successful is that many governmental organization and press so convinced that this initiative will be funded and becoming another institution. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.3 |
Funding for the initiative is in place, there are actions towards gathering users feedback (1000 responses is not a staggering number per se) and the code has been posted on github. There is no mention of potential challenges nor ideas on how these would be addressed. There is no outreach campaign envisaged. It might be contextual, i.e. the population of Finland does not have to be encouraged to participate, but to me it sounds like the government is assuming that this approach suits the needs of the citizens. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
The applicant has stated that the initiative developed from pilots in different departments before it was formally institutionalized by Ministry of Justice. Funding, maintenance and further development is already mainstreamed in the Ministry's budget and programming.
The Open Government Partnership provides government and civil society to explore opportunities for scale up and further innovations of or around the initiative. |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Chris Vein |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
According to the application: "Permanent State Secretaries have stated, that online democracy
services should be used when drafting significant legislation. Civil
servants both in government, and municipalities, have been educated
on how to use these services.
All demokratia.fi (democracy.fi) services are centrally financed and can
be used free of charge by government, municipalities, CSOs and
citizens." |
|
|
|
Finland Team |
76.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.6 |
It is a continuing initiative, supported by statute and backed by the state and popular use. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.3 |
France team has presented very convincing evidence of a strong cross-sector collaboration in designing and implementing data.gouv.fr. This is a very successful collaborative project which deserves great attention, with potential to inspire many similar endeavors by open data enthusiasts throughout OGP participating countries.
There is a whole list of strong validation letters which prove joint preparation and implementation of the initiative.
The application stresses that various civil society organisations and other contributors to the Data.gouv.fr design were consulted before the nomination decision. However, for highest mark in this category, more detailed information on the methods of consultation with stakeholders during the process of nominating the initiative would be needed.
|
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
The nomination of Data.gouv.fr was consulted with the co-owners and co-developers of the site. The presentation of the initiative shows deep partnership and ownership if all stakeholders. The best description of the initiatives was "Data.gouv.fr is a community". |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Alex Irwan |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
It is a good example of restructuring an open government portal by inviting civil society as co-producers of open data. The nomination was conducted together by the government and civil society. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Don Don Parafina |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
Partner citizen groups consistently claimed to have been involved in or contributed to the "co-design" process. The inherent inclusivity of the system (i.e., anyone can share data) also facilitated joint implementation. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
The joint implementation is by definition a part of this initiative. The data pool and its us depend on the input of NGOs as well as government. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Alex Irwan |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
Etalab provides incentives to citizen to become co-producers of data. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.1 |
The nomination of Data.gouv.fr was consulted with the co-owners and co-developers of the site. The presentation of the initiative shows deep partnership and ownership of all site stakeholders. The best description of the initiatives was "Data.gouv.fr is a community". It will be interesting to see the community grow from the site stakeholders to a broader base of users. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Don Don Parafina |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.4 |
Clear indicator of participation in data reuse, allowing even analysis and simulations. How reused data become a point of engagement between the citizens and a particular government agency (responsible for the data) does not have a defined process. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.2 |
The nature of the data cited points directly to empowering citizens in the process of political, legislative, electoral decision-making. This is a sophisticated tool with sophisticated data sets. That it has been used over 1000x indicates that there is an ambitious level of engagement with the target population. The definition of target population, too, is strategic: not just the public at large, but especially opinion and policy makers, able to influence change. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
9 months of co-design phase, 10 workshops all over the country, 2 consultations with network of experts - this demonstrates that there were many incentives for participation.
However, only 66 answers from various stakeholders during the open online consultation shows that it is hard to mobilize wider community for an open data project which is predominantly focused on community of power users able to analyze raw data.
Overall, the initiative itself is truly inspiring, particularly because it opens platform for citizens and CSO submissions which makes it a very dynamic tool for co-production of information of public interest.
It would be very interesting to explore the potential of this tool to further enhance Government-CSO cooperation, even beyond mere opening and co-producing data, towards co-producing public policies.
I have given a bit lower score in this category because I needed more evidence on compelling measure to incentivize participation of citizens in shaping public policy. Data.gouv.fr is definitely bringing public data closer to citizens and enables them to feel more ownership of public data (already paid by taxpayers). Building on this potential, it would be great to see parallel investment in building capacities of civil servants to proactively involve citizens and CSOs in decision-making, both online and offline.
|
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.6 |
Data.gouv.fr managed to engage wide range of civil society organisations in providing and re-using the data. 1100 examples of data re-use posted in the platform as well as 75000 visits per month is a strong proof of wide recognition of this initiative.
As the platform is still in its early phase of development, there is still time for providing more examples of compelling benefits of the high value data sets for citizens and government, as well as for transforming public policies and services. Measuring social and economic value of open data is demanding, but this initiative could be a great case study in this regard.
|
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.9 |
Political and campaign financing, politicians' (and officials') spending -- these are policy and service areas that have been influenced. Additionally, the promotion of use of data has led to a new push for additional data creation and availability. This is very good use of government-civil society cooperation. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Alex Irwan |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.5 |
The program works more at the supply side of data creation. The demand side is left to citizens to use the data for their own purposes. Based on experiences, demands for the data needs to be created too. Co-production should be conducted in parallel with demand creation. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Don Don Parafina |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
Benefit is still at the level of data collection, processing, analysis and presentation. Big potential to influence public policy and service if link to policy makers and service providers will be explicitly articulated in the design. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.4 |
A co-owned approach to, and tool for open governance is commendable. Data and evidence-based policy discourse and oversight is enabled.
|
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.5 |
The initiative has a strong support from Prime Minister and highest level of government. Methods used to develop Data.gouv.fr are being replicated and used by various ministries and administrative bodies.
For highest score, it would be great to see concrete examples of spill-over of positive effects of this initiative to other policy areas (beyond opening data) and strengthening citizens involvement across government bodies. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
There are on-the-ground examples of the initiative already being scaled up -- the creation of new data sets through public-private cooperation; additionally, the press have responded to the outcomes of the initiative and thus encouraged greater and broader use. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Alex Irwan |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.7 |
The co-production of data between the government and civil society has been institutionalized. But that is only one pillar for sustainability. The other pillar is the creation of demand from citizens to use and re-use the data, and the demand creation has yet to be built in into the program. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
The power relations of 2/3 data providers from outside government and 1/3 from government, to my mind will be a key driver in the usability and sustainability of this community. The quality of data as well as the credible management and support by government will be important in keeping users engaged and increasing. There was no specific mention of challenges. |
|
|
|
France Team |
79.4 |
Don Don Parafina |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.9 |
Co-management makes the platform sustainable. Agency interest, which is key to ownership, increases the chances of long-term use, but reported interests have yet to fully materialise. Stakeholders' appreciation of risks has not been sufficiently analysed. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.7 |
Community Centers for Citizen Engagement is presented as a government-led initiative that has generated citizen demand for expansion and deepening. The OGP forum as a process for nomination and selection of the initiative was also conscious of the public consultations on the community centers. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.3 |
Information provided confirm that the nomination of Community Centres for Citizen Engagement was arrived at in joint consultation of not only civil society members of the national Open Government Forum but also soliciting ideas from stakeholders outside the committee including private sector. In addition, nomination was discussed over a number of meetings and each time opportunities for inputs and counter proposals were invited. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Marija Novkovic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.1 |
There is evidence that the initiative was selected by NGO partners as the national candidate for the Citizen Engagement Awards, but little to no evidence of joint implementation. It is a Government-led project which is merely supported by the civil society partners. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.1 |
The applicant made a good effort at ensuring engagement in the application process and has provided some validation from a civil society partner. However, there is little evidence of which civil society organizations participated in the implementation - it would have been useful to give an indication of the sectors they are drawn from as an indication. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Chris Vein |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.4 |
The application clearly shows the consultation in the nomination process, implementation, and outcome involved partnerships. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
Community Centres for Citizen engagements addresses two important felt needs- making rural based populations to access public information on the basis of which they engage with Government on key policy reforms. The second aspect is blending technology with policy discuss for rural communities. A key point mentioned is the reduction of barriers to access to information and citizen engagement which would be the case without the Centres. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Chris Vein |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.3 |
The application clearly states that the Government designed a creative and unique concept of Community Centers unifying modern technologies, public and private sector services, transformed functions and roles for the libraries
and venues for civic engagement in one space. Less clear in the process of incentivizing participation, partnering for decision-making. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.9 |
This project commendably makes use of existing infrastructure (libraries) to create community centres. The ten (pilot?) centres each host on average one event (including exhibition) a month and there a number of recorded individual interactions. It has also been used within the OGP context but no indication of how the feedback was used. However, the project represents a good start. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Marija Novkovic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.5 |
The initiative is worthwhile but it does not seek to actively solicit feedback from citizens. It is very clear from the application form that the process has been designed and delivered by the central Government. There are hints of feedback mechanisms, e.g. "Based on the results of surveys and consultations with local citizens Government of Georgia defined its vision and the strategy for development of CCs." but this should have been elaborated in greater detail. On a more positive note, the centers are used to conduct consultations on OGP national priorities. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.2 |
The initiative combines many objectives for engaging citizens at the local level. The video cites as example the community center where a painting competition catalyzed citizen interest in center activities. The ability to provide incentives for citizen use and visits to community centers can build on the different needs and feedback from the citizens in the different areas. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.5 |
The piloting of CCs has influenced scale-up by establishing new centres and broadening the practice of consultations around key decisions on policies and services. Whereas the team has not pointed out a specific policy reform arising from CCs, it is clear that their importance and lessons are appreciated and informed decision on inclusion in the country's OGP action plan. Institutionalizing CCs through policy action e.g. amendments to codes governing traditional libraries or making it mandatory for Local Governments and m=municipalities to consult through CCs all major policies and decisions will be an important consideration. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Marija Novkovic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.4 |
As was indicated in the comments to the previous judging criterion, there is very little evidence that the Community Centers aim to provide ways to citizens to influence or change public policies. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.4 |
Input to the OGP Action Plan for Georgia was sourced through the mechanisms of the Community Centers for Citizen Engagement. This can potentially be used for direct feedback on government services, statutes and programs. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
The project has created an element of citizen engagement, public participation and benefitted linguistic minorities. However, there is little evidence of how this influenced the design of government policy or the concrete benefits to government and citizens. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Chris Vein |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.7 |
The statistics provided in the application clearly show a transformed public service with high standards and results. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.7 |
The number of CCs has increased to 12 will soon rise to 18 when those under construction are completed. It is mentioned that CCs enjoy the highest political support and their inclusion in OGP country action plan points to efforts for institutionalisation and scale-up, probably with a policy or legislation. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.9 |
There appears a commitment to institutionalize the pilot but little information is provided on how challenges will be dealt with. Unfortunately the project does not present a compelling vision for citizen engagement. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.9 |
There is high political support for this initiative and external funding commitment and support. Citizen demand and use of the centers may strengthen the practice and usability of citizen engagement centers. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Marija Novkovic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.7 |
Sound plans for scaling the initiative are in place, but there is no mention of risk management nor further engagement campaigns. |
|
|
|
Georgia Team |
62.5 |
Chris Vein |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.0 |
The application states that the construction of 6 additional community centers is underway. The action plan for the
development of the CCs and transformation of libraries includes further steps. However, the application is not specific about challenges faced and will be managed including how direct citizen feedback will be incorporated into the improvement of service delivery. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.4 |
|
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.0 |
consultation: not clear what their consultation process for selecting the initiative was though it seems there are CSOs on their steering committee (2)
jointly implemented: worked with private sector to build and are going to be working with CSOs and the libraries to extend use (2.5)
validation of claims: convincing (4) |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.1 |
The decision was made by the OGP steering committee without wider consultation. Although some may say that the OGP Steering Committee does have representation from various sectors of society. it is still a small group that cannot be said to fairly represent the breadth of organisations in the project's target group. Validation was only from the partner organisation. No additional external user validation was provided. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Alex Irwan |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.3 |
The initiative was selected by the Ghana Open Government Partnership Steering Committee, which members are from the government and civil society. However, there is no explanation whether the civil society representatives are at par with their government counterparts or whether the government representatives actually dominate decision making. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.7 |
The initiative mentions that the nomination was done e initiative was selected by the "Ghana Open Government Partnership Steering Committee." However it is not clear if the project was jointly implemented nor the extent to which relevant stakeholders have een consulted. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.7 |
There is good work on building the Open data community and some innovative ideas like the roadshow and TV-show to encourage and teach, but these have not yet been realised. So good but still work to be done. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.6 |
At this stage it seems that the largest output from the initiative is the existence of an open data portal which, per se, is not an avenue for citizen engagement nor an avenue to influence policy / service design or implementation. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Alex Irwan |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.6 |
Citizens can rate and comment on data sets, request new data sets and send feedback to government agencies. Outreach are also conducted to get more citizens and businesses to use the open data portal. Hackatons will be held to develop more applications for use by citizens. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.6 |
incentives: it appears they spent the first couple years trying to build the platform and are just now getting into encouraging more use through things like hackathons. unclear what incentives they'll offer other than the intrinsic motivators of those participating (1.5)
feedback methods: There is a "feedback" link with a form to email in feedback about the site. They have communities to drive use of some types of data in specific service/ topic areas. The communities have forums and blogs specific to those issue areas that might ultimately elect more meaningful and specific feedback. Unclear how the feedback that comes in through these forums will be suggested back to the decision makers to ultimately influence decisions. (2)
level of engagement: their clicks are increasing every month and there are many downloads but unclear how these clicks are improving government services, yet. (2) |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.1 |
While having a portal is useful, given that less than 15% of the Ghanaian population use the internet (World Bank data) I would question whether this is the best initiative to make data available to the public. The website as is currently laid out is not easy to navigate for an average user and contains too much IT jargon on the home page. It is therefore unclear how feedback has been used to inform the design. If your target were only business and the elite public, I would have been more convinced, |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Alex Irwan |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.5 |
The program has not reached the stage where citizens use the data to influence a public policy of service. It is still at an early stage where citizen participate in the development of the open data portal and the development of applications. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.2 |
since the platform is still at its early stages they don't have many stories for how use of the data or apps has improved a decision or a public service yet. those stories over the coming years will be important to ultimately determine the success of this platform. this is a god start but it's not showing engagement in decision making results, yet. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
1.7 |
Shows promising amounts of open data but the profits of the open data still remain fully to be seen, due to the fact that the iniative is still rather young, but has potential. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.7 |
The initiative remains a "transparency project" at this stage, and shows no evidence of change in policies or service delivery. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.4 |
No evidence of change in government policy or service delivery resulting from this initiative was presented. My understanding is that the initiative is still in its testing phase. It is therefore too early to gather this type of information. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.6 |
They have secured funding for 2015 (congrats!) to do even more so I'm sure they'll see more engagement in the future. They should focus on use of the data and encouraging use in domains that are open to public feedback and help in the way services are delivered. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Alex Irwan |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.3 |
There is no mention that the government is planning to institutionalize GODI by passing a law or regulation. It is mentioned that the government has earmarked $1 million dollar for the eTransform program which could be used to finance GODI. But the allocation is for 2015 and it remains to be seen whether the government would keep the promise and how much of those would be used to support GODI. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.3 |
It seems there is hope at the moment, but also challenges so not yet on completely sloid ground. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.5 |
An earmarked budget in a low to middle income country for an initiative such as this one is a demonstration of commitment. The question is whether this is this the best initiative to commit to to reach the identified target audience. The project may have focused on the average citizen as an indirect user (eg via the media) and not a direct one but that is not what is stated in the submission. More clarity on how the project intends to address the challenge of limited internet usage needs to be elaborated. |
|
|
|
Ghana Team |
57.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.7 |
The initiative seem to have funding secured for 2015 and it is stated that additional funding will be sought. Nevertheless, it seems that no further strategic thinking in terms of sustainability or continuity. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.2 |
There is some evidence of the municipal program partnering with civil society, but it is not enterely clear the extent and modes of the partnerships. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.5 |
The nomination was supported by community representatives. The initiative has its origin in the civil society, to have an open dialogue with authorities, by working sessions with neighbors. It was jointly implemented and presented convincing validation of claims. A stronger evidence of consultation in nominating the initiative could be provided. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Jorge Soto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.4 |
There is clear coordination between different actor in several sectors of society |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Juanita Burgos |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.4 |
|
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.4 |
The initiative include the commitment of different actors of the local field and civil society organizations |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
The main incentive was being able to have an open dialogue with the mayor and other officials. The way to solicit citizens’ aspirations was through the working sessions that were conducted. Basic feedback from its target population was obtained. However, it does not clearly indicate how feedback is being used. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Jorge Soto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.9 |
The mechanism for citizen participation is not clear and it seems to be traditional polls |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Juanita Burgos |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.8 |
|
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
This is a project that considers a privileged space for ongoing dialogue between citizens and authorities of local scope, and demonstrates results from considering citizens' initiatives in municipal management |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.8 |
The proximity between the people and the municipal authorities is the key incentive offered. It is not clear what kind of input what kind of input the neighbors introduced or can introduce and what kind of answer the people received so far or could receive. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Jorge Soto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
It does not show impact of the citizen participation feedback |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Juanita Burgos |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.2 |
The proximity between the neighbors and the the authorities was achieved and the dialogue had place. At the same time, it is not clear to what extent it had impact in local policies. One participant mentions that the answers from the authorities was too slow. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.4 |
Participants expressed as the main achievement that their views and needs have been heard by the Mayor and local authorities, with the aspiration that will be taken into account. They indicated that such exercises need to be more continuous. And that the process of responding to their proposals has being very slow. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
It is recognized that there are answers to requests arising from the spaces of dialogue and citizen participation but not detailed in greater depth or additional information on concrete results is presented in terms of improving the quality of life of the population (target audience) |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.6 |
It demonstrates plans in moving the initiative to next stages. It shows commitment to institutionalizing the initiative. It lists activities to institutionalize the initiative; but only somewhat addresses how challenges will be addressed. It is not clear how the initiative will scaled-up over time, incorporating valuable contributions of the participants. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.3 |
The initiative can be further enhanced and developed, and can be replicated in other areas in the local and regional scope |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.6 |
There are normative and institutional structures to contribute to the sustainability of the initiative. |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Jorge Soto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.6 |
It is institutionalized but it does not show a clear mechanism to scale it, nor a digital component |
|
|
|
Guatemala Team |
57.7 |
Juanita Burgos |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.2 |
This initiative is a great exercise to involve citizens on the construction of trust and confidence between municipal government and the community and it’s remarkable to be at regional level. The indicative should be complemented by other tools of participation and engagement, for example the use of ICT, social media, radio, TV, call centre, among others. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.3 |
The consultation process for nominating this initiative was elaborate and a clear effort was made to be inclusive in making this decision. Some of the time frames in the nomination process (eg. 3 days to identify and recommend organisations for nomination) seem a bit tight to me and this could have limited the opportunity to nominate the best initiatives. However, I am not familiar with the context and cannot ascertain whether this timeframe would be appropriate in Indonesia. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.3 |
The process remains a top-down government driven process depending on good intentions and on-the-spur of the moment engagement. The consultations with partners are more informational rather than collective decision-making and action. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.5 |
Provided sufficient evidence of consulting with other partners to nominate an initiative.
Does not seem to be jointly implemented. Though events were held at a lot of sites like universities, this appears to be a central government led activity.
Provided a validation of claims for the nomination process but that same validation was not terribly convincing in validating the outcomes of the project itself (the participation numbers, the number of ideas that ended up in the national action plan, etc). |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Ma'i Elimat |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.3 |
(1) The applicant took an impressive process for initiative nomination. The process engaged different parties and was implemented on more than one level with clear timeline and segregation of roles. However,
(2) The applicant did not showed a strong partnership at the implementation level. the applicant didn't provide the name and title of a single point of contact at the partner organization nor it explained the details of the partnership, despite mentioning in the initiative design section that some of non-governmental organisations assisted them in the dissemination process to encourage citizens’ participation in the initiative.
(3) The validation was clear and provided by well known civil society actors in the country; one is a local office for international organization and the other consider as an umbrella organization.
|
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.2 |
There was a rich and active process of consultation and participation in the implementation and selection. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.2 |
I think that combining electronic and in-person ways of reaching out to people was an appropriate and clear way of reaching out to the population in a representative manner. I also think that the number of cities the initiative was able to visit is impressive. I also think that making this a competition helped to incentivise participation. The concept is simple and what it lacked in innovation, it made up for in ambition in an attempt to reach across 60% of a population exceeding 240 million and a valiant effort was made to reach as many people as possible. The proposal was silent in terms of what proportion of the population was actually reached. This would also have helped me to see how many of those reached participated in the competition. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Ma'i Elimat |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
(1) The applicant provided good examples of engaging more citizens using different methods. However, more efforts would of be made due to the large population of Indonesia (i.e TV shows, radio broadcast, etc.
(2) Having online and offline tools for citizens' engagement was great to get more people involved, but as said by the applicant 70% still unconnected. To solve this obstacle the applicant was visiting universities, public services, and public areas, However, applicant didn't mentioned how many citizens were reached or if those already out of the online connected citizens. So I think more people should be reached using other tools, citizens that in villages away from the places targeted.
(3) the participating citizens according to the applicant can submit infographics and written applications, but what if a local citizen who can't write due to literacy or disability has great ideas to participate with. how could we engage such citizens in the process?
(4) The applicant didn't make it clear on the incentives for participation, according to them they "made it clear from the beginning that relevant solutions from the public would be incorporated to the Indonesia Action Plan for Open Government for 2014-2015". the question is did all population in such large country know about OGP. my opinion is that the applicant should made more efforts on explaining the important of citizen's participation in the local policies and plans, rather than only stating OGP action plan.I like the trip though, it was out of the box but people need to feel engaged in the policy level and this is the idea behind the OGP AWARD.
(5) The applicant made it clear that the feedback was incorporated in the OGP action plan, but the winning participation (20 out of 3,314) is very limited and the applicant did not include what happened to the remaining ideas? is it going to be incorporated on another level? how?. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.4 |
The channels are not innovative, but standard: a road show to encourage participation is good, but insufficient to be compelling. Given the challenges posed by geography and limited Internet penetration, the type of engagement proposed must be more creative. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.6 |
The incentives (a vacation for the winner and inclusion in the national action plan) may not have been properly aligned with the participants. Vacation may get more typical citizens to join in, but inclusion in a national plan, though it demonstrates a commitment at least on paper to implement, might not be compelling enough to get additional citizens at the table--especially if they lack trust in the government. May consider cash awards the next time.
The idea process seemed to allow a wide variety of types of ideas into the process and the number of submission exceeded their target number. However, they set their target population as quite broad (the whole country) and while they were successful in reaching a geographically diverse group of people, I'm not sure how the sample size plays with respect to the overall population; this is why i can't award this a "4" because its not clear if it secured participation of at least "half" of the target population. Also, not clear how many people submitted manually versus online. Also, while the ideas made it into a plan, they have not affected "decision making" yet as it's unclear if the ideas have yet been implemented. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.3 |
The evidence presented shows that there were, so far, effective channels for citizen feedback, and the possibility of seeing the citizen input as part of decision making processes. It is not clear what was exactly the quantification of target population. In any case, the quantity of entries and contribution to the participative iniciative presented is relevant, even when we can't define it representativeness as a sample. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
While some assertions are made in the submission which states that 20 of the best entries into the competition made it into the Open Government Action Plan, no concrete changes to policy or services are described. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.3 |
There is insufficient information to judge whether public input influenced public policy. There are numbers: 3,314 submissions from the initial target of 3,000 entries. Around 20 ideas were incorporated to the Action Plan. The nature and impact of the kind of proposals is unclear. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Ma'i Elimat |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.0 |
Since the outcome of this initiative is incorporating 20 commitments ideas on the OGP action plan, it can be said that its still expected outcome and its too early to decide if its influencing policies. Yes, citizens were engaged in the process and provided their ideas, but, any way OGP obligate public consultation in the process of developing the action plan. we can't determine if the initiative really influencing a public policy until the end of the OGP 2014-2015 plan and evaluate the level of completion. I believe that this initiative encouraged the government to engage citizens in reviewing and plan its policies which is a step forward toward citizen's engagement. This is proved as well by what the applicant stated in the outcome section "For the government, the biggest lesson learnt is that public service delivery works better when there is collaboration with its people." However, this outcome is limited and we still need to verify the level of commitment achievement to decide on policy level outcomes. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
A series of contribution through this initiative ended up as part of the Indonesia OGP Action Plan. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
It's a good step that the ideas showed up in the open government plan, but it's unclear what the progress is on implementing those ideas. Are they just in a plan or are they becoming a reality? Have they actually changed any policy or public service offerings? It's unclear from the submission what the impact of the ideas are other than being included in a plan. Also, since no details on the ideas themselves were described it's unclear how the ideas would actually benefit citizens. What kinds of ideas were they? |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.2 |
The narrative of this initiative suggests a sustainable and sacalable course of action. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.9 |
Inclusion of the best entries into the Open Government Action Plan is a form of institutionalisation and the scale of this initiative is already impressively large. However, an initiative such as this one is likely to be very costly, particularly the in-person portion. The submission does not describe how it will sustain this initiative financially, whether it will be a permanent addition onto the government budget or whether efforts are being made to secure finances from other sources, such as the private sector. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.5 |
There is no indication of how momentum will be created or sustained or enhanced. So long as outreach depends on individual face-to-face meetings, opportunities for expansion are limited. The initiative demonstrates an awareness of the importance of public participation but does not demonstrate how that will be achieved continuously or in significant numbers. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.6 |
It is clear they'd like to do this again and they recognize it may be difficult with an election in the fall. The model they've created is repeatable for public engagement, but it doesn't seem they have a definitive plan at this time to do another dialogue until after the election. |
|
|
|
Indonesia Team |
62.6 |
Ma'i Elimat |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.6 |
The applicant didn't include sufficient activities to sustain the initiative. it focused more on the significance of the initiative and the possibility of replicating it in the future based on the need. The challenges were not analysed concretely. In my opinion more challenges would be found not only change of administration (i.e. level of implementation of the commitments that responded to the citizens' selected ideas). the applicant also provided insufficient solution for challenges (i.e. regulation, citizens or organization consortium to guarantee the initiative. sustainability, etc.). |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.5 |
It is not clear there was any consultation in nominating this initiative or if it was just selected by the government.
If the citizen engagement area in question is seeking to get parental involvement in national policy decisions, then it appears the NPC has partnered very effectively with the Dep of Education to create numerous opportunities for that engagement.
The validation of claims is weak. There is a promise to submit a validation, but the validation is not provided.
Given the mixed success in meeting these judging criteria, I'll assign a 1 for consultation, a 5 for joint implementation, and a 3 for validation of claims. This averages out to a "3" for this group. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
1.9 |
Although the initiative is very engaging it seems that in selecting it there was not very much consultations/engagement. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.9 |
|
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Tiago Peixoto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.9 |
It is not clear whether there has been a broader consultation with partners in nominating it as an initiative. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Ma'i Elimat |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.6 |
(1) The applicant showed no or limited consultation in nominating an initiative. it was selected by the applicant directly, and supported by some of education background bodies. Even the validation of the claims was not signed or properly explained,(was only email stating that the executive director of the organization will send documents). (2) The validation is produced from the The Irish Primary Principals Network and all other contacts made in the email were from the same sector "Education".
(3) No evidence of partnership while implementation was provided by the applicant. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Ma'i Elimat |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
(1) The applicant provided only few of the incentives represented by voicing the parents' opinions and concerns. So more efforts could be done in this field.
(2) The applicant obtain feedback from the target population and use their feedback to voice their opinions and concerns with limited efforts to engage as much as possible of its target group. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Tiago Peixoto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
The initiative seeks to explore different channels to gather feedback from participants, thus increasing the inclusiveness of the process as a whole. The extent to which the target population is fully engaged, however, remains unclear. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.7 |
|
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.6 |
Incentives: 4.
they don't detail incentives they provide to parents other than the influence in their child's education--which may be enough for some parents, but not all. They also demonstrate they are able to influence policy as a result of the participation, which may be enough of an incentive for some.
Means for Soliciting Feedback: 3
They use primarily surveys and the assembly to seek feedback on specific policy issues and allow representatives to raise other issues. These are pretty traditional tools. Unclear if they're using any online forums to solicit feedback and encourage discussion as well.
Level of Engagement: 3
They seems to reach pretty wide with the assembly. The survey responses are on the order of 500 to 1500 per issue, which is not even one response per school. Unclear if this response rate is statistically significant. Also, unclear if other stakeholder groups in eduction policy are being consulted or if it's just the parents. Other groups (like tax payers without children) would certainly also have opinions about how their tax dollars are used. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
Demonstrated sufficient incentives for participation; created indirect ways to solicit citizens’ aspirations...
Specifically, this initiative is well oriented towards the targeted public, and address the chances that involves generating opportunities for citizen participation to improve the quality of primary education |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
The evidence given on the results achieved in the improvement of educational policies is insufficient |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Tiago Peixoto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.1 |
The submissions present two clear cases where citizen feedback seems to have impacted policies in a positive manner. The extent to which these are anecdotal accounts or if a systematic participation / responsiveness cycle can be identified remains an open question.
|
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Ma'i Elimat |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.7 |
The applicant made significant influence on eduction policies, which benefited the students parents and education atmosphere and also benefited the Ministry of Education to proceed with better polices that suites citizens. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.2 |
|
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.6 |
This method clearly creates an opportunity for parents to have their voices heard and considered in the education policy making process on a national level. Would be interested to see how satisfied parents are with this process. That's the only piece of information keeping this from being a "5". |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Ma'i Elimat |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.6 |
The applicant set clear path to sustain the initiative. The applicant clearly provided the challenges and outlined steps to overcome these challenges. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.9 |
The initiative has a strategic plan, and infrastructure in place to keep the basic consolation pieces running. There is some funding uncertainly and some uncertainty around the capacity to manage volunteers in the future but on the most part it seems this organization has a good grasp on a path forward to continue to have parents involved in the education and education policy process. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Tiago Peixoto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.9 |
The initiative is dependent on government funding. However, recognizing the role of volunteers, the initiative takes specific steps to address it. While the challenges are acknowledged (e.g. economic circumstances), it is not clear how these challenges are dealt with. |
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.4 |
|
|
|
|
Ireland Team |
74.3 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.9 |
Apparently, this is an initiative that has been developed systematically over time, so it is assumed to have sufficient information/evidence to be institutionalized and sustainable |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Ma'i Elimat |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.8 |
(1) The consultation process for the nomination of the initiative was strongly evident. the public consultation period was very limited though (one week). I recommend in future consultation processes to increase the length of the period to obtain better feedback.
(2) The applicant provided clear evidence as well on the partnerships during the implementation with clear role of each partner. The validation of claims was also strongly presented. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
The selection process was open to the public and inclusive and the initiative was chosen from 4 nominated initiatives with 82% of a public web-based vote. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
It has a strong commitment and support of all stakeholders involved in the initiative (and beyond) |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
|
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.6 |
Strong evidence as regards nomination as separate ideas were considered. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
The intiative is excellent in giving out information and in allowing citizens to monitor and increasing citizen engagement. Almost perfect but there could be still a stronger aspect on citizens actually being in engaged in the decision-making processes. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.9 |
Strong partnership with leading civil society groups makes a strong claim on engagement across board. Full marks to 4 points cannot be awarded as it has not reached half of the target population. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
The selection of a monitoring focus that is high on the public agenda provided an incentive for the public to want to be involved. The linking of the open data portal with a form of social audit makes the exercise a fun learning experience. It also creates a culture for future adults to get used to engaging with data from an early age. Data is only updated every 2 months. This is a problem if data is to be accessed early enough to enable civic engagement. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.6 |
It is a good tool / project to follow up and monitor initiatives on open government in Italy (particularly in the axle linked to focus in open data and reuse of public sector information) |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Ma'i Elimat |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
(1) The applicant didn't make it very clear on the incentives for participation. it rather focus on the initiative impact of engaging more citizens, and address their feedback, and the benefits they can get from this initiative (which maybe the applicant considered as incentives). I would recommend more innovative incentives to encourage citizens to participate and benefit from the initiative.
(3) I liked very much engaging the school students which was innovative way to solicit citizens especially with this generation.
(4) The applicant didn't make it clear on how the feedback from the citizens "the monitoring reports through Monithon " is being used. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.2 |
The evidence presented in terms of changed policy is with the Ministry of Education where their validation letter indicates that they have recently instructed the the OpenCohesione school project be rolled out to all public schools. This is a significant impact of the project on how the government conducts its business. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.9 |
Presents sufficient information on results achieved, especially at the local level/communities (civic monitoring and focus in schools) |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Ma'i Elimat |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.3 |
I found that this is very innovative initiative that really created impact on the life of citizens, and the cooperation between CSOs and the government toward more transparency in the public fund especially with the country contexts. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.9 |
Engaging top civil society organizations to the use of the platform and also allowing them to use different approaches is commendable and it shows that there have been significants benefits of the project to the civil society and citizens. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.8 |
|
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
This is a consolidated and institutionalized initiative with active participation of stakeholders beyond government and enjoys an attractive approach towards civic monitoring, engaging society on issues of open government and to promote accountability and active participation from others communities (researchers, journalists, etc.) |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Ma'i Elimat |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
(1) The path for sustainability of the initiative and scale it up is clearly outlined. However,
(2) The applicant didn't outline and projected challenges or how to overcome these challenges. (i.e. resistance of some political powers to such initiative, financial constrains, etc.) |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.7 |
A good case to scale platforms but this has not fully addressed how challenges faced with adoption of projects will be handled. |
|
|
|
Italy Team |
85.5 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.8 |
The pathway to sustainability is clear but until the second phase of funding is approved, it is uncertain. The Department has also articulated plans to improve the portal in ways that will attract more users. The adoption of the approach in other sectors of government and society will definitely continue to sustainability and is clear evidence of the project being scaled up. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.3 |
Although the process of inclusion remains top down and is selective, the numbers of those who were engaged is rather high and represents a good crosssection of society. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
Consultation: Did consult with civil society in selecting the initiative (4)
Implementation: was not jointly implemented but does have strong validation of claims (4) |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Alex Irwan |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
It is not a joint application. However, the Ministry of Public Sector Development (MOPSD) that was in charge of reviewing the suggested initiatives consulted civil society organizations along the way, not just at the national but also governorate level. as confirmed by some key Jordanian civil society organizations. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.1 |
There was partnership in choosing the initiative and also in the other steps of the way. Well organised, but if one would wish to add something it might have been an open call, but on the other hand the intiative looks so impressive would have likely been chosen then too. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Don Don Parafina |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.7 |
Consultation process is largely driven by the government. Testimonies on youth and women's participation came from government instrumentalities handling youth and women sectors, and therefore, do not provide direct voice of the sectors. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Alex Irwan |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.9 |
The "Enhancing the National Integrity System" program used various media such as TVs, radios, daily newspapers and online media and reached out to different CSOs to engage as many citizens as possible at the national and local level in the development of the National Integrity Charter and the Executive Plan. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Don Don Parafina |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
Nationwide campaign for the integrity system clearly showed the effort to reach out to citizens. Need validation of the result of the process of reviewing feedback, voting on ideas, and finalizing the draft charter on the National Integrity System. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.9 |
Imperssive that there were opportunities for all Jordans to give their views. Also a big plus for the media campaign. If one would like to make this evemn more perfect maybe even more representatives of the civil society could have been involved in the committees. But very impressive work. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.4 |
The incentives for participation are the traditional patriotism, trust, striving for better -- all the good attributes of good citizenship, but not necessarily catalysts for active engagement, taking initiative, risking innovative participation. The reliance on citizen goodwill and commitment is great, innovative channels are limited. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.3 |
Incentives: They did not detail any incentives provided to the members of the citizenry that provided feedback other than being part of a process where ideas were incorporated into a final government plan. Maybe having a voice in a transparent process was the incentive? (2)
Level of Feedback: It is unclear HOW they sought feedback (online? in person) but it is clear they communicated the opportunity to provide feedback through a number of channels (radio, TV, newspapers). They sought feedback on a draft plan which suggests they wanted direct feedback, not aspirations. (2)
Level of Engagement: They got 1000 ideas from the citizenry. This is a pretty good number of entries but unsure how it relates to the overall population size since those numbers were not provided (3) |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Alex Irwan |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.6 |
Implementation of the various steps outlined in the action plan has started to show changes in public policies. A number of governmental and non-governmental initiatives are already underway to strengthen budgetary and auditing processes, reorient government work towards achieving results, reinforce monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and restructure government agencies. Citizens will benefit from less budgetary leakages and better targeted and more effective programs. Meanwhile the government gains more public legitimacy and political stability amidst the politically turbulent region. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.3 |
It seems the outcome was a reaffirmation of the commitment to Integrity. This is not a change in public policy, rather a repeated call to implement good, ethical policy. The affirmation is not a channel for participation, it's a call for participation, an urging to abide by laws and ethics. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Don Don Parafina |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
It has influenced public policy on integrity and culminated in the presentation of the plan to the King. The benefit will come when the plan is translated into action steps and successful implementation ensues. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.3 |
A very vital and impressive work, due to the fact that the initiative was launched rather recenetly all benefits can not of course be yet seen. But looks very promising indeed. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.3 |
The consultation resulted in a plan which is currently being implemented. There is oversight in place to track progress against the implementation of the plan. Unclear if those reports are publicly available. The types of ideas to strengthen the integrity system were not discussed in detail. This initiative assumes that increased integrity in government will have other spillover benefits to citizen (over and above increased trust in government) but those benefits were not articulated in detail. The plan in and of itself is a change to a public policy so that is transformative for Jordan. Unclear what the results are to the citizen quite yet. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
The media campaign and the involvement of citizens is ecellent and crucial. It is good that it is recognised that the public ownership is vital. and that there is work going on to ensure that. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.5 |
The institutionalization of the initiative relies on public goodwill and government agencies adopting the provisions of the Charter. There is no road map for how. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Don Don Parafina |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.3 |
Political risks and challenges were not discussed. Citizen involvement after drafting the charter happens only through publishing reports and awareness raising. No clear mechanics to realise public pressure on state institutions to implement integrity system. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Alex Irwan |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
The current political context, the Arab Spring movements and constitutional amendment, provides avenues for sustainability of the National Integrity political reform. The government has even set up two committees, the Royal Committee to oversee the work of government and non-government institutions and the Higher Steering committee to follow up on progress with all government institutions to promote the sustainability of the program. However, the program still needs to be institutionalized through a law or legislation to protect its sustainability from leadership changes at the national level. |
|
|
|
Jordan Team |
71.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.9 |
Unclear if this is a one time consultation process or if there are plans to use it again for other public policy development processes. the resulting plan from this consultation is still in implementation mode until 2018 and it's unclear how the reporting on progress is made publicly available. They have made plans to ensure the implementation continues through 2018 to the best of their ability but the consultation process seems to be limited to the charter and plan development. Does list challenges to implementation and means to mitigate those risks. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.3 |
MCIC has been involved as a CSO partner for Government in the Mirror and also stated its case as a partner. It is als o commendable that this is part of the OGP Action Plan |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.9 |
The process for nominating this initiative for the Open government awards was not elaborated in the submission. The project is jointly implemented by MISA with MCIC, a civil society partner, whose role was to monitor the development of legislation in Macedonia. Th only concrete evidence of real cooperation presented was government acknowledgement of MCIC findings and publishing their monitoring results on its website. Otherwise, from the submission, they seem to be 2 separate, but complementary initiatives. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Stef van Grieken |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.1 |
The application does not mention any consultation of ngo's in designing the program. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.6 |
Good example of complimentarily between the government and NGO. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.8 |
The initiative is proposed and implemented by the line ministry and NGO partner. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
The project uses an innovative tool to ensure that citizen feedback is obtained. However, this remains limited (despite the increase from 3 - 83 comments between 2011 and 2013). |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.7 |
While more innovative ways of eliciting citizen feedback on the legislative process could have been employed, the two initiatives ENER and Open Government in the Mirror do provide a way enable citizens to monitor how this process is being implemented in reality while an independent intermediary organisation interprets and analyses the data, making it public in an easily understandable format and so the public can engage with it meaningfully provide informed feedback. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.3 |
Moderate scoring is awarded to the Macedonian initiative here, on account of the fact that the initiative did not manage to pique the interest of the population, i.e. 83 comments in 2013 is not a breathtaking demonstration of the usefulness of the tool. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.9 |
Incentives for participation have not been sorted and the program still needs to find creative ways to drive usability and citizen engagement. However, it is good that it is monitoring feedback. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Stef van Grieken |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.6 |
The site allows citizens to comment on legal text. A total of 83 comments were proposed. This is a very low level of engagement. How this engagement influenced these laws is not clear from the application. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.7 |
While this tool is useful it unfortunately shows little value on the impact that citizen engagement has had, |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
Again, a moderate score is handed based on the fact that there is little visible change to public policies or services. The initiative did, however, take into account users' comments and amended the conditions for public input (word limits were increased). |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.1 |
Opportunities to change civil service is still stated in the future tense but there is a potential if there are better ways to amplify usage by citizens and civil society. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
The examples of influence in the design and delivery of government policy and/or services is that government changed its portal to enable users to give longer feedback and publishing the monitoring results of the Open Government Mirror on the ENER website. These may improve future results of this initiative and may assist in holding public servants to account provided that naming and shaming is a sufficient incentive for civil servants to change their behaviour. However, no evidence was presented in the submission that such behavior change has occurred. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Stef van Grieken |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
The outcomes of the 83 comments are not clear from the application. It could have some influence, i doubt it had more influence that regular law making processes giving the low number of people engaging. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
MCIC has made committments in documents and also has stated funding plans for the next five years which is commendable. Institutionalising this in other tiers of government and making it a durable model is necessary. Being part of the OGP plan of the Macedonia puts on a "green light" for sustainability. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Stef van Grieken |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.4 |
The program does not seem te be an effective way of engaging citizens. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.1 |
The project displays commitment from both parties to ensure its sustainability. However, there is not a sufficient plan detailing how it plans to increase citizen engagement and measure the response of government to such feedback. This would be very helpful - and of great use in maximising the impact of the project. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.4 |
Plans for taking the initiative further are well thought through. |
|
|
|
Macedonia Team |
61.4 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.6 |
The project funding is secure for the next five years. After that, sustainability will depend on continued government commitment. Given that some of the information published will not present the government in the best light, what preemptive mechanisms will will be considered by the project to ensure that this commitment continues to be guaranteed should a key government institution face significant reputational risk from certain findings that could come to light on this project? |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.4 |
It is a commendable initiative with citizen centered design to report cases of security breach to authorities. Additional letters validate the claims. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
Centro de Integración Ciudadana is definitely very collaborative initiative, involving citizens, CSOs, private sector and local government. The application documents show strong evidence on joint implementation of this valuable project.
The initiative was nominated for Open Government Awards by a tripartite body involving also Transparency Mexico, as voice of civil society, after examining several projects. I would be able to give highest score in this category if more evidence was presented on the inclusiveness of the nomination process and possibilities for wider group of CSOs to have their say on the proposal. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
Consultation was made between the three members of the OGP committee, who selected the initiative; a broader consultation process could have been done. It has been jointly implemented: local businesses financially supported the initiative and has gained support of tech companies. They presented several letters showing convincing validation of claims. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Chris Vein |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.6 |
The application is not clear that the impressive work was actually implemented jointly. It does show consultation in nomination and validation of claims is good. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.1 |
The initiative has been jointly nominated by the NGO and government partners. Letter of support also demonstrate partners' satisfaction of the results achieved. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.9 |
The main incentive offered is to contribute to a safer city, facing the problem of security in which they live is an important motivator. They have created direct ways to solicit citizens’ support, through several channels such as phone, e-mail and social media. They strive to accomplish a good level of participation of the target population. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
The initiative makes use of emerging means of communication such as social media. It seems like that has contributed to a two-way dialogue between the citizens and the authorities, whereas it has also enabled peer to peer support. Citizens are engaged both on Twitter and Facebook. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.5 |
When it comes to the depth of engagement, this initiative deserves the highest score, and there are several reasons for that.
First of all, this is a truly bottom-up initiative that has managed to bring together citizens, CSOs, businesses and local government actors in responding to most pressing needs in local community of Monterrey.
Widespread feelings of apathy, resignation, loss of power combined with the lack of trust are probably among biggest threats to citizens engagement around the world. By encouraging the creation of networks of mutual support and trust in a city that was deeply affected by violence and crime, this initiative rebuilds hope in the power of citizens.
Centro de Integración Ciudadana is an excellent example how citizens, acting in synergy with other stakeholders, can engage local government in a collaborative dialogue that can lead to transforming public services, improving public safety and strengthening capacities for emergency and risk management. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Chris Vein |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.4 |
Their application presents a compelling case: "Today, CIC stands
out as a network of ~60k citizens on Twitter alone who interact over 13k
times per month with @CICmty and registered 22k Likes on Facebook. CIC
has received over 80k reports since its launch and provided over legal and
psychological aid to over 1k crime victims and their families. CIC receives
over 25k unique visits, has over 6k downloads of its mobile apps (iOS /
Android) and publishes over 2.5k validated citizen reports per month that are
channeled to authorities." |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
With 60,000 followers on Twitter and other results of monthly reports, this looks commendable but how will the program incentivize citizens further was not stated. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.2 |
Bearing in mind the specifics of the issue, i.e. security challenges, the initiative did manage to bring about a tangible change. The numbers are compelling: "An indicator of performance is the conversion rate of CIC assisted kidnapping victims that file a complaint with the authorities, from a low ~20% in early 2012 it has risen to almost ~70% by the end of 2013." |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.2 |
The attached presentation named "Awakenings: Civic Engagement in the Digital Age-Case for CIC" provides strong evidence on new standards of real time collaboration among citizens and local government in resolving most urgent problems in local community. This citizen driven safety reporting online tool seems to be very effective and manages to mobilize great number of users. It would be very to interesting to see more precise data on local government response and concrete changes in the quality of services provided by local authorities. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.1 |
Showed figures on how their service has been improved. The support of the people is demonstrated by website visits, Twitter followers, Facebook likes and application downloads. Having had a clear baseline that motivated the initiative (a high perception of insecurity, distrust of authorities and levels of impunity for the crime), no information was provided on how the initiative has impacted on these figures or how citizen engagement have influenced the design of public security policies. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.7 |
Sufficently, it has shown progress in terms of the security situation and with the committment of the corporate sector, this is commendable. However, how to validate reports by citizens and provide emergency response in a short time has not been properly stated. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Chris Vein |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.8 |
Again, the application makes a compelling case: "Today, CIC stands
out as a network of ~60k citizens on Twitter alone who interact over 13k
times per month with @CICmty and registered 22k Likes on Facebook. CIC
has received over 80k reports since its launch and provided over legal and
psychological aid to over 1k crime victims and their families. CIC receives
over 25k unique visits, has over 6k downloads of its mobile apps (iOS /
Android) and publishes over 2.5k validated citizen reports per month that are
channeled to authorities." |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.7 |
According to the information submitted, it appears that the main factor to ensure sustainability is economic, for which have developed various strategies (to attract donors and the sale of products for which they receive a percentage as donation). The positive response from the public is another factor in seeking sustainability, as well as to have the initiative replicated by other local governments, with support of the national government. Potential challenges are not clearly identified or how they will be addressed. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Marija Novkovic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.4 |
The submission includes a sound proposal for sustaining and pushing the frontiers further. Given the success of the project, it does not come as a surprise that it is being replicated in other cities. Perhaps it would be a good idea to also share stories of drawbacks or failures so that other communities which take up this model could avoid it. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Igor Vidacak |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.7 |
As Centro de Integración Ciudadana grew from strong mobilization of citizens, acting in synergy with business sector, and finally managing to engage local government partners, the initiative presents sustainable model that can be further developed and replicated. In addition to already developed tools of online citizens engagement and free legal and psychological aid to victims of crime, I believe CIC has a potential to widen spectrum of its offline citizens participation activities and grow into even stronger catalyst of building human and social capital in Monterrey and Mexico. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
Corporate sector has said that government have to bring up financial comittments in the future and thi has not been addressed in the pitch. |
|
|
|
Mexico Team |
82.4 |
Chris Vein |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.0 |
The three fronts for sustainability are impressive. Especially exciting is the collaboration and donor activities that could sustain these efforts beyond the limits of government involvement. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.8 |
Greater internal government consultation than government-NGO consultations, but countrywide problems identified and tackled nevertheless. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Don Don Parafina |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.7 |
A reputable organisation validated the initiative, but there was no indication that it was co-implemented. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.0 |
A consultation process for the nomination of this initiative is articulated in the submission but the process for making the final decision is unclear. It merely states that this was the initiative proposed by the Prime Minister. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Alex Irwan |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.0 |
The ‘’Government 1111 center’’ has been nominated by Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of Mongolia after extensive consultation with civil society counterparts. The initiative, however, is government run. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Ma'i Elimat |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.9 |
(1) The applicant didn't provide enough information about the consultation process for nomination the initiative, only information was provided on who was consulted, and it look like the start point begin from the government and the CSOs support this choice.
(2) The applicant didn't make any partnership to implement the initiative.
(3) the applicant provided minimal validation of claims. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Alex Irwan |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
The initiative of the government to use new communication technologies to overcome the barriers of distance and costs for nomadic citizens living in remote areas to send in requests, complaints, concerns, feedback, inquiries, and compliments is remarkable. It allows the government to improve services and provides rapid responses to address the urgent needs of the people that previously didn't have access to government policies and services. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.2 |
Created reliable ways to make participation possible. Given the absence of such mechanisms earlier, incentives were perhaps not necessary. The simple offering of various technological communication mechanisms, simplified, and providing easy access, might be incentive enough. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Ma'i Elimat |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
5.0 |
(1) The applicant has taken different measures to incentivise citizens' participation, taking into account the different facilities and capabilities of each citizen. it was innovative.
(2) the processing of the citizen's feedback is highly appreciated, especially broadcast it on national TV channels weekly and using all other media approaches.
(3) I believe this initiative has provided comprehensive and varied measures to make most of target population engaged. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Don Don Parafina |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.7 |
The system has effectively attracted citizens' participation. Defining the process of analysing the feedback and response will deepen the engagement. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
The initiative was targeted at a segment of the population that was difficult to reach. A direct hotline is an interesting, direct and effective way to address this problem given the high mobile phone coverage rates in Mongolia. The target rate was the rural population which is about 1.5 million people. The number of people who have used the hotline was 95,000. While this falls short of the target population, not all of the target population would want to engage or would necessarily have something to say to government. It should also be noted that participation has increased by 80% in 2 years. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.8 |
Given the geographical nature of Mongolia and its population distribution, it is not surprising that this initiative has been groundbreaking. The government managed to list at least five ways in which information from the hotline has caused it to change the way it delivers services to people several of which are shown to have significant concrete benefits to citizens. People who had no way of reaching government easily for basic essential services are now able to access these services. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Ma'i Elimat |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.3 |
(1) I believe this is a unique initiative that really respond to the citizens' needs and help them to make their life easier. in addition, it helped the government rethink about their decisions and policies and reserve their resources.
(2) The applicant provided strong and clear evidence of concrete and on ground outcomes that is transformative and beneficial for both sides; government and citizens. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Don Don Parafina |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
It would be helpful to know how the 95,000 requests had been processed and how five instances of government responses were arrived at. The percentage of resolved feedback would demonstrate how reliable the system is in facilitating government-citizen engagement. Best also to have complete information on the government agencies' response time on each feedback and set criteria for the quality of the response and citizens' satisfaction over the response. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.5 |
The impact appears to be on public services, not on public policy. Still, this is an important component in public-government interaction. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Alex Irwan |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.7 |
Although evidence regarding improvement of better services for the nomadic citizens living in the isolated areas has not been identified, there are evidences of benefits received by other citizens such as local vegetable growers, district households that have no heating infrastructure in Ulaanbaatar, and improved primary school system. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.7 |
On the one hand, the continuing availability of each communication mechanisms will lead to greater use and penetration in the population. On the other hand, it is not clear if government is able to handle additional interaction and new expectations. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Alex Irwan |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.4 |
‘’Government 1111 center’’ initiative has become a model for local governments and each of 21 provinces has started operating its own 1111 service centers. To promote sustainability, the Cabinet Secretariat of government has proposed a “Free of charge service’’ to provide better accessibility for the citizens.
|
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
Currently 1111 is a chargeable service and landline rates apply. This makes the initiative very cheap for government to run. It also limits accessibility of the service to those who can afford the phone call and will limit how long people have to state their problem. The plans to make this a toll free phone line will increase access to those who wouldn't otherwise use the service. The initiative has been running for 2 years. The extent to which this service is essential to many of its users will make it very difficult for government to remove this service if it chooses to do so. will determine 1111's sustainability assuming that people now having services on a consistent basis it would be politically untenable to remove it. The challenge of reach is mentioned and plans to make the service toll free,a sign language service, a chat service, and in-person home visits are what is proposed to address this.address this. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Don Don Parafina |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.6 |
System is easy and its local adoption is happening. Gaps in the process of analysing the feedback and response don't allow an objective view of how potential challenges could be addressed. |
|
|
|
Mongolia Team |
75.6 |
Ma'i Elimat |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
The applicant clearly outlined a path to scale up, disseminate the initiative and get more citizen's engaged (users). One challenge was presented and solution was anticipated. I would however, strongly recommend further risk plan on other challenges that may face the initiative either inside the government or from the citizens and find solutions. of course such plan would be developed much better with citizens engaged in the process. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
Evidence of consultation includes formal written endorsements from non-government organisations. The initiative is jointly implemented with the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Montenegro. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
A brilliant solution which has the involvement of government institutions from the start. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Tiago Peixoto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.6 |
Provided evidence of consultation and partnerships. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.8 |
|
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Stef van Grieken |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
The government worked with academia and some civic society groups. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.6 |
This initiative is both an effective and innovative way of addressing a longstanding problem through citizen/state collaboration. It is a win-win for everyone. The problem gets addressed and people see tangible outcomes. I want this in my country! |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.9 |
In a very important area - grey economy - an excellent way to het citizrns to be co-partners. Technology well used but also well thought of target groups so that also those who have not as good tech-skills can inform. And an excellent think to bring back part of the money to the initiatives citizens can choose. A good direct incentive. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Tiago Peixoto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.8 |
The incentives for participation were well thought out. First by reducing the transaction costs associated with the act of participating by the creation of an app but also, equally important, phone hotlines. Furthermore, the fact that part of the revenue generated goes back to the community is not only an incentive but may create a virtuous cycle of participation. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Stef van Grieken |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
The app allows people to report tax avoidance in the grey market |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.7 |
Using funds to deliver services that citizens can relate with is a good incentive to scale and this is very commendable but 2,500 citizens is not close to the potential number of users expected. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Tiago Peixoto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
5.0 |
The delivery of government policy and services was enhanced in a number of ways. First by creating a system that helps to reduce tax evasion, this latter a limiting factor for good service delivery. The fact that part of the revenues goes to a participatory process affects policy in the sense that new channels for participation of budget revenues were created. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Stef van Grieken |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
This project is a campaign directed to solve the grey market issue, it is not an initiative citizens wanted to take to improve on a government service. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.8 |
Improving government revenue efficiency is a good idea and has shown empirical service delivery that citizens can relate with. It needs to scale further with mobile app usage. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.9 |
Increased citizen reporting of instances of grey economy illegalities 10-fold. 250.000 of the 500,000 Euros was used for five community projects chosen by citizens via the project website. 2500 citizens participated in assisting government to address a problem with which it had been struggling for years. All very impressive. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.0 |
There is very clear evidence in numbers. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
The strategy for scaling the initiative to beaches was stated but the current and potential challenges are not stated. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Stef van Grieken |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
I think it is a good example of campaigning and technology to solve a social problem, it could scale easily to governments facing similar issues |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
Future looks promising, but might be a challenge also to keep up the interest of citizens. New innovative ideas might be needed i n addition to the already existing excellent ones. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Tiago Peixoto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
5.0 |
Activities to institutionalize the initiative are mentioned, however little thought is given to challenges. Having said this, the fact that the initiative aligns incentives for both sides (i.e. government / citizens) is the greatest factor of sustainability. |
|
|
|
Montenegro Team |
86.2 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
5.0 |
The government has now employed 2 members of staff on this project full time. The most impressive advantage of this initiative from a sustainability standpoint is that it is able to pay for itself financially a from the additional revenue raised from fines. In addition, it gives back to the community by supporting projects chosen by citizens. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
Consultation: Had a public nomination process and a diverse group of judges to select the initiative (5)
Implementation: Was jointly implemented with a partner agency (5)
Validation of Claims: Validation of claims provide from partner agency (5) |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Ma'i Elimat |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
(1) The nomination of the initiative was fairly organised and engage different parties according to clear timeline.
(2)The initiative was jointly implement according to the applicant who provided clear picture of who was involved and the role of each partner.
(3) The applicant provided a strong validation of claims. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
Shows strong evidence of consulting others in nominating an initiative; jointly implemented with a partner agency and strong validation of claims. The nomination was selected by a jury after an open call, having a public procedure for projects to apply. They used various channels to promote that stakeholders know about this call. And a jury of various stakeholders chose the project that was nominated. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.2 |
There was a partnership between representatives of CSOs and government both in the nomination and implemementation of the initiative. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.5 |
Employed compelling measures to incentivize participation; used direct and innovative methods to partner with citizens in decision-making; reached an ambitious level of engagement with its target population. Via a letter, citizens were invited personally to come and visit the website. A reminder was sent to the citizens several days before the deadline of participation. And outcomes are, of course, the best incentive. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.8 |
There is a strong incentive for citizen participation: a fair tax estimation, and the initiative itself is about channeling the citizen views about the estimation. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.0 |
Incentives: The incentive to participate was to ensure the assessment on your property was accurate before taxes were levied on that amount. This could save people money and also increase their confidence in the assessment process. No additional incentive provided though the financial savings could be enough (4)
Feedback Methods: Citizens would use the website to seek a change in their assessment once they were notified they were available. It's not clear if they were seeking ideas or inputs for HOW assessments are determined (the formula) or if, recognizing they might have old or inaccurate data about a property as the basis for their formula, they are merely giving the public the opportunity to correct data that powers the formula. It's less about feedback about how a tax is assessed and more about transparency and participation earlier in the process of conducting a public service. (2)
Participation Level: They focused on one particular locality. It's unclear the numbers of people that participated. That data was no provided. They did however identify clearly their target population (3) |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Ma'i Elimat |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.1 |
1) The applicant provided reliable incentive for citizens to be engaged which is the impact on their property appreciation by carefully examining their corrections, and that is really touching directly their interests . However,
(2) The applicant can provide more innovative way to get citizen feedback.
(3) It was not clear to me from the application how many population has participated out of the targeted. I believe the applicant made clear efforts thought to include as much as possible from both citizens who did and didn't participated in the projects. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.5 |
There has been a quantitative evaluation of the experience showing the impact of the initiative in the citizen experience and the communication with the government. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
|
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Ma'i Elimat |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.3 |
This initiative really impacted the people daily life by influencing their economic interests. it made their life easier and the trust in the government decision pertaining their tax appreciation better. More important, it made them feel engaged and control over government decision that influence their lives. The benefits for both government and citizens were very clear from the results of the questionnaire on people feedback about the service. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.4 |
Transformed a public policy or service; set new standards for the relationship between government and citizens; resulted in concrete benefits for both. During three years they have been able to improve the initiative. Figures show how the service has improved, data quality has been improved and work processes have been optimized. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.6 |
influence: this activity definitely influenced the performance of a public service and changed the way in which the process was conducted, but the service itself was not changed (Assessments are still the basis of taxes and unsure if homeowners were involved in redesigning the formula and process for assessments itself). However, the performance of the existing derive, but engaging people earlier in the process certainly improved. (4)
benefits: the results they are seeing with this process change are great and people seem to be satisfied and the process itself has improved significantly (5) |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.9 |
This seems to be an ongoing program for the locality in which it's currently conducted. They have considered challenges for scaling to other localities as well but not sure how aggressively they are pursuing that scaling. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
5.0 |
Presents a durable model of how it has been institutionalized. The initiative already has three years of development and has been institutionalized by its outcomes. An specific need was chose, on which they have been working during an important period, achieving major results. Makes a compelling case for how challenges are been managing. They are ambitious, looking for this initiative to be replicated by others. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
Scaling up is the main focus of the idea of nominating this experience. |
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
Netherlands Team |
85.0 |
Ma'i Elimat |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.3 |
The sustainability plan was insured in the design of the initiative to be replicated to other areas., which is good step forward. However, there is no enough efforts to disseminate it or overcome the challenge of other municipalities refusal to join the initiative. maybe creating lobbying groups from the citizens at these areas would be a step to encourage these municipalities to join the initiative. maybe national level law or bylaw!. So I encourage the applicant to work harder on the sustainability part as this is really great initiative. I believe also that same citizens who helped the implementation and design of this initiative would provide innovative ways as well to maintain its sustainability. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Don Don Parafina |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
Clear roles of Difi, on the part of the government, and the media groups in crucial stages of developing and running the initiative, including setting the policy framework and designing, testing, and evaluation. The involvement of numerous stakeholders in the nomination process gave a strong impression of inclusivity and ownership. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
OEP is presented as a good example of a jointly-designed, implemented and continually improving partnership for open government. The partnership stakeholders and the initiative users are clear. The nomination was open and the final selection by a smaller taskforce. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Igor Vidacak |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.1 |
OEP initiative was chosen based on invitation sent to more than 70 entities from Government and CSOs, and after a meeting on the subject where 2 possible initiatives were identified. A joint Government-CSO task force decided on final proposal. There is a strong evidence on involving various stakeholders (especially Norwegian Press Association) in nominating, validating and jointly implementing the initiative.
It would be helpful to learn more information on criteria for choosing CSOs to which invitation for submission of nominations was sent, as well as for taking part in task force.
|
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.5 |
The nomination of Electronic Public Records (OEP) involved public and civil society actors at the different stages of the process. Importantly, more than 70 state agencies and civil society attended a key meeting that generated a list of ideas for consideration. The final decision was made jointly by equal representation from Government and civil society, a spirit of partnership. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Tri Mumpuni |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.3 |
This initiative is still new and bringing the press in order to create participation of public in the government affairs but no specific issues yet being discussed. Hopefully the press can engaging the government issue with the citizen of Norway |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.5 |
OEP provides incentives for citizens to engage by allowing them to access and use public information more easily and cheaply. Information provided indicate that over 203,000 people have used the system- rising from 56,000 over the last four years. The key incentive seems to be the ease of use of the tool and the responsiveness of agencies to provide what people need. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Igor Vidacak |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.0 |
OEP initiative is a powerful proof that the highest standards of access to information are possible. Thanks to OEP, citizens are able to access government records almost in real time and, therefore, are in better position to engage and influence government decisions. Access to documents is a key pre-condition for meaningful citizens engagement and this one-stop shop for handling of FOIA requests seems to me the most advanced I have ever come across.
It would be great to see how Norway team will build on this excellent FOIA one stop shop towards more proactive publishing of open data and, even more important for the Opengovawards context, towards more proactive online and offline involvement of citizens in shaping public policies.
The initiative is mostly relying on the press, media and academic community as key users. More evidence of proactive incentivizing citizens participation in using OEP for more active citizens involvement in decision-making would allow me to give higher score under this criterion. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Tri Mumpuni |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.4 |
In order to create transparency in the government system, the press engaging the other parties to be involved through electronically system that can be accessed by many parties, but there is not commitment yet ca be seen how they are going to work together unless the journalist as an initiator. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Don Don Parafina |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.5 |
Enhancing findability or making the experience of processing FOI requests as convenient as online shopping is an attractive incentive to participation. Participation in this sense consists mainly in access. Citizens' opportunity to feedback comes only in the form of verifying whether or not an information is accessible or not within a particular time-period. The system will need additional functionality to directly address aspirations for policy reform and service delivery improvement. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.4 |
There is deep engagement between the state agency responsible for management of the initiative and the primary users/stakeholders. The main incentive created by the initiative is ease of use and accessibility. By widening the coverage of the initiative, the stakeholder base can be broadened as well to include other citizen groups. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Tri Mumpuni |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
The result according to the explanation is that now everybody has the right to know the government affairs, but in what field is not yet being defined. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.5 |
The system was establish to support citizens' realisation of their right to information by overcoming a number of stated barriers: what records does an agency have, how can they be accessed, financial and human resources of responding? Evidence point to substantial benefits for citizens with the increase of requesters from 56,000 to over 203,000 after its introduction. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Igor Vidacak |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.2 |
OEP definitely contributes to empowerment of citizens by enabling them to be fully informed on all ongoing files dealt with by the Government. It strengthens public trust in participation. Continuous increase in number of FOIA requests shows that the initiative is recognized by the public - mostly by journalists that account to 50% of its use.
To give higher score in this area, I would need more information on how this increased access to public documents increased citizens engagement and what concrete changes resulted from that engagement. More evidence on proactive incentives for involving citizens in developing public policies would be needed.
|
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.9 |
Creating the enabling environment for FOIA in any democracy would entail reducing the cost, barriers to access and ease of use. The OEP addresses each and the increase in usage of the portal indicates a result of these efforts. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Don Don Parafina |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
Remarkable change in implementing the public policy on info access as indicated by the number of requests and streamlined case processing. No clear indicator on the percentage of requests that were realised or orders that were delivered. The claim on improved quality of news reporting because of the opportunity for people to check online information needs clear mechanism to operationalise and verify. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.7 |
OEP is a platform for existing statutes and supported by national budget with strong stakeholder ownership and a clear direction for further iteration. It also has elements of innovation especially along the line of ease of use and analytical value added interfaces. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Don Don Parafina |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
Policy anchor and budget provision make the initiative sustainable. The budgetary aspect has to be explicit about it being a continuing allocation under the national budget. Needs to present clear incentives for local governments to cooperate, including the aspect of budget provision wherein their counterpart should also be secured. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
OEP is backed by law and its implementation is funded under the national budget, two important pillars for sustainability. In addition, increasing demand and use of the service provides a vital incentive for continued funding and scale up of the initiative. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Tri Mumpuni |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
The government involvement is not yet explained whether financially will also give some fund to run the system or not, but most likely the group here when they talk about support there is not an issue, maybe it is not an issue due to the strong commitment to several parties who can see this initiative result in the future. |
|
|
|
Norway Team |
72.5 |
Igor Vidacak |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.2 |
OEP sustainability seems to be ensured by the fact that is well rooted in Norwegian legal system and continuously funded from State budget. There are plans on how to shift from FOIA requests approach towards more proactive publishing of data that would reduce number of FOIA requests. It would be helpful to receive more information on the timing of these changes and how potential challenges will be addressed. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.9 |
It shows evidence of consulting others in nominating an initiative: a sub-working group of the Standing Multisectoral Commission for the Follow-up of the Implementation of the Peru Action Plan for Open Government identified the project. It is jointly implemented with partner agencies, both public and private, and strong validation of claims. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.2 |
There is evidence of active participation of Civil Society in the selection and implementation processes, two relevant NGOs, in the context an OGP working sub-group lead the identification of the initiative. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Jorge Soto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.1 |
There is no clear role of the civil society or non-government sector as a partner |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Juanita Burgos |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.8 |
|
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.9 |
There is sufficient evidence about the relationship between local gov (owner of the initiative) and other social and civic organizations |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Jorge Soto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.6 |
Very innovative to target children, although the mechanisms are traditional |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Juanita Burgos |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.2 |
|
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.4 |
Employed compelling measures to incentivize participation; used direct and innovative methods to partner with citizens (child in this case) in decision-making; reached an ambitious level of engagement with its target population. They work with several schools, both public and private, to incentivize participation. And outcomes are, of course, the best incentive. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.0 |
There is no reference to the size of the target population, but there is an indicator of the increase of its participation (1300%). |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.6 |
There is a strong commitment among the stakeholders involved in the initiative. The fact guide the project towards the development of skills in children and encourage training and civic responsibility in the government affairs |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.8 |
Transformed a public policy or service; set new standards for the relationship between government and citizens; resulted in concrete benefits for both. Decisions made by children in the Council has translated into concrete initiatives implemented by the Municipality. Figures show how their engagement has resulted in concrete benefits for the kids (and the families) and the administration. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Juanita Burgos |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.8 |
|
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
The results presented realize an innovative and important initiative as a space to build a strong, responsible and engaged citizenship with the resolution of public problems |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Jorge Soto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.3 |
They are creating a civic culture inside children's minds |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.6 |
There were a series of impact of the participatory mechanisms of this initiatives in several areas, such as citizen security and waste recycling. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Juanita Burgos |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
This initiative represents an example of citizen participation and engagement, where the target population (children) are involve not only in the decision making process but also in the implementations and assessment of the policies. The initiative could be institutionalized, but also, depends on the willingness of the regional authority. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.0 |
There is specialized personnel and municipal government programs for the follow up of the initiative. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.9 |
On the criterion of sustainability: It shows commitment to continuing the initiative in a permanent way. The results are in turn a way to strengthen institutionalization. But is not presented clearly how it will be scaled-up over time. There is also no information on how potential challenges will be addressed. |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.8 |
It is an initiative that has already been developed and has visible results, and is feasible to be replicated as a model for enhancing civic attitudes, participation and civic engagement |
|
|
|
Peru Team |
82.1 |
Jorge Soto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.7 |
Institutionalized via traditional mechanisms like laws |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
This is an impressive project in its scope of engagement between government and civil society and government in nominating, validating and implementing the project. It also engages a wide variety of CSO's including those representing marginalized communities. Commendable! |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Stef van Grieken |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
Both in the design and in local execution the government worked with ngo's and other partners. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Marija Novkovic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
5.0 |
The submission is very strong in terms of the nomination process. Meaningful consultations with the NGO partners have been conducted, whereas claims are validated by an NGO partner and World Bank. The initiative seems to have exceptional breadth. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.8 |
It is worth noting that Grassroots Participatory Budgeting was jointly nominated by civil society and Government-both within the OGP Steering Committee and outside the committee. The team is also appreciated for opening the nomination of ideas to come from different possible sources and commitment to listen to these voices. The idea itself is jointly run by Government with active participation of civil society which makes it a real partnership. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Chris Vein |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.4 |
One of the strongest partnerships I've seen: "The CSO representatives in the committee conducted an online consultation with more than 20 CSOs that participated in the OGP Regional Conference in Bali, Indonesia. While 2 other programs were nominated, more than 70% of those who responded recommended this initiative given its scale and impact." "The program goes beyond mere consultation as decisions are
made through a body composed of 50% government and
50% CSO representatives." |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Chris Vein |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
Again, this application is strong: "The importance given to CSOs in this
process and the projects that are implemented as a result
have encouraged more than 8,000 organizations to
participate in the program." |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.6 |
The scale of the project allows for a breadth and depth of engagement by civil society and government in participatory budgeting. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.4 |
GPB offers citizens opportunity and incentives for the participation in various ways. It is a requirement that civil society participate in budget processes and where civil society disagree with the contents, the national Government disallows approval of the budget. The fact that there is official space for civil society to contribute to budget policy process and opportunities for civil society capacity building provides important incentives for their participation and engagement with government. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Marija Novkovic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
5.0 |
I am very impressed with the fact that all local governments are implementing Grassroots Participatory Budgeting. The figures are also staggering: "The process has resulted in 6,000 projects in 2013 (amounting to over US$200 million) and 19,000 projects in 2014 (amounting to over US$500 million) that are now being implemented across the country." The video is very compelling too, as it brings to the fore the issues faced by indigenous people, marginalized groups and the poor. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Stef van Grieken |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.3 |
Instead of local politicians deciding, locals now have an opportunity to define projects in the budget. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Chris Vein |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.8 |
Again strong from their application: "As of first quarter of 2014, 64%
of the 6,000 projects identified for the 2013 budget are now
completed or have visible physical accomplishments on the
ground." |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Marija Novkovic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.9 |
"The program goes beyond mere consultation as decisions are made through a body composed of 50% government and 50% CSO representatives. CSO representatives are elected through a city/municipal level assembly. National government does not accept proposals that are not signed by CSO representatives. The importance given to CSOs in this process and the projects that are implemented as a result have encouraged more than 8,000 organizations to participate in the program."
The statements presented in the submission are impressive. Compliments for a well designed initiative. Co-decision in budget allocations is certainly a change maker. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Stef van Grieken |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
5.0 |
Testimonials from the NGO's and the application show clear execution of projects aligned with local needs. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
The initiative which started as a pilot has been rolled over to all local governments in the country and over 6,000 projects completed over the pas one year, impacting delivery of services. While issues with implementation are noted, the point to the overall goal of improving responsiveness of governments. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.8 |
While the engagement has lead to the creation of project there is, at this stage, insufficient evidence of the impact this project has on the lives of citizens. It may well be too early to assess this. Such information would be extremely helpful in assess the impact of the application. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Chris Vein |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
The program clearly has a multi-pronged strategy for sustainability that includes political support from the government along with funding, to the active and equal involvement of CSOs, to the involvement of citizens. The application does not shy away from illustrating the challenges. It would have been helpful to know a bit more about how they will be addressed but overall, the need for sustainability has been build into the core of this initiative. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Stef van Grieken |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
The scale of implementation of participatory budgeting is remarkable. Definitely something other governments can learn from. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.8 |
This is clearly an ambitious that has significant government backing in terms of funding and political will and engagement by a large group of CSO's. If this is sustained it could have a huge impact on the lives of ordinary people. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.1 |
A statement of intention to institutionalize the initiative has been noted. The initial progress should provide important lessons for the institutionalisation of the initiative. |
|
|
|
Philippines Team |
85.8 |
Marija Novkovic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.7 |
The plans for sustainability are not elaborated in detail, though there is a commitment to keep the programme running. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.1 |
Information regarding consultation among civil society and government of the nomination is noted to have been made mainly to OGP Steering Committee. Since the steering committee is representative of wider communities it would have been great getting ways to consult these constituencies as well. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Tri Mumpuni |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.8 |
Ogi has tried to be established under the Office of The President and involving many others institutions |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Igor Vidacak |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
1.7 |
Open Government Initiative (OGI) is nominated by OGI coordinator office located in the Office of the President, after gaining concurrence from CSOs by emails and calls. The nomination process was rather top-down driven, but there is enough evidence in the validation letter that CSOs had their say on the choice of initiative at the National OGP committee meeting. The responsibility for the implementation of the initiative is within the Office of the President OGI Office. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Don Don Parafina |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.4 |
Solid account on the partnership, but it could have been more convincing if more civil society partners shared their testimonies. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.1 |
OGI is a strong example of government commitment to take a first step to open up and engage citizens and other institutions of government. The enthusiasm of the OGI is clear in the submission. Citizen and civil society ownership of this direction can be further strengthened |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.6 |
The OGI clearly defined its different layers of stakeholders from government leaders, chiefs and media to organized civil society and citizens. The incentive is the active engagement of government leadership in this initiative. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Tri Mumpuni |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.7 |
Even though many organizations involve but there is not clear their engagement here and how to proceed their program |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Igor Vidacak |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.0 |
Organizing big town hall meetings to provide forum for direct debate among citizens, members of Parliament, representatives of Government and even members of judiciary and police - is an excellent and praiseworthy initiative. The fact that 80.000 people have already attended these meetings provides sufficient proof on the recognition of the value of this effort among citizens. As these are plenary sessions where Government disseminates information to citizens which have the possibility of asking questions and commenting, the application does not contain enough information on how citizens's inputs are actually taken into account. What is the follow up of the meetings? How will citizens know whether their contributions have been taken into account in developing new policies? Answers to these questions would allow me to give higher score in this category. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Don Don Parafina |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.6 |
OGI Sierra Leone proved to be a novel effort to invite participation through the townhall meetings. The methodology needs to clarify how citizens' inputs are captured, documented, processed, analysed, reported and used or translated into actionable feedback. Need to show how its ability to reach the entire population can be verified. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.8 |
As described civil society would have some incentives to for civil society to participate especially considering that by establishing this space and implementing outcomes of such consultations shows commitment of Government for openness and consultations. The down side could be that given that the candidate idea is broad, incentives for participation could change from time to time depending on the matter under consideration. Further, arrangement of meetings could imply a supply driven process in which one party organises and another participates with limited options to influence agenda, target group, dates, among other important issues. Perhaps consideration of an idea that that provides for ongoing engagement rather than events would offer higher opportunities for citizen engagement. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Don Don Parafina |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.8 |
The initiative is strong in connecting government with the citizens, which manifested in trust and confidence in OGI. No concrete benefits in terms of passing pro-people policy or improving service have been reported. Effect is still at the level of awareness and relations that reinforce transparency and accountability. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
1.7 |
The OGI has clearly raised the level of engagement and interest in government as presented as well as the openness of government to public feedback. It will be very interesting to know what policies, programs and delivery of services were influenced by the OGI moving forward. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Igor Vidacak |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
1.9 |
Probably the greatest benefit of OGI is its contribution to the increase of public trust and confidence in the work of public institutions. Through widening the space for citizens and CSOs to have their say on public policies and engage in direct, offline communication with policy makers, OGI contributes to more transparency and accountability of government bodies. I would suggest to conduct national survey and gather concrete data on citizens views on the benefits of the initiative as this will provide strong evidence of its contribution to transformation of public service. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.7 |
The initiative, started seven years ago, has provided an important platform on which to build OGP. It is possible that recent law and policies on transparency such as the Freedom of information Act and Publish what Pay could have gained from the initiative but these are not mentioned in the application. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Tri Mumpuni |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
There is no clear result yet can be described as considered as an achievement |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Igor Vidacak |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.9 |
Being located in the Office of the President, OGI has obvious strong political support, but it seems to have gained substantial public support as well. As it is a very top-down initiative, centralizing communication with citizens from one place, the only risk I could identify is in missing the opportunity to empower policy makers across public administration to develop meaningful dialogue with civil society on everyday basis. This would lead to citizens engagement becoming part of embedded culture of dialogue across government bodies at all levels.
Otherwise, I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by the initiative and enthusiasm that is visible in the work of OGI coordinator. Congratulations and keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Maxine Tanya Hamada |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.3 |
The relevance and interest in OGI is very clear. The commitment of OGI to continue its work is also presented. There was no specific information on the challenges and the steps to institutionalize and broaden citizen engagement moving forward - although the interest of, and support from media and civil society may be factors in sustaining and further evolving this partnership. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Gilbert Sendugwa |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.4 |
Ideas on institutionalization have been outlined but yet to be elaborated and consulted upon with wider stakeholder community. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Tri Mumpuni |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.4 |
Even though it has in placed for 6 years but there is no explanation how this institution is being funded, presumably by the government but how it will be secured? And the involvement of teh civil society to utilize this ORGI is not clear described. |
|
|
|
Sierra Leone Team |
58.2 |
Don Don Parafina |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
Six years of continuous implementation of OGI Sierra Leone is a strong argument for its sustainability. The model can be appreciated better if a rigorous study can show the factors that make it durable, such as an irreversible legal anchor of the unit running the OGI, adequate organisational support in all levels of coordination, continuing budget, and social acceptability of the methods. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Tiago Peixoto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.4 |
According to the submission there was no consultation with partners. Engagement with external stakeholders was limited to "consideration and endorsement". |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
There was a consultation process for the nomination, in which government offices and a CSOs validated the selection. The project is, in fact, a device for citizen consultation in which government and non government sectors are involved. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
consultation: showed consultation in the selection of this project with 20 NGOs but didn't have an open nomination process to pick the project considered (2)
jointly implemented: this effort was mostly implemented by a number of government agencies but at least one CSO was an official partner (4)
validation of clams: have very convincing validation of claims (5) |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.1 |
|
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Ma'i Elimat |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.8 |
(1) The consultation during the nomination process was positive, However, the applicant didn't include if more initiatives were also under selection or the timeline and steps for consultation.
(2)The partnership created to implement the initiative was significant and contribution was proven by the validation of claims' documents. However, more partnerships are encouraged especially with media, CBOs, and local groups; taking into account the nature of this initiative and its need to be disseminated as much as possible to make the best use of it.
(3) The validation of claims provided by the applicant were very comprehensive and sufficient. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.6 |
incentives: unclear that they provided any incentives to the initial participants other than being able to influence the way services are delivered on a local level (which might be incentive enough). looks like the may plan to pay participants for their involvement in the future but thats not clear (2.5)
feedback method: they state that they have local dialogues but it's unclear if those are in person, or online, and how they are convened an how often. how many opportunities for feedback are there? are there innovative ways to submit that feedback? unclear. (1.5)
level of engagement: they got 5000 people involved so far in 9 regions. They intend to have 20,000 people involved. Unsure how many citizens are in those regions to assess if half the target was adequately engaged. However, they do seem to be getting pretty good involvement. (3) |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Ma'i Elimat |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.9 |
(1) The depth of engagement was not clear. how the applicant incentivise the partners and citizens to participate is not clear as well. However, the applicant succeed in gathering adequate participation around the development and piloting of the initiative.
(2) On the other hand, the applicant didn't make it clear how the citizens' feedback would be used systematically "what is the rules?". the applicant mentioned some of the results based on citizens' feedback though (i.e. unpopular police commander was removed). |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.5 |
Channeling citizen opinions and experiences on public services is the aim of the project. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Tiago Peixoto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.9 |
The number of participants indicated shows some level of engagement. However, it is unclear about the design of the participatory processes (e.g. method of participant selection) and what incentives are in place for participation. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
there are some results starting to emerge but the pilots won't be over until late 2015. The results have been things like letting a particular police commissioner go. Whether they are identifying root cause issues or just implementing one off ideas that come in through the forums is unclear. unclear how the changes that have been made to date are unique to each local service area or are more system level. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.7 |
|
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Ma'i Elimat |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
Given the fact that the initiative is relatively new and still in a pilot phase, and that the outcomes stated by the applicant is from the first 6 months of the initiative which included some examples, its not easy to judge how the initiative would influence public policy or service. However, it can be said that the preliminary results are encouraging. it still needs more investigation in systematic ways to find the real impact of this initiative and provide evidence though. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Tiago Peixoto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.8 |
A few impacts have been documented in the submission (e.g. unpopular police commander was removed, repair of govt. vehicles). However, the extent to which services or policies are being improved through citizen engagement remains uncertain. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.4 |
There is an on going exercise of government-beneficiaries dialogue, providing inputs for service improvement |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.6 |
the are currently in the pilot phase and won't wrap it up until 2015 after which they will have an independent evaluation. they are considering options to move out of pilot but don't have a a concrete plan. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Ma'i Elimat |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.0 |
(1) The initiative needs more concrete steps to maintain its sustainability. it has some activity now but further activities is encouraged.
(2) The applicant outlined the challenges. However, it didn't provide risk plan for all challenges (i.e. insuring buy-in and support from officials in government departments).
|
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Tiago Peixoto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.4 |
The learning approach used increases the chances to institutionalize the initiative and adapt as challenges emerge. There is not however major assurances that the project will be either institutionalized or scaled up, which is partly due to its pilot nature. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.8 |
Good intiatie and good commitment from government, but still vat a very early stage. |
|
|
|
South Africa Team |
71.8 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.6 |
The framework intends to be a model embedded in the evaluation practices of the Evaluation area of the SA government. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.3 |
This long standing project reflects extensive engagement with civil society organizations who have been involved in jointly nominating, validating and implementing the project. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Stef van Grieken |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
The applicant worked with several ngo's, however, their contributions were not clear. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
1.9 |
Claims provided by the applicant have shown a multi-stakeholder approach but without links for validation. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Chris Vein |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.2 |
The application does not clearly identify a consultation process for submitting this project for the award. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Marija Novkovic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.0 |
There is no mention of the process behind selecting this initiative as the candidate for Citizen Engagement Award. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.7 |
South Korea has empirical results but the application has not clearly shown how it incentivise target population to take action. It has also not stated its target population in empirical terms. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Stef van Grieken |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.8 |
Citizens were engaged in the planning process of the lake. What their exact contributions were is still unknown |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.4 |
Following the first phase of implementation it appears that the regular 'conferences' have proven successful in promoting citizen engagement. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Marija Novkovic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.3 |
There seems to be evidence of engagement through local conferences, focus groups and seminars. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Chris Vein |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.0 |
The application states that: "Since January 2004, a total of 352 conferences pertaining to the Sihwa district
development project have been held" which is impressive However, the application does not describe how residents are incentivized to continue to participate. The application does not seem to suggest a partnership with either CSOs or citizens. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Stef van Grieken |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.6 |
The program focussed on planning of a lake and industrial area. It doesn't seem to improve an actual service or change a policy. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.9 |
The applicants are able to show tangible, measurable, impact of results which is commendable. The apparent impact this project has had on the environment and the communities in the Shiwa district represents an example of the positive impact that can result from effective citizen engagement. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Marija Novkovic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
It seems like the citizens were able to influence the design of the Sihwa development project. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Chris Vein |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
The application describes a number of outcomes that range from better planning to changes in the existing initiative as well as ongoing change. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
The project for the span of the time that it had existed has shown considerable progress. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Stef van Grieken |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.2 |
The example seems to be related strongly to a local lake. It is hard to distill from the application wether it could scale. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Marija Novkovic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
1.9 |
There is very little information based on which the sustainability of this initiative could be judged. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Chris Vein |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.3 |
The application states that the results of this activity will be on going but does not talk about scaling it beyond this need. Since there has been a number of years since it was initiated, an opportunity exists to see it applied in other situations. The challenges in doing so were not discussed. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Hennie van Vuuren |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.0 |
The project has been implemented, over stages, for a ten year period which reflects commitment and investment in this approach. The proposal to replicate the project is an indicator of its success. |
|
|
|
South Korea Team |
66.1 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
The feedback from the citizens was good and also how they are impressed about the work that was done. Also how the challenges highlighted were met is also commendable. However, further potential chllenges were not addressed. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.9 |
The process for selecting this initiative for the Open Government Awards was not elaborated in the submission. Therefore no evidence that others were consulted in its selection. The project is jointly implemented by the office of the Presidency and CDTI. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
SieLocal app has scaled across countries and with the validation documents attached, it has shown enough evidence of consultation with civil society and corporate partners. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.0 |
On "THE NOMINATION" question the authors of the submission make no mention as to whether "any nomination or consultation process held with civil society partners or others when selecting the initiative." |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.0 |
They didn't talk at all about how they selected this initiative or if they consulted with civil society in its selection. (0)
It was implemented with partners but not civil society. the partners were private sector contractors, universities and endorsers. (5)
validation of of claims from some partners is strong but there is no civil society endorsement here… (2.5) |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.7 |
|
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.6 |
incentives: the incentives for rating a report or providing feedback were non-monetary. it seems the incentive to participate in the feedback element was making change in their local community. some initial successes but unclear how they are specifically incentivizing the feedback portion of this initiative. its very strong on the data sharing and reporting side, but unclear how much they are pushing the engagement piece (1.5)
feedback: they provide a voting method and it appears some ways to comment via social media but it's unclear how these proposals are vetting and seen by decision makers to influence change in policy. is the website the oily forum for input or do they also consider the articles the press writes using the data and advocating for change to be "feedback"? People can only provide feedback on the report areas that are pre-generated by the tool. (2)
reach: the website is getting alot of traffic but unclear how many "votes" were part of those "hits". how many people are actually using the engagement piece or is this more of an open data project? (2) |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.9 |
The application did not fully demonstrate how feedback was used for further improvement and it is yet to half of the target audience. Incentives for participation were not clearly shown. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.4 |
The initiative is - for most of its part - a transparency initiative, not offering real opportunities to engage with government or affect decision-making related to policies or services. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.6 |
Excellent provision of information, but participatory side is not as visible. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.2 |
While this is an extremely useful resource for someone who is comfortable around technical data, it is more likely to be used by ordinary citizens as an indirect source of information via the media and other reports due to the time necessary to learn how to navigate the portal and figure out how it can be useful given the vast amount of information on it. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.2 |
No real evidence of results is provided. While the initiative seems to have resonated with local media, there seems to be no systematic evidence as to whether it has influenced a policy or a service. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
Besides increased interest, no evidence of change in government policy or service delivery was presented in the submission. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.8 |
The application shows benefits of citizens but it has not provided clear numbers on impact of citizen engagement to policy review and change in service delivery or transparency. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
This is meant to be a platform that could improve a number of public policies or services. it has already had some initial successes and is an important basis for future improvement. however, they should focus more on creating additional avenues (in person and online, subject matter based and open) for people to take this information and be able to act on it with policy and service improvement proposals. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.5 |
This tool has a good sustainability plan but a case has not been for potential challenges in the future especially as regards continuous scale to other countries. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Gertrude Muguzi |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.5 |
Activities for scaling up the initiative locally and internationally were clearly articulated. How this would happen, what challenges would be faced (particularly when applied in a number of different countries), how to address these challenges was not as clear. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Tiago Peixoto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.8 |
While the submission shows commitment to the sustainability and scaling up of the initiative, it is unclear how that can be achieved in the medium and long term. |
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
Spain Team |
66.0 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.3 |
yes. they have a plan for spreading to additional countries and adding more data. however, they should strengthen their plan for feedback and engagement mechanisms around this data for the future. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.5 |
consultation: they described some consultation but not a detailed nomination or selection process. (3)
implementation: the initiative was co-nominated but it's not clear if the NGO had any role in implementing the initiative as well… (2)
validation of claims: convincing (4) |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.8 |
Evidence of consulting with a CSO as a partner in nominating the initiative was seen with valid claims. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Ma'i Elimat |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.9 |
(1) The consultation process for nominating the initiative is not clear nor the details of the timeline and who participated (only indicated CSOs), and if there was another initiatives nominated or another step taken before selecting the current initiative presented at this application.
(2) No partnerships during the development and management of the portal were outlined in the application.
(3) The validation of claims was presented by a letter from one of the CSOs to support the nomination and importance of this initiative. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
Shows efforts in consulting with other partners in nominating an initiative: OGP Tunisia team consulted with members of civil society and selected jointly this initiative. It was co-presented with the association Albawsala. No information on how other partners were involved in the implementation of the initiative but shows convincing validation of claims. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Katju Holkeri |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
2.7 |
|
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Katju Holkeri |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.9 |
It has not clearly demonstrated enough incentives for citizens to use the platform. For instance, how many citizens used the platform and what are the specific changes in the policy due to public voting? |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Ma'i Elimat |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.9 |
(1) The initiative is a good step toward citizens engagement. However, the applicant provided only few incentives for citizens to participate. Moreover,
(2) The applicant didn't include how is the online-unconnected citizens would be engaged. Since the initiative is targeting all citizens to participate in deciding some of the legislations or policies or plans or services that touch their daily life, then the unconnected faction has to be included in another way to avoid being unengaged.
(3) The dissemination approaches to encourage people to participate is good. However, I recommend using further approaches such as TV/radio broadcasting, national campaign in assistant with the local CSOs. etc.
|
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.0 |
Incentives for the participation of citizens and channels for citizens to engage with government: No information on incentives for participation was provided. However, it is mentioned that has been promoted through social networks. They created reliable ways to solicit citizens’ aspirations but there is no information on how citizens have influenced policy/service design or implementation. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.0 |
incentives: the incentives for participation they provided seemed to be a credible chance for the ideas to be heard in the policy making process-a first for tunisia. there was no financial incentives. they have nada number of dialogues on a variety of topics. unclear what the participation numbers have been on each topic and if people are coming back (2)
feedback mechanisms: online platform for submitting ideas. promoting using social media as well as other seminars. unclear if there is also an offline component or if its all online. framed the feedback around specific policy issues to keep the dialogues focused. (4)
engagement levels: said "thousands" had been involved but unclear which topics they engaged on and how much of a percentage of a population this is. they say they'll use this for public opinion polls and surveys; do they plan to consider statistical significance of response in their consideration of views during policy making? (3) |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.5 |
Shows that citizens may be informed but not enough evidence of change in public policy or service was provided; while the benefits are clear and they mentioned that various exercises in several topics had been carried out, no information was provided on how citizen engagement influences the design or delivery of government policy/services. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Katju Holkeri |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Ma'i Elimat |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.6 |
(1) The actual outcomes outlined by the applicant still very limited comparing to the intended outcomes.
(2) The portal (I checked) still need a lot of work to respond to the intended outcomes (i.e. no component in the portal was addressing the intended result of improvement of public services delivery needs). Thus, the applicant is encouraged to scale the initiative up to respond to the intended results.
(3) From reviewing the portal the issues under consultation is very important. However, further much important issues should be highlighted and be under consultation if we are targeting the local policy or service level. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.1 |
Claims of change in public policy needs to be seen empirical terms to adequately quantify impact. This has not been stated properly but in broad terms. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.9 |
there was evidence that feedback from forums was considered but not clear which ideas, if any, were actually incorporated. the process has the potential to chance many public policies and services but it's unclear how it has thus far. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Ma'i Elimat |
SUSTAINABILITY |
1.9 |
(1) The applicant didn't make any plans or clear activities for sustainability. The applicant rather explained how important this initiative for the government and that its (must be sustained!).
(2) No challenges were included or any plan to overcome these challenges. the applicant is encouraged to outline concrete plan to sustain and scale the initiative up. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Katju Holkeri |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Oluseun Onidbinde |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.2 |
How the application will scale across the country considering that several approach will be needed was not clearly stated. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.4 |
Plans for scaling up and/or sustaining the initiative in the future, any threats or operational challenges and risk management: Shows interest in maintaining the initiative. However, there wasn't any description of a plan to moving the initiative to next stages. Potential threats or challenges are not sufficiently defined and clearly identified, neither how they will be addressed in the future. |
|
|
|
Tunisia Team |
59.4 |
Jennifer Gustetic |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.9 |
they recognize the need for this kind of tool and seem to be working on ways to institutionalize it but there is no clear plan. they also don't explicitly point out any challenges to implementation. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Hernan Charosky |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.3 |
Active consultation, participation of a variety of civil society organizations and the debate on social networks are part of the selection process. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Don Don Parafina |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.5 |
Clear indications of partnership and systematic use of various platforms to consult stakeholders on the nomination. Endorsement from the Democratic Society did not explicitly say it co-implemented the initiative. Endorsement from Involve, British Science Association and Ricardo-AEA could validate the joint efforts. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Igor Vidacak |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.5 |
The initiative was chosen by government bodies, after consultations with CSOs on the shortlist produced by citizen engagement teams across government, based on inputs from various stakeholders, mainly through social media.
As far as implementation is concerned, Sciencewise itself is a highly collaborative project with great potential for inspiring similar efforts across OGP participating countries and wider. What I really like about this initiative is its systematic approach to building capacities of policy makers on how to engage citizens in shaping policies. The lack of know-how and skills within government bodies to use innovative methods of involving citizens has been the weakest link in many countries striving towards higher standards of open and participatory policy making.
If the application provided more evidence on inclusive and partnership approach in selecting and nominating the initiative, I would be able give highest score in this category. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Tri Mumpuni |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.3 |
Sciencewise consist of many actors from different background but mostly from the government sector |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Juanita Burgos |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.2 |
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Hernan Charosky |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.1 |
There are clear goals and channels for participation, and a relevant number of people engaged, even when there is no reference to know what proportion of the target population that number of people is |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Juanita Burgos |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
5.0 |
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Don Don Parafina |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
5.0 |
Well thought out structure of dialogues involving the right mix of stakeholders (experts, technical working groups, affected communities) supplies depth to the participation. Challenge in incentivising a broader population to take part. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Tri Mumpuni |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.2 |
Many government institutions stay here as a member that supposed to be together-ed with community that can contribute to the policy making in science innovation |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Igor Vidacak |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.8 |
Over 10.000 citizens and 17.000 policy professionals working in government have been engaged in this project, enabling all members of the public to influence often very controversial and complex science and technology related policy issues. Truly impressive!
Through all day deliberative events, debates, in-depth interviews and learning activities, Sciencewise employs compelling measures to incentivize participation in policy making- at the stage where policies can still be influenced by comments and contributions from public.
It would be helpful to receive more information on the methodology of selecting /recruiting participants of deliberative events. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Don Don Parafina |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
5.0 |
Solid influence on the policies subjected to public dialogues, despite the sophistication of issues. This can be attributed to the opportunities for convergence of various sectors. The diligent designing, documentation and evaluation of the initiative in close coordination with government working groups made the inputs from the dialogues truly useful and effective. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Tri Mumpuni |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.0 |
Since 2004 this initiative is challenged in creating a communication between the government officer and public but mostly in dialog of economic and political landscape |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Hernan Charosky |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.1 |
There are elements indicating a positive impact in the quality of policymaking as a result of the interaction between policymakers and the public. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Igor Vidacak |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.1 |
Building capacities of policymakers for meaningful engagement of citizens is essential for sustainable transformation of work of government bodies, recognizing benefits of public consultations and introducing long lasting embedded culture of dialogue. This seems to be the strongest side of Sciencewise project.
For highest score in this category, more evidence on Sciencewise contribution to concrete changes or transformation of public policies and services with examples of compelling benefits for citizens would be needed. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Juanita Burgos |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Hernan Charosky |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.9 |
The initiative was launched around a decade ago, and it shows there is a governmental structure to support it , beyond the changes in the governmental administration political party identification. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Igor Vidacak |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.8 |
Involving citizens in scientific policy making is very challenging in itself and requires tremendous efforts. Methods used by Sciencewise to build Government-citizens partnerships in promoting evidence based policy making are precious and deserve to be promoted throughout OGP community.
Sciencewise seems to be well embedded in Government. It managed to ensure continuous public funding for past 10 years, and therefore presents potentially durable model that can be institutionalized across all government departments.
As the initiative relies entirely on government funding, this opens questions on sustainability of excellent efforts achieved so far in case the State budget support will not be extended. More information on how potential funding challenges would be addressed would allow me to give higher score under this criterion.
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Don Don Parafina |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.9 |
Facilitating dialogue requires special skills and competencies to maintain the quality of results. Multiplying the people with these skills and competencies is a special challenge that Sciencewise needs to address to make its sustainability model durable. Fortunately, government funding provides reliable support; identifying which item in the allocation and in which office of the government will clarify how reliable the funding is. Efforts in simplifying procurement of services are worth taking. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Tri Mumpuni |
SUSTAINABILITY |
3.6 |
It has been a while this institution finding a fund from different sources but the government mostly the one that support. It needed the government commitment to be able to support this science wise forever. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom Team |
82.7 |
Juanita Burgos |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.1 |
This initiative is an example of citizen´s inclusion for policy making. This public dialogue, not only encourages and engages public to develop new projects, but also builds an environment of trust and transparency. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Alex Irwan |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.0 |
The Collaboration and Innovation through Prizes, Crowdsourcing, and Citizen Science was selected primarily because it was an element of President Barack Obama’s Strategy for American Innovation, and not to promote information transparency and participation in public decision making processes. However, the nomination was consulted with civil society and the program was carried out in partnership with civil society. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Diana Parra Silva |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.0 |
They say they "consulted with experts inside and outside of government, as well as with civil society through an in-person Open Government Working Group meeting, the online U.S. Open Government Discussion Group, and outreach to members of the public". Finally the Administration nominated several bundled initiatives under a single entry, that respond to the Strategy for Innovation. It is then a "set of initiatives" that share the same spirit, rather than a single initiative. And this is why they presented a validation letter for each initiative separately. This situation hampers the review compared to the proposals presented by the other countries. To review it as a whole, it should be understood as a sort of "plan for collaboration and innovation through prizes, crowdsourcing, and citizen science" and validation letters should support that plan. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
3.8 |
The consultation process is with significant organizations -- but all focused on a specific direction: crowd-sourced knowledge expansion. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Jorge Soto |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.7 |
There is clear collaboration. Perhaps an independent organization that helps implement the initiative is not clearly demonstrated |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS |
4.8 |
Shows strong evidence of consulting others in nominating an initiative; jointly implemented with a partner agency and strong validation of claims
Very impressive partnership and relationship efforts between involved organizations |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Alex Irwan |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
2.7 |
The initiative is primarily geared to promote innovation, not to promote transparency and participation to influence public policies and services to become more responsive. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
5.0 |
Employed compelling measures to incentivize participation; used direct and innovative methods to partner with citizens in decision-making; reached an ambitious level of engagement with its target population
The model goes beyond mere participation, puts focus on partnership and in generating public value different perspectives (new services, solutions to public problems, etc.) |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Diana Parra Silva |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.7 |
Bearing in mind the situation described in the previous section, incentives should be aimed at encouraging participation in the above mentioned plan. This is encouraged by the COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, that "provided broad authority to all U.S. Federal agencies to use prizes and competitions to spur innovation in creating solutions to problems". |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Jorge Soto |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
4.7 |
Shows clear results, projects and economic impact. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT |
3.1 |
The target population for engagement is a specific segment of the population and their engagement is solicited broadly, but not to engage in decision-making or policy-making; the engagement is successful and useful but focused on collaborative knowledge-generation, not policy. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Jorge Soto |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.4 |
Shows how the government is not the problem solver, but is encouraging problem solvers to flourish |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
3.3 |
There is contribution to services, but not to policy. The engagement of citizens in enhancing the public information pool is a benefit to society. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Diana Parra Silva |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.6 |
According to the information provided, citizen engagement has transformed several services. Viewed as a whole, the proposal has set new standards for the relationship between government and citizens, resulted in concrete benefits for users (due to the economic incentives, as well as major improvements in services) and for the Administration. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Alex Irwan |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
2.5 |
Citizens have received benefits from various areas through science, technology, and innovation, but not through the transformation of public policy and services. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS |
4.9 |
Transformed a public policy or service; set new standards for the relationship between government and citizens; resulted in concrete benefits for both |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Diana Parra Silva |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.8 |
Sustainability is underpinned by the evolution and improvements that initiatives have had. The existing regulatory and institutional framework shows that it is already institutionalized. It can be understood that they have identified as a challenge that government employees should have skills and tools to carry out such initiatives, so they have provided training and support materials. But they did not outline a path to scale-up the plan. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Jorge Soto |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.7 |
It is designed institutionalized and is year after year scaling |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Alvaro Ramirez Alujas |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.8 |
Presents a durable model that can be institutionalized and/or scaled-up; makes a compelling case for how challenges will be managed
It is a perfectly scalable and replicable model in other areas of public management |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Alex Irwan |
SUSTAINABILITY |
2.8 |
There is no effort to institutionalize it through a law or legislation. Sustainability depends on the mutual benefits that collaborating partners receive from each other. Scaling up also depends on the mutual benefits that the partners receive. |
|
|
|
United States Team |
81.5 |
Salpi Ghazarian |
SUSTAINABILITY |
4.2 |
Agencies will continue to incentivize public participation in problem-solving and information gathering in a variety of fields. |