Implementation:
Keeping Commitments Alive

The best way to guarantee youth engagement during implementation is to name youth organizations as formal co-leads of commitments. Youth organizations that helped develop a commitment during co-creation should stay involved and help monitor progress, give feedback, and contribute to reporting.

Here are some recommendations to make that co-ownership happen in practice:

• Name specific youth organizations or youth-related CSOs as co-responsible implementing partners in the commitment text. This can mean joining thematic working groups from the co-creation process or hiring youth consultants to help move specific milestones forward.
• Give youth and CSOs co-leads the same access to information, meetings, and decision-making spaces as government focal points.
• Designate one government official as the main point of contact for youth co-leads and hold regular progress meetings.
• Advocate for a dedicated budget line that covers participation costs for youth co-leads throughout implementation, such as travel, equipment, interpretation, and more. Unpaid participation systematically excludes youth from marginalized backgrounds.

One of the main barriers to tracking OGP commitments is that progress updates are not always easy to find. Under the OGP minimum requirements, countries are supposed to publish implementation updates online. Youth organizations can start by finding out whether their country is doing so and where. If websites are outdated or broken, that’s worth flagging. Youth can push for more consistent and accessible reporting.

Where information is not publicly available, a well-designed spreadsheet or community scorecard can do more than a complex platform, as long as it’s kept up regularly. This works especially well for youth organizations with limited technical and financial resources, since it can run on free tools like Google Sheets or Airtable.

Another option is to track budget allocations against OGP commitments. If the data isn’t public, youth organizations can file access-to-information requests. Budget tracking can be a powerful tool for organizations that do not yet have relationships inside government, and it can reveal whether political commitments are backed by real resources.

Building an internal feedback system helps check progress and raise concerns about a commitment. Here are some actions that can be part of that system. They work for both governments and youth organizations:

• Take stock of what public-facing channels already exist in the country or locality. Countries following OGP processes must maintain a repository or website where commitment updates and evidence are published. It is worth checking whether the country has one, whether it is kept up to date, and whether local people know where to find it.
• Consider where youth organizations can play a role, either complementing existing channels or supporting new ones. If implementation updates exist only on a government webpage, youth organizations can help spread that information through social media or community newsletters, reaching audiences that would otherwise miss it. When creating new reporting channels, consult with youth organizations to learn which formats are easiest to find. Public awareness of progress is only meaningful if the channel is consistent and reachable over time.
• A simple “halfway report” can give implementing institutions valuable technical input on a commitment’s progress. This report should follow the commitment’s own milestones: what has been completed, what is delayed, and what evidence exists. The OGP Self-Assessment Template is a good starting point for this.
• Attend OGP meetings on implementation updates and present findings, raise concerns, and push for course corrections when needed. Under the 2026 OGP Action Framework, members are expected to take stock of all their action commitments at least every two years, reviewing progress and identifying next steps together with stakeholders. This is a key moment to assess whether implementation is on track, whether youth co-leads are still active and resourced, and whether course corrections are needed.

Implementation is most effective when both government officials and youth co-leads have the knowledge and skills they need. Governments sometimes disengage from youth organizations simply because they don’t know how to engage with them. Youth organizations, meanwhile, often lose influence during implementation because the process becomes more technical, leaving them feeling out of their depth. The solution is not to lean on external experts: it is to build technical know-how within the team.

• Continue training government officials on OGP processes, youth engagement methods, and enabling environments.
• Build youth co-lead capacity through mentoring, peer learning, and access to technical expertise.
• Use a “train the trainer” approach. Youth co-leads can pass on what they learn to their networks.
• Create opportunities for mutual learning between government officials and youth co-leads.
• Document and create simple handover notes, shared resources, and opportunities for peer learning to help maintain continuity when young leaders or government officials change.

Some OGP members have started to develop Youth Action Plans or Youth Strategies that run in parallel to ongoing domestic OGP reforms, allowing youth organizations to take ownership of their own implementation agenda.

• A Youth Action Plan or Youth Strategy can include OGP commitments plus additional youth-led initiatives.
• Youth Action Plans or Youth Strategies create accountability within the youth community itself, not only toward the government.
• Under the 2026 OGP Action Framework, a Youth Action Plan or Youth Strategy can also feed the official process directly: commitments co-created within it that have a government lead institution can be submitted to the country’s OGP portfolio, individually or in batches, in coordination with the Point of Contact.