Skip Navigation

Sao Paulo Design Report 2018-2020

The co-creation of São Paulo’s second action plan was characterized by an increase in civic participation, compared to the first plan. However, after the plan’s milestones were revised, there was a decrease in the potential impact of two of its five commitments. As a whole, São Paulo’s action plan represents an important step towards the consolidation of an open government agenda with incremental advancements. Given the action plan was the result of a broader effort to involve civil society organizations, it will be key to follow how civic engagement evolves during the plan’s implementation.

Table 1. At a glance

Participating since: 2016

Action plan under review: 2nd

Report type: Design

Number of commitments: 5



Action plan development


Is there a Multistakeholder forum: Yes

Level of public influence: Involve

Acted contrary to OGP process: No


Action plan design


Commitments relevant to OGP values: 5 (100%)

Transformative commitments: 0 (0%)

Potentially starred: 0 (0%)

Action plan implementation


Starred commitments: N/A

Completed commitments: N/A

Commitments with Major DIOG*: N/A

Commitments with Outstanding DIOG*: N/A



*DIOG: Did it Open Government

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) a global partnership that brings together government reformers and civil society leaders to create action plans that make governments more inclusive, responsive, and accountable. The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) monitors all action plans to ensure governments follow through on commitments. São Paulo joined OGP in 2016. Since, São Paulo has implemented one action plan. This report evaluates the design of São Paulo’s second action plan.

General overview of action plan

This São Paulo’s second action plan since open government policies started being implemented in the city at the end of 2012. With the creation of a dedicated agency for open government efforts and the implementation of transparency initiatives, the city has experienced incremental institutional improvements since. The first action plan was a tool to consolidate some of these initiatives, and the current one include new efforts to continue addressing governance challenges.

The key improvement on the design of this action plan is its significant increase on civil involvement, with both remote and live participation. This is a good practice that should be continued and improved moving forward. Also noteworthy is that public service delivery commitments, such as the commitment on education, were included for the first time. However, the potential impact of the commitments in general were minor or moderate, a result from a revision of the commitments of the plan that made them less ambitious.

The co-creation process of the current plan, with improved participatory activities, yielded commitments more pertinent to citizens demands and their perception of government challenges.  In the current action plan, more stakeholders from civil society organizations were included in the co-creation process and the public consultation procedure was enhanced, generating more contributions from the citizens and wider range of inputs from civil society organizations. However, the process could be strengthened by better incorporating civil society inputs when selecting and drafting the final commitments.

Table 2. Noteworthy commitments 

Commitment description Moving forward Status at the end of implementation cycle.
Commitment 4:  Education

Increase transparency, technology and innovation to promote monitoring and decision making in Educational Units.

It is recommended to incorporate a discussion or participatory workshop to allow civil society to opine on the characteristics that will compose the digital tool to be developed. It would also be helpful to strategically define the number and location of training sessions so that a significant number of people and organizations can be trained on the new tool.


Note: this will be assed at the end of action plan cycle
Commitment 5: Fight Against Corruption


Guarantee access to contracts, bids, and budgetary execution to improve monitoring in the bidding process

Simplifying the standardization and improvement of publications of procurement information procedure would improve the outcomes of this commitment.


It is recommended to better specify the goals to be attained with the capacity building activities, defining specific gaps to be addressed and connecting them to the main objective of the commitment; and to launch co-creation and crowdsourcing actions and retrieve research and learnings from the initiatives undertaken by the Office of the Municipal Comptroller.


It is also recommended to Integrate key stakeholders (civil servants that work directly with procurement and supplier companies) not only at the end stage, as stated, but also at the earlier stages, before and during the concrete actions are undertaken, to integrate the procurement information, as they will probably play an important role in improving the commitment’s data.



The IRM recommendations aim to inform the development of the next action plan and guide implementation of the current action plan.

Table 3. Five KEY IRM Recommendations

 Promote public accountability commitments
Expand participation along all the process of co-creation
Give priority to policy themes that are connected to everyday people’s lives
Improve the co-creation process in order to increase the quality of commitments
Increase participation through the creation of an online forum




No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership