Co-creation is where open government commitments are born. It is the process through which governments, CSOs, and other stakeholders, including youth organizations, jointly identify problems, propose solutions, and agree on what will be formally submitted as a standalone commitment or as part of an OGP action plan. This is not just a procedural step: OGP evidence spectacles that when civil society is genuinely engaged, action plans are better designed, more ambitiously implemented, and deliver stronger results for people.
For young people, co-creation is the critical entry point. Done well, it ensures OGP commitments reflect their real needs and priorities. Done poorly, it becomes a box-ticking exercise where youth are invited at the last minute and cannot influence anything of substance. This section offers tools and recommendations to help make sure that doesn’t happen.
Using the Toolkit alongside OGP’s Co-Creation Resources
The tools in this section are designed to complement OGP’s broader co-creation resources from the 2026 OGP National Handbook, not replace them. Use them alongside the resources listed below.
- Co-Creation Guidance:Étapes pratiques pour mettre en œuvre un processus de co-création inclusif et participatif.
- Normes de participation et de co-création: The five standards and minimum requirements that all OGP members must meet, covering all stages of the process
CONTENU
Define “Youth” before Beginning
Map the Landscape and Build on Existing Networks and Alliances
Inform Young People about the Process before it Starts
Make OGP Exciting, Relevant, and Accessible
Bring Diverse Youth Voices, Not Just the Usual Suspects
Go Wide: Youth Care about Everything
Track Youth Contributions
Include Youth Contributions in Commitment Narratives
Co-Creation in Action: Case Studies
There is no universal definition of “youth.” The United Nations (UN) uses ages 15 to 24. The African Union Charter extends this from 15 to 35. UN Security Council Resolution 2250 focuses on 18 to 29. OGP recommends adopting an inclusive definition that reflects the country’s own reality and writing it clearly in the action plan or commitment text. This definition should then guide the youth engagement strategy of the co-creation process.
Outils et ressources
Young people’s experience of participation differs depending on gender identity, socio-economic background, disability, ethnicity, geographic location, sexual orientation, and migration status. A strategy designed for urban university students will not reach rural youth, indigenous youth, or young women in informal settings.
Young women, LGBTQIA+ youth, young people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups face several barriers at once. The engagement strategies should be designed specifically for these communities. One open door does not mean all doors are open.
Before launching a co-creation process for an action commitment, it is important to map who is already doing what, instead of building youth engagement from zero. In almost every OGP country, youth networks, youth-related CSOs, student organizations, and youth councils already exist, and they’ve already earned young people’s trust. Building on these existing networks makes the process more credible.
Mapping should not be limited to formal actors. There’s a much wider ecosystem out there. Informal groups, community leaders, faith-based youth groups, and online communities should be included too, especially those representing marginalized and underrepresented young people. These actors often have relationships with young people who rarely show up in official spaces, which makes their representation more genuine.
The goal is not to only invite more young people into the process, it is to change the process itself, so that those who are usually absent can participate safely, contribute meaningfully, and influence decisions. Where possible, governments should invite actors with deep community roots as co-designers and facilitators of the participatory process
Outils et ressources
This structured template cartes the full youth ecosystem in a given context. It helps identify who is present, who is missing, where power is concentrated, and what barriers keep certain young people from participating. It should be used before launching any OGP co-creation process, to make outreach intentional, inclusive, and grounded in the real landscape.
Most youth organizations miss the opportunity to join a co-creation process because they find out about it too late, or because the format does not suit them. To avoid that, organizers should identify barriers to participation early (such as financial, language, digital, geographic, and logistical barriers) and design outreach accordingly.
- Reach out to the organizations and networks already identified, and invite them to participate. Where relevant, ask them to join as co-organizers of the co-creation process itself.
- Work with youth media, content creators, and trusted digital voices to raise awareness among young people about OGP and the opportunities to get involved in the development of commitments and action plans.
- Verify that the basic infrastructure for transparent co-creation is in place: a public website dedicated to the country’s participation in OGP, a co-creation timeline with key milestones published before the process begins, and a clear point of contact responsible for coordinating it.
- If the information is not publicly available, CSOs can contact their country’s OGP Point of Contact (whose name and email is available in the OGP Members webpage) to learn the co-creation timeline and how youth can be formally included. Transparency about the process itself is a minimum requirement.
Outils et ressources
A simple calendar can map OGP co-creation activities in a given country: which processes are running or planned, who leads and coordinates each one, and what consultation mechanisms they use. Under the Cadre d’action OGP 2026, there may be more than one process running at once, since any government institution can co-create commitments with civil society. Sharing the calendar with other youth organizations will help them know when and where to participate.
Young people will not engage with OGP if they cannot understand what it is or see how it connects to the issues they care about. The most successful co-creation processes translate OGP concepts into plain, accessible language, and connect them directly to young people’s priorities and everyday concerns.
Le Glossaire OGP is the go-to reference for clear, up-to-date definitions of OGP-related terms. Any government or CSO can use it together with this Toolkit’s tools to turn OGP concepts and open government jargon into language that resonates with young people.
Here are a few examples for how you can explain key terms.
Action commitment: “A public promise by the government, developed with civil society, to deliver a specific reform by a specific date. You can hold them to it.”
National action plan: “A package of commitments the government submits together, with a start and end date. Since 2026, this is one option among several: commitments can also be submitted individually or in batches.”
Co-création: “A process to define the reforms together—with your ideas and your priorities—helping decide which problems should be addressed and what solutions should be pursued.”
Multi-stakeholder forum (MSF): “A committee where civil society and government institutions work together on open government priorities and guide the OGP process in a country.”
Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): “An independent body that assesses how well countries are implementing their commitments.”
Outils et ressources
This glossary Explique key OGP terms in simple words. It includes a “What does this mean for young people?” column that can be adapted to national contexts.
These visual cards introduire key open government concepts in simple, youth-friendly language. Each card explains a concept, connects it to young people’s everyday realities, and includes a reflection question to spark discussion. They can be used in workshops and outreach events.
Co-creation processes often reach the same young people who are already engaged: those who are urban, educated, and formally organized. However, a meaningful co-creation process requires proactive outreach to rural youth, indigenous communities, young women, young people with disabilities, and those in informal sectors. In practice, that means going where they already are, using their channels, and building engagement around their schedules and constraints.
Before reaching out, it also helps to decide whether to work online or in person. Each has pros and cons, and the right choice depends on the purpose of the discussion. Digital tools can expand reach and lower barriers, but in-person dialogue (such as policy forums, community workshops, citizen assemblies, and other face-to-face spaces) is where the deepest engagement and relationship-building happen. The key is to use the channels, formats, and spaces that are most relevant and accessible to the young people wanting to engage.
Usually a mix works best. Here are a few examples:
- In-person surveys and online surveys accessible on mobile devices to reach those with low bandwidth.
- Hybrid event formats that include online participants in real-time deliberations with equal speaking rights and opportunities to contribute.
- Asynchronous contribution mechanisms, such as online submissions and video statements, for youth across time zones.
Outils et ressources
Engagement numérique1
Points forts potentiels :
- Can scale quickly and at lower cost
- Supports online-first youth organizers (i.e. those using TikTok, Instagram, and WhatsApp)
- Enables broad data collection through surveys and forms
- Useful for asynchronous contributions and keeping participants informed
When this might or might not work:
Works well when young people are already active online and have the means to participate, when participants are spread out, or when time and resources are tight.
It works less well where connectivity, digital literacy, language, or device access is limited.
Engagement en personne
Points forts potentiels :
- Enables deeper conversation, deliberation, and trust-building
- Creates genuine community and sustained relationships
- Better for reaching youth without reliable internet access or in remote areas
When this might or might not work:
Works well when building new relationships, discussing complex issues, or engaging communities that value face-to-face interaction.
Depending on the context, travel costs, time, and accessibility needs may limit participation.
Approches hybrides
Points forts potentiels :
- Combines the advantages of both methods and offers multiple ways to participate
- Can increase flexibility and provide alternative channels for engagement
When this might or might not work:
Works well when different groups face different barriers or preferences, or when it matters to balance broad participation with real deliberation.
Hybrid formats need extra coordination and resources to make sure online and in-person participants can contribute equally.
Ce enquête gathers youth priorities, needs, and barriers before the co-creation agenda is set. It can be adapted for digital and paper formats, so it reaches young people across different connectivity and resource contexts.
Ce guide can be used and adapted to run inclusive, participatory workshops with young people during co-creation. It includes agenda templates, icebreaker activities, methodologies, facilitation tips for diverse groups, and a results documentation template.
One of the most common mistakes is confining young people to “youth topics” such as sports, arts, or education. In reality, young people have urgent perspectives on many governance areas and add real value to each of them. For instance, OGP Youth Collective members are active in anti-corruption and public procurement; digital rights and AI governance; climate action and environmental justice; access to information and freedom of expression; budget transparency and fiscal accountability; and access to justice and civic participation. Governments and CSOs should not assume what young people care about: they should ask them. The answer is often surprising.
A second common mistake is relying solely on youth-only spaces, such as dedicated dialogues or working groups for young people. These have their place when they are genuinely meaningful, but they can also separate young people from the main conversation instead of including them in it. Young people can and should contribute to all topic discussions alongside other stakeholders. Engaging young people more broadly makes the process richer and OGP commitments more relevant.
Outils et ressources
Ce dépôt offers low-cost, flexible engagement activities to reach diverse topics. Options include pre-event surveys, storytelling, interactive card games, brunch dialogues, and community council simulations. These activities work both online and offline.
After each co-creation session, organizers should write a report to keep a record of what was proposed and discussed. Verbal contributions can easily be ignored, but when they are documented, they are far more likely to be referenced and followed up.
Some recommendations to keep in mind:
- Use participatory tools that are easy to document and compile into a short report. Clearly record what was said, what decisions were made, and what needs follow up.
- Share the report with public officials and CSOs involved in the process for accountability.
- Use this documentation to challenge the invisible dynamics that shape decision-making (see the évenementiels section) and ensure youth contributions are not lost in the process.
Outils et ressources
This two-step survey recueille youth priorities in advance, and tracks how young people felt during the engagement and whether their proposals made it into commitments afterward.
When OGP commitments are written, youth contributions must be visible in the commitment text, not just in the consultation report. This means:
- Explicitly referencing youth needs and priorities in the problem statement of each commitment.
- Including youth organizations as named co-leads or implementing partners in the commitment text.
- Making commitments specific, measurable, time-bound, and clearly linked to open government values. Vague commitments cannot be tracked or held accountable.
- Establishing a feedback loop: after co-creation, share with participating youth groups exactly how their inputs were incorporated, and why some were not.
Outils et ressources
Ce checklist assesses youth inclusion in draft commitments: Is it measurable? Does it align with the open government values of transparency, accountability, and participation? Does it address issues that specifically affect young people? This tool includes a youth impact question for each criterion.
Équateur
Young Ambassadors for Open Government (2025)
Contexte: Reflections on Ecuador’s OGP processes revealed a consistent gap. Although young people had participated in different ways over the years, little had been done to ensure they could meaningfully contribute to co-creation. This showed the need for more intentional youth engagement and stronger pathways for young people to take part in decision-making and shape national discussions.
Ce qui s'est passé: Fundación Datalat, with support from the Youth Democracy Cohort, launched the Young Ambassadors for Open Government (Jóvenes Embajadores por el Estado Abierto) program during Ecuador’s troisième plan d'action (2025–2027). The initiative brought together 29 young people from 15 provinces, including participants from rural and indigenous communities, most of whom had never taken part in a national policy process before. After receiving training on open government and advocacy, the ambassadors joined official co-creation roundtables in the cities of Quito, Manta, and Riobamba, engaging directly with public officials and civil society.
Résultats:Ambassadors participated in the co-creation of 29 proposals and contributed to many more through the national platform. They brought what they had learned back to their communities, organized additional workshops, created digital campaigns, and encouraged other young people to get involved. Their work became a key milestone within one commitment in Ecuador’s third action plan, and the initiative expanded the open government community by bringing in new organizations and individuals.
Principaux enseignements : 1) Preparing participants at the community level before national engagement dramatically improves participation quality. However, training alone is not enough: it works best when connected to real participation spaces.2) Peer mobilization, where participants recruit other participants, is more effective than top-down outreach. 3) Exposure to national policy processes can help young people connect open government principles to local realities and inspire action within their own communities. 4) Connecting youth contributions to existing accountability mechanisms gives youth institutional legitimacy and increases the likelihood that ideas and relationships would continue beyond a single initiative.
Metsamor, Arménie
Reaching Youth in their Own Spaces (2025)
Contexte: In Metsamor, Armenia, the OGP local team set out to engage youth in the co-creation process. Rather than waiting for young people to show up to formal meetings, they started by mapping and proactively reaching out to youth groups through joint sessions with municipalities and local CSOs.
Ce qui s'est passé: Instead of inviting youth to institutional spaces, facilitators went to them. They attended youth events and meetings to introduce the OGP process on familiar ground, using methodologies adapted to different contexts: Brunch Dialogues for focus groups in relaxed, informal settings; Community Council Simulations that used structured sessions with municipality staff; Youth Participation Debates that hosted thematic discussions between youth and government; and Remote Village Community Meetings to reach outlying areas.
The municipality also drew on its existing ties with schools and colleges in the city, schools in the villages, cultural houses, and the sports school. These institutions helped spread the calls for participation and nominate young people to take part. They also helped reach youth who would not otherwise respond to an open call, including those not already active in civic life or living in more remote villages.
Résultats: The approach produced a tangible shift. Metsamor’s OGP plan d'action (2025–2026) included a youth-focused commitment that won the 2025 Open Gov Challenge Award, and the government boosted youth involvement in ongoing implementation, not just co-creation. Equally significant, the municipality’s own understanding of youth engagement shifted beyond just organizing school events to also recognizing young people as active governance stakeholders.
Principaux enseignements : 1) Proactive youth group mapping is essential, but it only sustains if backed by genuine governmental support. 2) Having a government partner that can engage the institutions it already works with (such as schools, colleges, cultural houses, and sports schools) to share calls and nominate participants is what can transform outreach from a one-time effort into an embedded process.
Colombie
Youth Inclusion that Wasn’t Planned (2023)
Contexte: During Colombia’s fifth plan d'action (2023–2025) co-creation process, young people from CSOs, including Esquisse de données, participated actively in co-creation roundtables. Youth participation was not originally planned into the process, but they got involved anyway.
Ce qui s'est passé: Young participants advocated for a cross-cutting gender and inclusion approach, which led to the use of an IRM-inspired assessment form to evaluate draft commitments. The form included questions on measurability, alignment with OGP values, and a gender perspective.
Résultats: Four commitments adopted a cross-cutting gender and inclusion approach as a direct result of this structured lens. The same approach is now being extended to a youth perspective.
Principaux enseignements : Youth participation was not originally built into the process, yet young people still made their voices heard and helped shape the outcomes. Even without formal mechanisms, they brought perspectives that enriched the discussion and influenced decisions. This experience highlights that meaningful youth engagement should not depend on chance or individual initiative. What happened organically should now be intentionally embedded into the process, ensuring that young people have a consistent, recognized, and influential role in shaping decisions that affect them.
The whole co-creation process was soutenu by a mini grant from OGP’s Feminist Open Government Initiative.
Machakos County, Kenya
Political Goodwill to Include Youth Voices (2025)
Contexte: Building on the 2022 Machakos County Youth Empowerment Act, which institutionalizes youth participation in county governance in line with Article 55 of Kenya’s Constitution, the County Executive of Machakos County made a political commitment to intentionally include youth in the co-creation process of its OGP plan d'action (2025-2027).
Ce qui s'est passé: CSOs facilitated inclusive consultative forums, brought in youth from multiple networks, and made sure youth contributions were documented and reflected in commitments. Young people were especially helpful to identify priority issues, gaps in service delivery, and realistic solutions.
Résultats: The result was a set of actionable commitments grounded in real community needs. The process also strengthened ownership among stakeholders, increasing the likelihood that engagement would continue and last, even across political transitions.
Principaux enseignements : Strong political goodwill from the executive branch, combined with a shared commitment from CSOs and community stakeholders, is key to including youth voices in a safe environment where they are heard and taken seriously.
Quintana Roo, Mexique
Co-Creating a Youth Engagement Protocol (2022)
Contexte: A 2021 enquête by Ciudadan@s por la Transparencia (CxT) and UnidosMX found that 68 percent of young people in Quintana Roo did not feel included in public life, and 88 percent wanted more opportunities to participate.
Ce qui s'est passé: Dans le cadre de son OGP plan d'action (2021–2022), the government of Quintana Roo, together with CxT and UnidosMX, co-created and implemented a youth engagement protocol in 2022 to bring young people into political life and government decision-making. The protocol sets out five recommendations for public institutions: communicate proactively about opportunities to participate; use innovative participation tools; explain institutional work in clear, accessible language with a gender lens; involve youth across all stages of policy design, implementation, and evaluation; and report back transparently on the protocol’s own results. Alongside it, CxT and UnidosMX also produced a companion manual, “Ciudadanx Chidx,” explaining in plain language how the government works and how to get involved.
Résultats: The protocol and manual became the starting point for later youth involvement in the state’s Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development to 2050. Through the #ImaginaQuintanaRoo campaign, 300 university students from Cancun took part in participatory planning dialogues shaping the state’s long-term development vision.
Principaux enseignements : 1) Co-creating a formal protocol, not only running one-off consultations, gives youth engagement a structure that can outlast a single administration, campaign, or action plan cycle. 2) Co-creating how institutions should engage youth is as valuable as co-creating specific policy content, and it can be reused across many later processes.