Skip Navigation

Kenya

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 3

ON THE PAGE


Current Action Plan

2018-2020

Action Plan 3

  • Number of Commitments: 6
  • Policy Area Focus: Beneficial Ownership, Open Contracting, Open Geo-Spatial Data

Kenya is currently implementing 6 commitments from their 2018-2020 action plan.

This action plan features commitments related to beneficial ownership, open contracting, health and citizen engagement.


Commitments

  1. Beneficial Ownership

    KE0018, 2018, Beneficial Ownership

  2. Open Contracting

    KE0019, 2018, Capacity Building

  3. Open Geo-Spatial Data for Development

    KE0020, 2018, E-Government

  4. Public Participation

    KE0021, 2018, Capacity Building

  5. Governance Indices

    KE0022, 2018, Capacity Building

  6. Open Government Resiliency

    KE0023, 2018, Capacity Building

  7. More Transparent and Participatory Development of Climate Polices at the National and Subnational Level

    KE0010, 2016, E-Government

  8. Enhancing Preventive and Punitive Mechanisms in the Fight Against Corruption and Unethical Practices

    KE0011, 2016, Anti-Corruption Institutions

  9. Enhance Transparency in the Legislative Process

    KE0012, 2016, E-Government

  10. Publish Oil and Gas Contracts

    KE0013, 2016, Extractive Industries

  11. Starred commitment Ensure Greater Transparency Around Bids and Contracts

    KE0014, 2016, Anti-Corruption Institutions

  12. Create Transparent Public Procurement Process, Public Oversight of Expenditure and Ensure Value-For-Money Towards Citizen Priorities

    KE0015, 2016, Anti-Corruption Institutions

  13. Improving Access to Government Budget Information and Creating Wider and More Inclusive Structures for Public Participation

    KE0016, 2016, E-Government

  14. Starred commitment Enhance Right to Information

    KE0017, 2016, Capacity Building

  15. Starred commitment Improving Transparency in Electoral Processes: 1.A. Definition of Electoral Boundaries and Name.

    KE0001, 2012, Media & Telecommunications

  16. Improving Transparency in Electoral Processes: 2.B. Voting Information Online

    KE0002, 2012, E-Government

  17. Promoting Public Participation: 1.B. End-To-End Service Delivery Portal

    KE0003, 2012, E-Government

  18. Promoting Public Participation: 1.D. Public Complaints Portal

    KE0004, 2012, E-Government

  19. Promoting Public Participation: 2.C. Kenya Action Plan Online

    KE0005, 2012, OGP

  20. Promoting Public Participation: 1.C. Open Data Portal

    KE0006, 2012, Education

  21. Starred commitment Improving Transparency in the Judiciary: 2.A. Public Vetting of Judges and Case Allocation System

    KE0007, 2012, E-Government

  22. Open Budgets: 3.a. Improve Kenya's OBI Index

    KE0008, 2012, Fiscal Transparency

  23. Open Budgets: 3.B. Increase Public Participation in Budgetary Processes

    KE0009, 2012, Fiscal Transparency


Resources

  1. Case Study – Kenya

    2015, Case Study, Web page

  2. Kenya – Letter of Candidacy for 2019 Steering Committee Elections

    2019, Letter, Web page

  3. Kenya 2017 Late SAR Letter – February 2018

    2018, Letter, Web page

  4. Kenya Action Plan 2012-2013

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  5. Kenya Action Plan 2018-2020

    2018, Action Plan, Web page

  6. Kenya IRM Progress Report 2012-2013

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  7. Kenya Letter (Jan 7 2016)

    2016, Letter, Web page

  8. Kenya Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  9. Kenya Mid-Term Report 2016- 2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  10. Kenya Mid-Term Report 2016- 2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  11. Kenya National Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  12. OGP Letter – Kenya – Nov. 15

    2015, Letter, Web page

  13. OGP Letter to Kenya Regarding Late Action Plan: November 2015

    2017, Letter, Web page

  14. The social impact of open data in the global south

    2015, Web page

  15. Transforming the Courts: Judicial Sector Reforms in Kenya, 2011-2015

    2015, Research Product, Web page

  16. What’s in a Name? A comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across seven OGP members

    2017, Research Product, Web page


Current Data

The following data is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.

Commitment Performance

The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.

Key

No IRM data

Pending IRM Review

Major
Outstanding
Starred Commitments
Action Plan 1
2
Action Plan 2
2
Action Plan 3

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
0
2

How to Get More Starred Commitments

Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.

Key

Stars (Global average 7%)

Focus on implementation

Focus on design

Pending IRM review

No IRM data

Focus on design

Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)

Focus on relevance to open government

Focus on verifiability

Action Plan 3

Public Participation

This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.

Key

Participation was closed

Participation was open to any interested party

No IRM data

Forum

Pending IRM review

Definitions

Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda

 

Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs

 

Consult: Public gave input

 

Inform: Government provided public with information on plan

Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3

OGP Global Report Data

The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.

Selected Dimensions of Open Government

This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.

Action implications

These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.

IRM-based findings

Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.

 

(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.

Third-party scores

Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.

Anti-Corruption

Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Civic Space

Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Open Policy Making

Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Access to Information

Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Fiscal Openness

Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Recent Content

casestudy-3

Inclusive Open Contracting

In Kenya, citizens ensure 30 percent of public procurement opportunities are set aside for youth, women, people with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups.

Traditional Ndebele hut at Botshabelo near Mpumalanga, South Africa

The Case for Accountability in Education

Lessons from Reformers: Education systems work better when the public has access to information, the opportunity to participate and influence decision-making, and the ability to seek answers and response from governments...

Show More