2018-2020
Action Plan 4
Lithuania is currently implementing 6 commitments from their 2018-2020 action plan.
This action plan features commitments related to open data, improving the environment of NGOs, fiscal openness, public services, inclusion of citizens in decision-making and accountability.
LT0024, 2018, E-Government
LT0025, 2018, Civic Space
LT0026, 2018, E-Government
LT0027, 2018, Capacity Building
LT0028, 2018, Public Participation
LT0029, 2018, Capacity Building
LT0015, 2016, Capacity Building
LT0016, 2016, Capacity Building
LT0017, 2016, E-Government
LT0018, 2016, Anti-Corruption Institutions
LT0019, 2016, E-Government
LT0020, 2016, Capacity Building
LT0021, 2016, Capacity Building
LT0022, 2016, Civic Space
LT0023, 2016, Capacity Building
LT0007, 2014, Capacity Building
LT0008, 2014, E-Government
LT0009, 2014, E-Government
LT0010, 2014, Education
LT0011, 2014, Civic Space
LT0012, 2014, E-Government
LT0013, 2014, Anti-Corruption Institutions
LT0014, 2014, Anti-Corruption Institutions
LT0001, 2012, Records Management
LT0002, 2012, Records Management
LT0003, 2012, Public Participation
LT0004, 2012, Legislature
LT0005, 2012, E-Government
LT0006, 2012, Public Participation
The following data is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.
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.
No IRM data
Pending IRM Review
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.
Stars (Global average 7%)
Focus on implementation
Focus on design
Pending IRM review
No IRM data
Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)
Focus on relevance to open government
Focus on verifiability
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.
Participation was closed
Participation was open to any interested party
No IRM data
Forum
Pending IRM review
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
The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.
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.
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.
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.
Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
2015, Letter, Web page
2015, Action Plan, Web page
2016, IRM Report, Web page
2019, Action Plan, Web page
2017, IRM Report, Web page
2017, Self Assessment, Web page
2019, IRM Report, Web page
2018, Report Comments, Web page
2018, Self Assessment, Web page
2017, Letter, Web page
2018, IRM Report, Web page
2018, Report Comments, Web page
2017, Self Assessment, Web page
2016, Action Plan, Web page
2016, IRM Report, Web page
2015, Self Assessment, Web page
2015, Action Plan, Web page
2015, Letter, Web page
2017, Letter, Web page
Originalmente publicado por la organización Defender el derecho humano a un juicio justo en FairTrials.org. Las Cartas de Derechos pueden tener un impacto positivo pues ayudan a las personas detenidas por la policía a saber cuáles son sus derechos, pero existen…
Originally posted by the organization Defending the Human Right to a Fair Trial on FairTrials.org. Letters of Rights can have a really positive impact on the understanding of rights by people arrested or detained by the police, but are they adequate and being used…
Today OGP is launching a new tool, the OGP Explorer. The core idea behind the OGP Explorer is to give the OGP community - civil society, academics, governments, journalists - easy access to the wealth of data that OGP has…
In 2014, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) grew to 65 countries that collectively have developed more than 2,000 policy initiatives to make their governments more open, transparent and responsive to citizens. This was a critical year for many OGP countries…
Last week the Support Unit released the Open Government Partnership activity calendars for all participating countries. The calendars clearly present dates and deadlines for key activities in the OGP process, such as National Action Plan (NAP) drafting, implementation, and assessment.…
Click here for more information about the Open Government Partnership's terms of use.
Terms & Conditions Close
English
French
Spanish