The OECD.AI Policy Navigator

Our policy navigator is a living repository from more than 80 jurisdictions and organisations. Use the filters to browse initiatives and find what you are looking for.

AI Community Juries and National Civic AI Governance Framework (ENIA)


Added by:   OECD analyst
Added on:   30 Oct 2026
Updated by:   OECD analyst
Updated on:   30 Oct 2026

undefined
This initiative creates citizen panels that work with public authorities to review how artificial intelligence is used in public services. It helps governments understand social risks, fairness concerns, and public trust issues before and after AI systems are deployed. The initiative benefits public administrations, local communities, and regulators by improving transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making.

Initiative overview

The initiative addresses the growing gap between the technical deployment of artificial intelligence in the public sector and the social legitimacy of its use. While public administrations increasingly rely on AI for decision support, service delivery, and resource allocation, citizens often have limited visibility into how these systems affect rights, access to services, and fairness. The project creates a structured civic layer that complements legal and technical compliance with social and institutional evaluation. Its core objective is to integrate trained community panels into public-sector AI governance processes. These panels review real AI use cases, datasets, and deployment scenarios in collaboration with public authorities and technical experts. Their work results in formal reports and recommendations that support public procurement, regulatory sandbox activities, and ongoing monitoring of AI systems in sensitive domains such as urban management, social services, healthcare, and education.

The initiative is designed to align with existing regulatory and standards-based approaches, including risk-based governance models under the EU AI Act, data protection impact assessments, and international AI management and risk frameworks. By doing so, it provides public institutions with a practical way to connect formal compliance requirements with public understanding and trust, helping to reduce institutional, legal, and reputational risks associated with AI deployment. Over time, the framework is intended to scale through partnerships with municipalities, regional authorities, and national bodies. Standardised training modules, evaluation templates, and reporting formats allow the model to be replicated across different jurisdictions. The long-term goal is to institutionalise civic review as a regular component of public-sector AI governance, supporting more transparent, accountable, and socially grounded use of artificial intelligence.

Results, outcomes and impacts

The first community juries were launched in October 2025 and have generated strong citizen engagement and institutional interest at the local level. Early results include the production of structured civic impact reports and formal recommendations that have been shared with participating public administrations to inform AI-related decisions and pilot projects. Impact is measured through participation rates, diversity of jury composition, number of AI use cases reviewed, and follow-up actions taken by public authorities. Expected future outcomes include expansion to additional municipalities and the development of standard indicators for trust, transparency, and public acceptance of AI in government services.

Other relevant details

Challenges and lessons learned: The main challenge has been building a shared understanding between technical experts, public officials, and citizens with different levels of AI literacy. This was addressed through the development of standard training modules and clear, non-technical briefing materials to support informed participation. Another risk has been managing expectations, particularly the assumption that jury recommendations are binding rather than advisory, which required formal clarification of roles and decision-making authority. Key lessons learned include the importance of institutional sponsorship from public administrations, transparent selection of participants, and consistent documentation of outcomes. The success of the initiative depends on political and administrative commitment, access to real AI use cases, and the availability of stable funding to support continuity, training, and long-term monitoring.