Every year the Bureau of Public Service Reforms assesses the public websites of Nigerian Ministries, Departments and Agencies against fourteen published criteria. The criteria, their weights and the rules each score is chosen against are published in full before any assessment begins. This page is the complete result.
Every criterion is scored 0 to 4 against a written rule published before the assessment began, then weighted to a total out of 100. Open any MDA below to see all 0 scores and the rule each one matched.
Results appear here once a cycle is published.
No results published yet
No cycle has been published yet. Results appear here once the assessment is complete, validated by the oversight panel, and signed off.
The full methodology is published so anyone can check the result: every criterion, its weight, and the written rule attached to each of the five score levels — is published in full and was fixed before any assessment began.
Read the full methodologyThe criteria, their weights and the rubric were agreed and frozen before assessment began. They could not be changed once scoring started, for any reason.
Performance, accessibility against WCAG 2.1 AA, security configuration, structure and availability were measured automatically and continuously, with the evidence for each reading stored.
Independent assessors scored the remaining criteria against the published rubric, each recording a written reason. The most subjective criteria were scored blind by two assessors, with disagreements formally reconciled.
The complete result set, free to download, reuse and check. Publishing a a result without the underlying data asks the public to take it on trust, which is the opposite of the point.
Spreadsheet · .xlsx
Two sheets: the score each MDA received on every criterion, and the ranking with totals and tiers.
Comma-separated · .csv
The same table as plain CSV, for analysis or re-publication.
Web page
The criteria, weights, and the full rubric each score was chosen against.
Individual scorecards, with the reason recorded for every criterion, are on each MDA’s own page.
An oversight panel drew a reproducible sample, checked that the published method was actually followed, and endorsed the result. They could not — and cannot — edit a score.
Every assessed institution saw its own full breakdown before the table was made public and could formally appeal. Upheld appeals corrected the score and re-ranked the cycle. Nothing was published while an appeal was open.
