A quick snapshot that compares your local revenue collection with similar local governments at home or abroad. Even when this snapshot looks strong (or suggests little room to grow), the detailed stream-by-stream analysis remains the main reference because it measures gaps in each revenue source directly. If no comparison data is available, skip this step.
No peer local-government dataset is preloaded for this country. Do you have revenue data for similar local governments?
How your local revenue collection stacks up against similar local governments in the same country.
Select a local government to see how you compare
Select a subnational government to view the analysis result.
An indicative estimate of how much own-source revenue this jurisdiction could collect, based on what top-performing countries with a similar economic profile collect.
Complete the Local Government Profile above and click Get Analysis to see the estimated revenue potential.
This is an indicative estimate. It compares the local government's situation to what top-performing countries in the same country group collect from their own sources, after adjusting for the type of local economy this jurisdiction has. Read it together with the detailed analysis below.
For a more accurate picture, complete the per-stream analysis in the section below.
Add similar local governments in your country (including your own). We'll benchmark you against the strongest performers.
Without GDP/GCP the tool uses an OSR-per-capita benchmark.
Fill in the requested inputs for each OSR stream. Add or remove streams as needed to match your context. Once you have entered all available data, go to the Prioritisation tab to see the headline results and start sequencing streams for reform planning.
For proper execution of the analysis, you are required to complete only the cells shaded in gray and in bold.
Why only 2 bars here? Property Tax has no Realistic Improvement % input — its potential is anchored directly to market value, which is a hard ceiling. So there is no realistic-vs-theoretical split to show (as in Business License or other streams with a rate-uplift lever). The Potential bar above already represents the unconstrained ceiling.
DESCRIPTION: This matrix visualization shows the property tax gap analysis across two dimensions: the number of properties (vertical axis from Compliant to Estimated) and the billing level (horizontal axis from average billed to achievable market-based billing). Each colored cell represents a different type of gap or revenue component. The same breakdown is also shown in the pie chart below.
DESCRIPTION: This pie chart illustrates the percentage distribution of the revenue gaps. It visually shows the contribution of each type of gap to the total uncollected revenue, helping to identify which gaps are the most significant.
How to read the two bars: Bar 1 is what you've already collected. Bar 2 is your realistic target at the Realistic Improvement % you entered above — closing the gap to bar 2 is the actionable reform plan, and the headline KPI uses this number.
DESCRIPTION: This matrix visualization shows the business license gap analysis across two dimensions: the number of businesses (vertical axis from Compliant to Estimated) and the billing level (horizontal axis from average billed to achievable billing). Each colored cell represents a different type of gap or revenue component.
Choose a template to get started, or select "Other" to classify manually.
Are you sure you want to delete the stream ""?
This action cannot be undone. All data for this stream will be lost.
Add streams in Gap Analysis to see the breakdown.
This section shows which revenue streams may deserve attention first. The initial order is based on the estimated improvement gap for each stream, but you can adjust it to reflect local feasibility and priorities.
How to use this table: Use the drag handle or up/down arrows to re-order streams if local priorities or political feasibility demand a different sequence. Toggle the Status switch to exclude any stream that doesn't apply (e.g. a service your municipality doesn't provide) — excluded streams are dropped from share calculations and the downstream recommendations.
Complete Gap Analysis to see chart data
Gap Prioritization breaks each prioritized revenue stream down by the type of gap driving its underperformance — Compliance, Coverage, Valuation/Liability, or the mixed combinations — and lets you sequence which gaps to tackle first within each stream.
Why it matters: A stream's overall gap may look the same on the surface, but a Compliance gap (people billed but not paying) needs very different reforms from a Coverage gap (units not even on the books) or a Valuation gap (assessed below market value). Sequencing tells the reform team where to start.
ROSRA suggests an opening priority order for each stream based on the estimated size of each gap and the condition of the revenue system. You can override any cell to fit local capacity and politics, or remove a gap-type that's not feasible.
Gaps ranked by absolute revenue impact and scored by improvement potential to help focus reform effort where it matters most.
This tab provides detailed solution cards for the options you selected previously. Solutions appear according to the established prioritization order. Use these recommendations to inform your city's reform plan and export the results as a ROSRA Diagnostic Report.
Filter recommended solutions
No streams have been prioritized yet, so we couldn't auto-derive any cards. Click below to broaden the pool to all 82 solution cards.
Shortlisted recommendation cards for focused reform planning.
Solutions organized by implementation timeframe
Track progress on implementation milestones
Pick the sections to include and choose your output format.
All sections are on by default — toggle off anything you want to leave out.