Available methodologies 2018-07-16T16:31:39+00:00

AVAILABLE METHODOLOGIES

In this Guide we will introduce to you several methodologies in order to strengthen integrity system at the local government level:

  • Anti-Corruption Methodology „Islands of Integrity“®

  • Manual on Integrity Planning and Integrity Management

  • Integrity systems and methodologies for monitoring Integrity, Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability at Local Level, fYR Macedonia: Case in Point

  • Corruption Risk Assessment in Public Institutions in South East Europe Comparative Study and Methodology

  • Model Local Anti-Corruption Plan

  • Local Integrity System Assessment Toolkit, Transparency International

Anti-Corruption Methodology “Islands of Integrity”®

Producer

Ana Vasilache and Ronald MacLean Abaroa, Islands of Integrity Anti-Corruption Partners Network, LLP

Purpose

The purpose is to replicate Ronald MacLean Abaroa successful experience in addressing corruption in his city and local government, as mayor of La Paz/Bolivia. The Islands of Integrity Anti-Corruption Methodology® is participatory and strategic, aimed at making the necessary changes in the organization systems in order to address the causes of the vulnerability to corruption. It helps mayors act as institutional reformers rather than judges or prosecutors.

Applicability

It has universal features that enable its application to all local governments.

Types and sources and data

Based on objective information, including available internal and external data documents and data, as well as on subjective data drawn from staff and stakeholders’ surveys, questionnaires, focus groups

Methodology

A-C Methodology Steps (objectives, process, tools) can be applied within an average of 6 to 8 months and entails the following steps:

1. Negotiating and Signing the MoU with the Mayor

2. Forming the Guiding Coalition

3. General Diagnosis

4. In-depth Diagnosis

5. Capacity Building

6. Solutions elaboration

Key actors

The Methodology can be applied only by certified Anti-Corruption Practitioners whose capacity was built in the three components of ACT – Anti-Corruption Training®:

• Knowledge Building & Skills Building Components (duration: average of 2 to 4 months)

• Working together with selected mayors/local governments (see Methodology above, with an application average of 6 to 8 months).

Results reporting

• General Diagnosis Report

• In-Depth Diagnosis Results

• Staff Motivation Analysis

• Outside Stakeholders Perceptions

• A-C strategic and actions plans.

Tools

©Islands of Integrity Anti-Corruption Partners Network, LLP

• Invitation and Application Form for Mayors (example from WB-Austria Program A-C component, developed and implemented by FPDL)

• Model for a MoU (example from WB-Austria Program A-C component, developed and implemented by FPDL)

• Description of a Workshop for Guiding Coalition members (example from WB-Austria Program A-C component, developed and implemented by FPDL)

• Guidelines for Pilot Workshop

• General Diagnosis Questionnaires (Example from Craiova Municipality)

• General Diagnosis Report (Example from Craiova Municipality)

• In-Depth Diagnosis Results (Example from Craiova Municipality questionnaires)

• Staff Motivation Analysis (Example from Craiova Municipality survey)

• Outside Stakeholders Perceptions (Example from Craiova Municipality focus groups)

• Workshop on Integrity and Organizational Culture (example of FPDL training for Craiova Municipality)

• Workshop on Leadership and HRM (example of FPDL training for Craiova Municipality)

• Meeting between councilors and executives to improve communication and collaboration (example of FPDL facilitation for Craiova Municipality)

• Strategic and Action Planning Workshop (example of FPDL facilitation for Craiova Municipality)

• Strategic Plan Structure

Strengths

Tailored specifically to local governments, can be adapted to other types of public institutions by the certified A-C Practitioners

• Flexibility of use, deploys various methods and instruments to be exploited in a participatory format. Includes samples of tools used to enable practical understanding.

• The tools used refer to specific integrity risks and integrity controls to exemplify the risks in certain areas of operation and guide through relevant potential solutions.

• Mobilizes support to the process, creates ownership in the planned measures.

• Designed to raise local capacities in diagnosing vulnerabilities to corruption and improving beyond integrity, public services/activities efficiency, transparency and accountability

Weaknesses

• Although contains elements of assesment of impact, it does not provide a separate mechanism for mornitoring and evaluation of the process

• The process is lead only by certified AC practitioners

Coverage

In the period 2009-2016, it has been reported that more than 30 local governments in 11 countries applied the A-C Methodology, supported by the certified Anti-Corruption Practitioners (Albania, BiH, Croatia, Georgia, Kosovo, Romania, Moldova1, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia)

Timeline

2009, ongoing

Website

www.fpdl.org

1. References to Kosovo shall be understood to be in the context of UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)

Adapted from Guideline for Application of the Anti-Corruption Methodology by the trained A-C Practitioners “Islands of Integrity and Effectiveness”, Ana Vasilache, 2016

A-C Methodology at glance:

 No.

Steps:

Responsibilities:

 1.

Negotiating and signing the MoU with Mayor

Aims at clarifying objectives, roles and responsibilities between AC Practitioners and client organization leadership

Top management

 2.

Forming a Guiding Coalition

The Mayor, supported by A-C Practitioners, establishеs the Guiding Coalition, to support the diagnosis of the vulnerability to corruption through a participatory process. An Introductory Workshop to Guiding Coalition members, or to an extended group, is being held to present the process, define the objectives, and facilitate a general diagnosis.

Top management

Guiding coalition

3.

General diagnosis

Most vulnerable to corruption activities and services, are identified through a participatory diagnosis, based on Robert Klitgaard theory of the systems that breed corruption C=M+D-A/T. Guiding Coalition members process and analyze questionnaires, to identify the activities/services most vulnerable to corruption on which to further focus. The General Diagnosis Report is presented to Mayor and guiding coalition members

Guiding coalition

4.

In-depth Diagnosis

The priority vulnerable to corruption activities/services are further analyzed to identify the vulnerability causes. The methods used include anonymous questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and/or surveys. The In-Depth Diagnosis Reports are presented to the Mayor and Guiding Coalition members’ for validation.

Guiding coalition

 5.

Capacity building

Based on needs assessment, capacities of managers and staff are developed through the practical and participatory trainings.

Top management

Guiding coalition

 6.

Solutions elaboration

Based on the diagnosis results, through workshops and participatory meetings, participants elaborate strategic and action plans to address identified corruption vulnerability causes, and to achieve the planned integrity objectives.

Top management

Guiding coalition

Adapted from Guideline for Application of the Anti-Corruption Methodology by the trained A-C Practitioners “Islands of Integrity and Effectiveness”, Ana Vasilache, 2016

Manual on Integrity Planning and Integrity Management

Producer

UNDP

Purpose

Supports integrity planning and integrity management by providing an overview of the key principles and concepts of integrity risk management and integrity planning, guides through the process of planning, developing, implementing, monitoring and reviewing integrity plans.

Applicability

It has universal features that enable its application to all public sector units, including local governments

Types, sources and data

Based on objective information, including available internal and external data documents and data, as well as on subjective data drawn from staff and stakeholders’ surveys, questionnaires, focus groups.

Methodology

The integrity risk assessment process entails the following phases:• Establish the context for integrity planning• Identify Integrity Risks• Analyze Integrity Risks• Evaluate Integrity Risks• Determine Risk Treatment.

 Key actors

Although designed in a way that does not require highly specialized skills for its implementation, at the beginning it would be desirable to have specifically trained anticorruption experts to support the local governments. Foreseen instruments include: questionnaires, focus groups, workshops, document reviews, interviews, and assume a wide mobilization of resources at all levels and functions.

 Results reporting

• Assessment of the context• Risk tables• Integrity Plan and Integrity Risk Registerv

Strengths

• Further to the integrity risk assessment and integrity planning, it adds the perspective of integrity management system and advice on how to develop, maintain and improve a holistic integrity management system.• Provides a focus on monitoring and reassessment of integrity risks.• Serves as initial efforts to understand integrity planning and integrity management and underlying operational processes through a straightforward, simple and easy to understand methodology.• Designed to raise capacities in risk assessment and in managing integrity.

Weaknesses

  • Not tailored specifically to local government.

  • Does not refer to specific integrity risks and integrity controls to exemplify concrete risk areas and guide through potential solutions.

  • Primarily an awareness raising and capacity strengthening tool, has to be used along with further, more detailed methodolocical instruments and guidelines if a corruption risk assessment is to be carried and an integrity plan is to be developed (no additional tools enclosed)

Coverage

The methodology has been applied in more than 10 municipalities in Kosovo through the UNDP Support to Anti-Corruption Efforts in Kosovo (SAEK) project.

Timeline

2015 – ongoing

Website

http://www.ks.undp.org/content/kosovo/en/home/library/democratic_governance/manual-on-integrity-planning-and-integrity-management.html

The Integrity Risk Assessment Methodology at a glance:

Steps

Activities

Results

Establish the context:

1. Review external environment

2. Review internal environment

External context:. Focus is put on integrity requirements/ expectations of stakeholders.

Internal context: responsibilities for integrity risk assessment, scope, the objectives of the process.

Identify Integrity Risks

 3. Identify Risks and Risk Factors for each Risk

Relevant Risks identified

For each risk separate risk table created

Risk factors identified for each

Analyze Integrity Risks

4. Identify Controls for each Risk

5. Conduct risk analysis for every risk factor based on the existing treatment

6. Assess overall risk level for each risk

Factor

Current treatment/ controls in place identified for each risk factor

Decide per each risk factor whether it is managed, partially managed or not managed based on the existing tretament/controls in place

The likelihood of an event occurring and the consequences (impact) if the event eventuates assessed for each risk, based on the risk assessment matrix relevant risk level determined for each risk

Evaluate Integrity Risks

7. Rank risks and screen minor ones that donot need treatment

Minor risks that don’t need treatment screened, significant risks evaluated, prioritised

Significant risks to be given further treatment

Determine Risk

8. Select appropriate risk treatment

One or more risk treatment options determined for each risk

Treatment

9. Prepare Integrity Risk Register

WG and Top management agree on measures, responsibilities and deadlines, Integrity Register Prepared

Adapted from Manual for integrity planning and integrity management, 2015, UNDP

Integrity systems and methodologies for monitoring integrity, responsibility, transparency and accountability at local level, fYR Macedonia: case in point

Monitoring integrity, responsibility, transparency and accountability at local level- Simplified RTA

Producer

UNDP

Purpose

The RTA Index is designed to make measurable assessments of the capacity of a given institution to combat corruption.

Applicability

The Index covers four main areas of competence of local government: urban planning, financial management and property, public procurement and openness, including Freedom of Information, Civic Participation and Open data. It may be used as a self-evaluation instrument by local governments, to identify the “hot spots” that are vulnerable to corrupt behaviour. Though designed for fYR Macedonian municipalities, its universality enables its practical application with the necessary adjustments in local governments generally.

Types and sources and data used

Mainly based on objective information, including available administrative data on budgets, procedures and functions related to the local governments. In addition, perceptions from other governmental stakeholders, experts and users of municipal services generate an important source in the design of the tool, namely to identify corruption “hot spots” which need to be monitored.

Methodology

The implementation of the Instrument and creation of the RTA Index are going through the following phases:

• Defining corruption hot-spots (i.e. competitiveness of the bidding process)

• Defining anti-corruption mechanisms versus corruption hot-spots (i.e. transparent advertising of the bid)

• Defining indicators for the anti-corruption mechanisms (i.e. for transparent advertising of the bid: number of advertised bids and value of advertised bids)

• Setting up of the Instrument for Corruption Risk Assessment.

Key actors

The methodology has been designed for use by various stakeholders. It does encourage close coordination and cooperation with the civil society in order to maximize interaction and support dialogue. Self-evaluation by the local government may require specifically trained professionals in the first rounds of implementation.

Tools

 • Tables attached for each area of assessment, specifying corruption practice to be prevented, indication of existence of preventive measure, question (s) for identification of preventive measures.

Strengths

 • Clear, practical and easy and simple to implement; meant to be impartial and balanced and built on more tangible, measurable and objective criteria and indicators

• A Corruption Risk Assessment tool, to be used along with other tools. Exemplifies risks in the areas of assessment: urban planning, financial management and property, public procurement and openess and guides through risk management operational controls and anticorruption prevention mechanisms.

• Helps local government better understand the relation between the risks, anti-corruption mechanisms and indicators (red flags).

• Focused pragmatically towards measuring resistance to corruption. The use of RTA would enable periodic monitoring and comparisons within the units of local government: horizontal and vertical benchmarking.

• Brings the important perspective of opening government data to the public and its multiple benefits to anticorruption.

• Enables sharing experience and experiential learning among the institutions in the public sector by encouraging the open discussion regarding vulnerabilities, preventive controls and effectiveness of these controls.

Weaknesses

 • Limited subject areas: urban planning, financial management and property, public procurement and openness

• May require data that is difficult to obtain (i.e. information on tenders, volumes, etc).

 Timeline

 2014- ongoing

Adapted from Integrity systems and methodologies for monitoring integrity, responsibility, transparency and accountability at local level, fYR Macedonia: case in point, UNDP, 2014

Integrity Systems and Local Government Integrity (LGI) Index:

Producer

UNDP

Purpose/

objectives

The Local Government Integrity Index (LGI index) intends to measure the resistance to corruption of the municipality by establishing the degree of compliance with the integrity system concept, defined through 11 main elements.

Applicability

The Integrity System approach elaborated may be applied universally, in all local government units. The LGI index, developed as an assessment instrument primarily for fYR Macedonian municipalities, may be used following necessary context adjustments.

Types, sources and data used

Mainly based on objective information, including available administrative data on policies, procedures and practices related to the local government. In addition, perceptions from NGOs and users of municipal services are used to verify the attributes of the integrity system maintained.
53

Methodology

The Methodology builds on the concept of Integrity System, with a focus on the internal “integrity infrastructure” of the local government that enables its resilience to corruption. The integrity system entails the following elements:

• Anti-corruption policy

• Commitment from the top

• Specific standards and procedures in specific areas (CoI, gifts etc)

• Corruption Risk assessment

• Integrity system management arrangements

• Strengthening existing internal controls and disciplinary procedures

• Training

• Internal reporting channels and whistleblower protection.

• Due diligence

• Contract provisions in Public Procurement

• Update and adaptation; Periodic testing and auditing of the Integrity systemTo ensure sustainability of maintaining integrity systems, a Local Government Integrity Index (LGI index) is designed to measure the introduction and maintenance of integrity systems by using two components translated into two sets of tables:• A mandatory first component (table) with “yes” or “no” answer questions; based on “yes” answers, a score is calculated, and the municipality is defined as high-risk, medium-risk or low-risk corruption-wise;

• A second component (table), is used as a social accountability tool, i.e. to verify the degree to which the local community, civic organizations and clients agree with the findings of the first table.

The LGI index is meant as an assessment, to be administered by the central anti-corruption institution (the State- Anti-Corruption Commission), the Ministry of Local Administration and the Association of Municipalities. The self-assessment questionnaire, however, may be used as a tool by local governments, who wish to improve overall resilience to corruption.

Tools

 • Local Government Integrity Index Questionnaire

• LGI – Social Accountability Tool (a questionnaire to be completed by NGOs, citizens, and other external stakeholders- service recipients)

• Implementation steps for developing the LGI Index

Key actors

In the case of FYROM, the central anti-corruption institution (the State-Anti-Corruption Commission), the Ministry of Local Administration and the Association of Municipalities have been proposed to administer the assessment regarding the LGI Index. The methodology has been designed as a participatory one, involving various stakeholders: anticorruption bodies, central authorities, local governments, NGOs, citizens, anticorruption practitioners. Implementation at local level, in particular the elaboration of procedures related to integrity management, may demand considerable specialized expertise. Where administrations have accumulated experience with total quality management instruments, these experts may be used in working on the system documentation.

Results reporting factors

The LGI Index is to be created for the municipalities participating in the assessment. At individual level, municipalities are expected to develop policies and system procedures to facilitate implementation of integrity system.

Strengths

• Makes the connection between corruption risk assessment and integrity system.

• Raises capacities and respective awareness of the importance of maintaining a management system approach to anticorruption.

• Facilitates the transfer of good practices across municipalities.

• Works as a diagnostic tool, whichidentifies governance deficiencies in maintaining an integrity system, thus underlining vulnerabilities which may weaken organization’s integrity and proposing opportunities for development.

• Focuses on a pragmatic corruptionresistance measuring

• Allows horizontal benchmarking amongst municipalities, which may be used to develop a ranking of the participating municipalities, depending on whether they have introduced elements (or the whole) of the Integrity System.

• Allows vertical benchmarking to compare current against previous achievements.

• Is clear and practical,meant to be balanced and built on objective evidenceverifified by the stakeholders.

Weaknesses

 • Resource demanding:

Documenting an integrity management system, such as, policies and procedures based on gap and situational analysis with a specialized professional expertise that may be limited. Verification by external stakeholders: citizens, NGOs, etc. to ascertain effectiveness of implementing an integrity management system presupposes high level of effort and adequate resources (time, funds, etc.). Administration at central level of the LGI index assumes high levels of political support, and a good cooperation among the stakeholders involved, including specialized knowledge in the area.

Coverage

 • 10 municipalities in FYROM are reported for having introduced integrity systems

Timeline

2014 – ongoing

Adapted from Integrity systems and methodologies for monitoring integrity, responsibility, transparency and accountability at local level, fYR Macedonia: case in point, UNDP, 2014

Developing an integrity system at a glance:

N.

Steps

Responsibilities

1.

Ensure political support (policy workshop with the leadership to explain the concept)

Top management

2.

Administrative phase 1:

  • Set up a working group to draft the Integrity System procedures.

  • The WG adopts simple procedural rules and Work plan.

  • The WG agrees on the schedule/tasks.

  • The WG designs the draft procedures and presents them to the Municipal Leadership.

Top managementWorking group

3.

Social Accountability Phase 1

  • The Mayor convenes a meeting (either inofficial consultation of a Council Session) and presents the new system to the citizens with policy documents made available for discussion in advance

  • All comments summarized and a clear indication is made if they are supported (accepted) or not; and if not, why. Top management

Working group

4.

 Administrative Phase 2

  • The Mayor signs all changes in the procedures and all the necessary draft documents and they enter into force

Top management

5.

Implementation phase

  • Training staff to instruct on the new procedures.

  • New procedures, checklists are being used; new procedure manuals are made available to all staff

Working group

6.

Evaluation stage

  • Information is collected by the WG and the Secretary on the use and problems in the application of the new procedures and corrections are proposed (this loops back to administrative phase 1)

Top managementWorking group

7.

Social Accountability stage 2

  • Information on the improvements regarding integrity is provided to the citizens on a regular basis.

Top management

Corruption Risk Assessment in Public Institutions in South East Europe Comparative Study and Methodology

Producer

Regional Cooperation Council and Regional Anti-corruption Initiative for the Southeast Europe 2020 Strategy

Purpose

To provide Southeast European (SEE) public sector institutions with different options, integrated framework and practical advices to conduct tailored corruption risk assessment(s).

Applicability

Focused on corruption risk assessment in public sector. Offers a tailored analysis and possible solutions for the SEE region. Generally applicable to all public sector entities, local governments included.

Types and sources and data

Risk assessment is based on a combination of secondary sources (legal-institutional analysis of key documents, desk research) and primary sources (surveys and questionnaires, focus groups, key informant interviews, checklists, etc.). Findings are drawn on objective and subjective qualitative and quantitative information.

Methodology

The framework risk assessment methodology consists of 5 phases with altogether 27 steps. The methodology can be used for any CRA type or approach (integrity plan, sectoral CRA, ad hoc CRA) The five phases include:

Phase 1: Planning, scoping and mobilisation of resources

Phase 2: Identification and analysis of risks

Phase 3: Measurement, evaluation and ranking of identified risks

Phase 4: Risk management plan and risk register

Phase 5: Programme for monitoring and follow-up

Key actors

Besides top management and working group members, the wide spectrum of instruments foreseen: questionnaires, focus groups, workshops, document reviews, targeted interviews assume a vast mobilization of resources at all levels and functions to support the process. Due to the complex methodology, involvement of trained and skilled external professionals is required especially in the first rounds of the assessment, provided that there is a deficiency of relevant in-house expertise.

Results reporting

• Risk table

• Risk Register

• Risk management plan

Tools

• Example of a template heat map

• Template of comprehensive risk assessment and its evaluation (risk register)

• Options for presentation of risk assessment results

• Example of risk management plan

Strengths

 • Offers a comprehensive defintion of corruption, corruption risks, and corruption risk assessment.

• An extended overview of existing good practices at international level: standards and methodologies for corruption risk assessment

• Targeted review of relevant practices (Australia, Netherlands and Slovenia)

• Provides a clear regional focus by offering an overview of the existing practices in SEE (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, fYR Macedonia, Kosovo, Moldova, Romania, Serbia), including lessons learnt.

• Comprehensive methodology for corruption risk assessment- principles, possible approaches, integrity plan, corruption risk, sectoral assessment, targeted ad hoc corruption risk assessments, practical aspects of implementing corruption risk assessment.

• With high attention to details, guides progressively through procedural and substantial aspects of a corruption risk assessment, principles, framework methodology.

• Examples of typical corruption risks: bribery risks, risk of abuse of power or position for private interests, Risk of abuse of public resources for private interests; Risk of illegal or unethical external influence or pressure on public official; Risk of conflict of interests; Risk of (other) illegal or unethical behavior. Examples of measures to manage the above risks.

• Flexibility of use, the steps of the risk assessment are neither exclusive nor absolute, but systematic in a way that the methodology can be adapted, expanded, altered or otherwise tailored to concrete procedure of corruption risk assessment easily.

• Relates systematically corruption risk assessment, risk management plans and implementation and monitoring of integrity plans.

Weaknesses

• Not tailored exclusively to local government

• The cost of conducting this extensive and complex exercise is relatively high. Particularly for the first assessment, it requires substantial outside technical support and the availability of either national capacities to conduct the exercise or donor funding.

• Resource demanding regarding data.

• Though monitoring, reporting and reassessment are formally included in the methodology, further guidance on the above processes is limited.

Timeline

2015 – ongoing

Website:

 http://rai-see.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CRA_in_public_ins_in_SEE-WEB_final.pdf

Adapted from Corruption Risk Assessment in Public Institutions in South East Europe Comparative Research and Methodology, Regional Cooperation Council and Regional Anti-corruption Initiative for the Southeast Europe 2020 Strategy, 2015.

The Corruption Risk Assessment Methodology at glance:

Phase 1: Planning, scoping and mobilisation of resources

N.

Activity

Responsible

1.

Obtain superior or top-level management support to risk assessment.

Management

2.

Appoint CRA project leader and members of the working group (WG)

Management

3.

Define WGs responsibilities,reporting lines and the scope.

WG

4.

Select ways to collect relevant information and define methods.

WG

5.

Prepare and communicate work plan, time table. Define the method for presentation of the CRA results, Schedule workshops or other information gathering exercises.

WG

6.

Formulate and communicate instruction to those contributing to the process.

WG, Management

Phase 2: Identification and analysis of risks

7.

Data collection. Conduct workshops or other information gathering exercises focused on risk identification.

WG

8.

Consider in-depth the following questions: which, where, when, why and how events could prevent, degrade, delay or enhance the achievement of tasks and objectives.

WG

9.

Based on the findings, map vulnerable areas for assessment

WG

10.

Identify and consider all groups of risk factors in every area: external, institutional, individual and operational- working processes and procedures.

WG

11.

Consider relevant groups/types of risks that can be driven / facilitated by indentified risk factors.

WG

12.

Based on the findings, identify risks that need to be managed.

WG

13.

Evaluate existing controls in respect to identified risks.

WG

Phase 3: Measurement, evaluation and ranking of identified risks

14.

Measure or evaluate level of every identified risk, based on combination of

likelihood of separate risk to occur and gravity of impact (detriment) in case

of occurrence (e.g. using heat map).

WG

15.

Prioritise risks according to the impact their occurrence (including interaction)

may have.

WG

16.

Develop document with comprehensive assessment of each identified risk and

its final evaluation (risk register).

WG

Phase 4: Risk management plan and risk registerYour Content Goes Here

17.

Develop risk treatment and control activities. Prepare recommendations for improvement in risky areas. Define measures.

WG

18.

Prepare risk management plan and set up priority list of risks to be addressed

and measures to be taken.

WG

19.

Submit risk management plan to superior or top-level management for adoption

WG(lead)

20.

Establish risk register or similar document, including:

• the list of identified risks and factors that facilitate them,

• the list of adopted and accepted recommendations, measures and priorities, responsible persons and deadlines

WG

21.

Effectively communicate to all staff

WG

22.

Prepare final report of the WG, including all relevant documents

WG

Phase 5: Programme for monitoring and follow-up

23.

Develop monitoring mechanism over the implementation of the risk management plan

WG, management

24.

 Appoint integrity officer

management

25.

Inform the superior or top level management on development, issues, etc. regardingthe risk management plan on a regular basis

Integrity officer

26.

Update CRA documents (including risk map and risk register) on a regular basis

Integrity officer, WG, management

27.

Establish effective mechanism for communication between integrity officer, management and employees

Integrity officer, management

Adapted from Corruption Risk Assessment in Public Institutions in South East EuropeComparative Research and Methodology, at p. 74-76

Model Local Anti-corruption Plan

Producer

Anti-Corruption Agency, Republic of Sebia and the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities- National Association of Local Authorities in Serbia

Purpose

To assist cities and municipalities in their efforts to adopt adequate local anticorruption plans (LAPs).

Applicability

Though especially created to support local governments anticorruption in Serbia, the Model can serve as an inspiration in most local governments. Proving a comprehensive example of risk areas/ measures, it may be a general good reference point for analyzing risks and risk treatment.

Methodology

The process consists of the following steps:

• Setting up of a working group for LAP development and its operation

• Public hearing on Draft LAP

• LAP adoption

• Setting up of a body in charge of monitoring LAP implementation

Key actors

Besides top management and working group members, the process may involve representatives of CSOs or citizens associations, state-owned enterprises, and other external stakeholders. Professional external assistance to draft the plan and tailor the model to particular environment shall be needed, in case that there is a deficiency of relevant in-house expertise.

Tools

• Model Plan with risk tables in 17 important areas of function

• Format template of the Plan

• Format of the Report on Adoption of the Local Anti-corruption Plan

Strengths

• Tailored specifically for local governments

• Presents a comprehensive model of local government anti-corruption plan, identifying competences, fields, processes and procedures which carry risks and methods to reduce/eliminate them.

• Instructive regarding adoption, implementation and monitoring of such plans.

• Provides very well exemplified areas of vulnerabilities, with risk factors described comprehensively; wide spectrum of possible anticorruption measures revealed, with indicators of measure implementation (quality)

• Flexibility of use, may be adapted to fit particular contexts.

Weaknesses

• Risk of mechanic adaptation and a ‘copy paste” approach that may turn the exercise formalistic, and the plan inadequate to actual risks and feasibilities.

• Requires relevant skills and sophisticated understanding of integrity risk management in its adaptation to particular local government context.

Timeline

 2017, ongoing

Website:

http://www.acas.rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Model-lokalnog-antikorupcijskog-plana-ENG.pdf

Adapted from Model Local Anti-corruption Plan, with Guidelines for Adoption, Implementation and Monitoring, Anti-Corruption Agency, Republic of Sebia and the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities- National Association of Local Authorities in Serbia, 2017, http://www.acas.rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Model-lokalnog-antikorupcijskog-plana-ENG.pdf

Local Integrity System Assessment Toolkit

Producer

Transparency International

Purpose

The Local Integrity System (LIS) Assessment Toolkit (the LIS Tool) is to:

• assess the internal governance and capacity of each of the core local government actors and their role in promoting integrity in the system as a whole;

• develop recommendations on areas for reform to be taken up by local government stakeholders

• develop a follow-up action plan for strengthening local integrity in collaboration with key local stakeholders.

Applicability

The tool is focused on each of the core local government actors and their role in promoting the integrity in the system as a whole. Local governments may use the relevant findings in the LIS report for their corruption risk assessment processes. Local governments may use the measures in the follow-up action plan. Particularly important are the measures relating to strengthening oversight and accountability functions.

Types. sources and data

Based on objective information, including relevant internal and external data and documents drawn from all local stakeholders under assessment, as well as on subjective data based on surveys, questionnaires, focus groups, workshops by staff and stakeholders.

Methodology

Draws on Transparency International’s National Integrity Systems (NIS) approach, generating valid and reliable evidence on the performance of the local governance actors, namely: the local council (assembly), a mayor or alderman (executive), the local bureaucracy, local political parties, and in some cases local courts (judiciary) and the police. Each local government unit is assessed separately, with one scorecard being developed for each. The assessment entails 8 steps, presented in further detail below.

The following risks dimensions are assessed:

• Local assembly (adequate resources, local elections, independence, oversight of the local executive, representation, transparency of the local assembly, accountability of local councillors, integrity of local councillors),

• Local executive (clear functions, predictable resources, management of local bureaucracy, oversight of private providers of public goods, regulation of local business, budget transparency, accountability of local executive, integrity of local executive),

• Local bureaucracy (adequate resources, independence, ensuring transparency and integrity in local public procurement, promoting social accountability and participation, tax collection, protecting land and property rights, administrative transparency, accountability of local public servants, integrity of local public servants)

Key actors

The LIS Tool assesses the internal governance and capacity of each of the core local government actors. It also assesses their role in promoting integrity in the system as a whole, the capacity to perform, and the effectiveness of, each of the oversight and accountability functions

Results reporting

• The LIS report

• A strategy for implementing specific solutions for strengthening the LIS.

• Proposals to secure funding to implement approaches to strengthen local integrity

Strengths

• Recommendations produced may significantly support improving the interface local government- key local stakeholders, particularly regarding oversight and accountability functions: complaints handling, local government auditing, oversight of local government, investigation and exposure of corruption, awareness-raising and public education, and social accountability.

• Refers to particular risk dimensions in the functions of local assembly, local executive and local beauracracy, which are assessed and consequently addressed by treatment measures.

• Very comprehensive approach, captures important integrity aspects of key local actors.

• Allows vertical benchmarkings, which when used repeatedly monitors and evaluates the progress of the LIS over time.

Weaknesses

• Although it supports experiential learning in local government, it is not aimed specifically at building local government in-house capacities for risk assessment and risk management.

• Is not able to fully substitute the corruption risk assessment and integrity planning in the local government, but can be used as a complementary tool.

• Resource demanding; relies on qualified external expertise.

Timeline

 2014 – ongoing

Website

https:www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/local_integrity_system_assessment_toolkit

Adapted from Local Integrity System Assessment Toolkit, Transparency International 2014, https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/local_integrity_system_assessment_toolkit

GUIDE TO CORRUPTION-FREE LOCAL GOVERNMENT