Methodology for Assessing the Capacities of Anti-Corruption Agencies to Perform Preventive Functions

UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre

June 2011 / Version 2

CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 2 II. DEFINING THE TARGET: AGENCIES PERFORMING PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION FUNCTIONS ........................................................ 5 Corruption prevention agencies according to the UNCAC ................................................... 5 The problem of creating prevention of corruption bodies ..................................................... 6 III. DESIGNING THE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ............................... 8 1. Preparation of the assessment ............................................................................................ 8 2. Clarification of the objectives and expectations with primary clients ............................... 8 3. Identification of stakeholders to be involved throughout the process ............................... 9 3. Determining the data collection and analysis approach................................................... 10 4. Defining how the assessment will be conducted ............................................................. 12 IV. APPLYING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR THE CONDUCTION OF CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS ................................. 14 1. Enabling environment ...................................................................................................... 14 2. The organizational level................................................................................................... 17 3. The individual level ......................................................................................................... 20 V. MOST COMMON PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION FUNCTIONS ... 22 1. Anti-corruption policy formulation.................................................................................. 23 2. Development of implementation plans ............................................................................ 24 3. Coordinating the implementation of preventive policies ................................................. 25 4. Monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption policies............................................. 26 5. Evaluating the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies.................................................. 27 6. Conducting diagnostics and research ............................................................................... 28 7. Legislative drafting .......................................................................................................... 29 8. Promoting international cooperation and mainstreaming the international standards ..... 29 9. Disseminating knowledge ................................................................................................ 31 10. Enhancing civil society participation in the fight against corruption ............................ 32 11. Development and implementation of corruption risk and integrity assessments .......... 33 12. Enforcement of preventive anti-corruption measures .................................................... 35 12.1 Conflict of interest regulation and management ...................................................... 36 12.2 Rules governing gifts received by public officials .................................................. 38 12.3 Asset and income disclosure regimes ...................................................................... 39 Technical tool 1: Guidelines for assessing the capacities to perform specific functions ........................................................... 41 Technical tool 2: Benchmarking matrix ....................................... 55 ANNEX: BASIC UNDP CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS ......... 64 1. Points of entry (levels where capacity exists) .................................................................. 64 2. Types of capacities........................................................................................................... 65

I. INTRODUCTION
This Methodology has been developed by UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC)1 building on practices and lessons derived from the support provided to anti-corruption agencies in the specific context of the Eastern European and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, as well as on analysis and research regarding the same region. While the Methodology can be considered as a valid instrument for supporting anti-corruption agencies in different parts of the world, it has to be mentioned that the specificities of corruption as well as of the administrative systems of the region shaped some of the observations and recommendations contained in the document that may not fully apply or may have different application in other regions. The Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs) that were subject to the mentioned research and analysis operate in an environment, in which levels of administrative corruption and state capture remain high after two decades of post-communist transition; it seems evident that, despite the distinctive characteristics of the different countries, some of their shared legacy from recent history has a bear on the degree and specifics of the corruption phenomenon across the region. One of the features shaping the context of anti-corruption in many of the countries of the region is the persistent capacity deficit in their public administrations. They inherited very hierarchical politically controlled administrative structures, secretive and often accountable much more to the vertical of power than to the citizens whom public institutions are supposed to serve. Several countries (particularly in the CIS, but not only) present an administrative environment in which patronage, nepotism and decisionmaking through non-transparent channels of personal influence are an entrenched feature of the public sector and of its relations with the citizens. The communist past has also an impact on the structures and dynamics of the civil society. The long suppression of civil liberties, the impossibility of creating social structures outside the partys control, as well as the lack of independent media, annihilated or severely reduced the capacity of civil society to organize itself for promoting collective interests autonomously from the state. While a lively and diverse civil society has emerged in many countries over the past 20 years, often with support from donors, the patterns of civic engagement and activism2 in most of the region rarely sustain genuinely robust grass-root initiatives. To address the issue of corruption many governments in the region started, during the last decade, developing Anti-Corruption (AC) strategies and institutional arrangements for fighting corruption. It must be said that the international community played a fundamental role in this development through both political pressure and direct technical support. An inventory of the ACAs existing in the region reveals a prevalence of

1 The UNDP BRC Public Administration Reform and Anti-Corruption sub-Practice (Dan Dionisie, Francesco Checchi) developed the Methodology in cooperation with the Capacity Development Practice (Joe Hooper) and with Constantine Palicarsky, Hanife Kurt and Marijana Trivunovic, consultants. Contributions were also received from several practitioners and UNDP staff, mainly from the Eastern European and the CIS region. The Methodology was validated with practitioners and tested in five countries in Eastern Europe and the CIS in 2008-2010, undergoing several revisions. 2 In Gallups Civic Engagement Index out of 130 countries surveyed, 6 of the 11 with the lowest levels of civic engagement are in Eastern Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, and Serbia). Overall, only 7 out of 30 countries in the region scored in the top half of all countries, indicating very low levels of civic engagement as compared to a global scale (Civic Engagement Highest in Developed Countries, Gallup, 18 January 2011, http://www.gallup.com/poll/145589/civic-engagement-highest-developed-countries.aspx).

specialized prevention of corruption agencies as well as the existence of specialized AC departments in prosecutors offices and a general reluctance of the governments to introduce multi-functional independent ACAs. This Methodology has been developed by the UNDP BRC in order to provide UNDP Country Offices in the region, as well as other international actors, with a tool for assessing the capacity of organizations dealing with specific corruption prevention functions, irrespective of the type of agency that is being assessed (for more details see the following section: Defining the Target: Corruption Prevention Agencies). UNDP BRC made the deliberate choice to focus this Methodology (as well as the other activities for capacity development of ACAs) on the area of prevention of corruption. This decision was taken in consideration of UNDPs specific approach to fighting corruption: the phenomenon is regarded primarily from a systemic perspective, in relation to governance deficiencies and in the context of capacity shortcomings in the public sector. The anti-corruption activities of BRC are developed as part of the broader governance and public administration reform agenda. Support to corruption prevention activities is a legitimate entry point to promote and reinforce such reforms; prevention of corruption agencies are expected to play a key role for the development of a transparent, accountable and efficient administrative system, in line with the preventive Chapter of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)3. The choice of focusing on prevention of corruption was also dictated by the reality of institutional development to fight corruption in the Eastern European and the CIS region. In application of the UNCAC (Art 6) a majority of countries in the region have established or are currently establishing agencies tasked with prevention of corruption. The analysis and research conducted by UNDP BRC as well as other organizations reveals that these agencies are facing significant capacity problems to become effective elements of the national integrity systems, due of shortcomings of the legal, institutional and policy frameworks and lack of capacities at the organizational and individual levels. Developing the capacities of ACAs requires, first of all, a careful assessment of all the factors contributing to their functioning; UNDP defines capacity as the ability of individuals, organizations and societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner, and proposes a process through which capacities are obtained, strengthened, adapted and maintained over time.4 Supporting this process requires identifying what capacities already exist and what additional capacities may be needed to achieve the intended results. This is the purpose of a capacity assessment.

3 In 2008, a corporate review of UNDPs programming approach aimed at streamlining UNCAC implementation in UNDP activities for anti-corruption and materialized in a revised Anti-corruption Practice Note and a Primer on Corruption and Development (both available at http://www.undp.org/governance/focus_anti-corruption_publications.shtml). These corporate policy documents firmly anchor the anti-corruption agenda to UNDPs human development mandate; at the same time they clarify that UNDPs added value is mainly in the area of corruption prevention (corresponding to Chapter II of the UNCAC). 4 UNDP Practice Note on Capacity Development, the document can be downloaded at: http://www.undp.org/capacity/library_policynotes.shtml

The Capacity Development (CD) Process consists of five steps:

Step 1: Step 5:
Evaluate CD Engage Stakeholders on CD Process

Step 4:
Implement CD Responses

Capacity Development Process

Step 2:
Assess Capacity Assets and Needs

Step 3:
Formulate CD Responses

The methodology presented here aims to assist practitioners in designing quality programs to assess and develop the capacities of ACAs by guiding them through the second and third steps of the diagram above: the capacity assessment and the formulation of capacity development responses. The assessment phase is critical to capacity development efforts as it lays the foundations for the design and implementation of informed, appropriate, and effective capacity development responses. It can also set the baseline for continuous monitoring and evaluation of progress, and thereby lay a solid foundation for long-term planning, implementation and sustainable results of Capacity Development interventions.

This methodology will: Present and explain the preventive anti-corruption functions most commonly performed by anti-corruption agencies; Adapt UNDPs capacity development concept to the specific context and particular challenges confronting anti-corruption agencies in performing these preventive functions; Provide guidelines for conducting capacity assessments of anticorruption agencies that perform preventive functions.

II. DEFINING THE TARGET: AGENCIES PERFORMING PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION FUNCTIONS

What does corruption prevention mean? Why are agencies that prevent corruption important? Below we will review the role of such agencies and the capacity challenges it implies.

Corruption prevention agencies according to the UNCAC

Governments and development agencies have been grappling with the challenge of curbing corruption for decades: it is a difficult task as corruption is a complex phenomenon, both affecting and compounded by deficiencies in broad range of sectors, institutions, and governance processes. Law enforcement measures necessary to successfully fight against corruption appear to have been better understood, and there exist quite clear legal and operational guidelines on how to best organize and strengthen law enforcement capacities in the fight against corruption.5 Prevention, however, has been more difficult to conceptualize and codify, in part because it concerns a wide diversity of sectors, institutions, and regulatory systems, each requiring different approaches and norms. In addition, many of the corruption prevention mechanisms are regarded as a domain of the Public Administration Reform. The UNCAC the most far-reaching international instrument targeting corruption, from both a geographical and a substantive viewpoint is the first convention to propose a range of preventive issues that need to be addressed by member states. Preventive measures are outlined in Chapter II of the UNCAC, and include effective public financial management; streamlining of administrative procedures; transparency across the public sector; effective rules to monitor the financial situation of public officials and financing of political parties; conflict of interest provisionsto name just a few. Standards and good practices on operationalizing each of the required preventive measures exist in a number of different sources.6 UNCAC approaches them comprehensively; it creates the necessary link between fighting corruption and promoting the principles of rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability; and recognizes the essential role of civil society in anti-corruption efforts. The UNCAC emphasizes the importance of prevention by setting for participating states the obligation to ensure the existence of institution(s) responsible for corruption prevention.

5 For instance, in Europe there are two international conventions concerned primarily with the law enforcement aspect: the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention against Corruption and the Civil Law Convention against Corruption. 6 One useful set of guidelines is contained in the UN Anti-Corruption Toolkit, http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/publications_toolkit_sep04.pdf, a number of other sources also exist. Among the UN agencies, The UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute in cooperation with UN Office on Drugs and Crime has developed a technical guide for the implementation of the UNCAC that addresses the need to specify and narrow down to concrete activities some of the provisions of the Convention.

Article 6 of the UNCAC states: 1. Each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal system, ensure the existence of a body or bodies, as appropriate, that prevent corruption by such means as: (a) Implementing the policies referred to in article 5 of this Convention and, where appropriate, overseeing and coordinating the implementation of those policies; (b) Increasing and disseminating knowledge about the prevention of corruption. 2. Each State Party shall grant the body or bodies referred to in paragraph 1 of this article the necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal system, to enable the body or bodies to carry out its or their functions effectively and free from any undue influence. The necessary material resources and specialized staff, as well as the training that such staff may require to carry out their functions, should be provided. The UNCAC is a relatively recent instrument; there are consequently few resources developed to date to assist governments, development partners, and civil society activists in implementing the obligations it sets out with regard to preventive functions in particular. This methodology is also intended to provide support for implementing these requirements.

The problem of creating prevention of corruption bodies

The UNCAC does not provide many explicit requirements for the body or bodies responsible for preventing corruption, recognizing the diversity of national institutional frameworks. Many, if not most countries have in the course of their institutional development established implementing or oversight agencies to regulate or monitor public procurement, the merit-based recruitment of civil servants, or ethical conduct of officials. In other words, in most countries, agencies performing certain preventive functions are already in existence. The UNCAC recognizes this reality and emphasizes preventive functions that must be performed, rather than specifying a specific institutional set-up for performing those functions. At the same time, anti-corruption practice around the world has given rise to a number of ACAs and some trends in thinking about such bodies. The early successes of a select number of ACAs, most notably the multi-purpose agencies of Hong Kong, Singapore7, and Botswana have given impetus to efforts to replicate their success, and a tendency to promote the formula of specialized multi-purpose agencies. The results, however, have been largely disappointing. Furthermore, the rush of activity has given rise to some serious misunderstandings about what precisely the UNCAC prescribes. The existence of multi-purpose bodies, and requirements for specialized law enforcement capacities (UNCAC Article 36) have sometimes been interpreted to also apply to agencies working on prevention. This is not the case; the bodies required by Article 6 do not need to be multi-purpose, nor specialized, nor singular8.

Though Singapore agency is primarily a law-enforcement body, it is expanding on its prevention mandate too. 8 Article 36 of the UNCAC requires states to ensure the existence of a body or bodies or persons specialized in combating corruption through law enforcement; these specialized body, bodies, or persons may function together or separately from bodies responsible for prevention, as appropriate to each national context.

Today in the Eastern European and the CIS region, but also globally, exists quite a range of agencies with anti-corruption mandates, including those that relate to corruption prevention. Many of them are relatively new bodies, established to undertake functions that were not addressed previously, and where it did not seem appropriate or effective to integrate the new functions within existing institutions. Often, the motivation to establish a new agency was a wish to signal a new beginning and demonstrate a new commitment sometimes to external stakeholders and responding to outside pressure. Whatever the reason, building a new institution is not an easy task: it requires the introduction of new legislation and considerable human and financial investments that are sometimes difficult to make for political reasons; the new agency may have problems in developing the necessary cooperation with other bodies, which may create tensions and conflicts (over resources, powers, responsibilities); it may lack the necessary administrative support in terms of appropriate human resources, finances, Information and Communication Technology systems, premises, and thus be prevented from carrying out meaningful activity. In sum, the capacity challenges facing agencies with corruption-prevention responsibilities are multiple and diverse. In view of the importance of these agencies in the overall national anti-corruption frameworks, it is critical that these capacity deficiencies are addressed. Significant national and/or donor resources have been invested in their establishment in the great majority of cases, but the potential cost of their failure extends far beyond the financial investment that has been made. Unsuccessful or stagnant anti-corruption efforts can undermine public trust and create disappointment with the national political leadership. It can breed cynicism about the democratic process, which is a serious threat for all countries in transition. For these reasons, assistance is important.

The purpose of this Methodology is to assist practitioners in assessing and developing the capacities of anti-corruption agencies to perform key corruption prevention functions.

III. DESIGNING THE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

This section will guide the practitioners through the necessary steps for designing the ACAs capacity assessment

1. Preparation of the assessment

Good preparation is essential for a successful capacity assessment. At this stage, the initiative of undertaking a capacity assessment is normally considered following a request from the promoters of the assessment (e.g. government officials and/or development partners) and the primary clients (ACA management). Issues to be looked at include opportunity, feasibility and scope of the assessment. In order to inform the consultations with partners and further engagement, and to tailor the assessment to the functions that an agency is mandated to perform and the corresponding capacity requirements, preliminary research and analysis will be necessary. The matrix of capacity assessment guidelines for most common corruption prevention functions performed by ACAs (Technical tool 1 at the end of this document) may be used to ensure that all relevant issues are considered. Such preliminary research should begin by collecting and analyzing information about the legal basis and mandate of the agency under consideration, as well as background on the creation of the agency, including the administrative and political environment in which the agency was established. This preliminary set of considerations should allow the identification of the main policy, legal and institutional issues and function-related capacity challenges that may need to be addressed by the assessment.

2. Clarification of the objectives and expectations with primary clients

Anti-corruption is a very sensitive field of intervention; development agencies and donors should take into consideration that their activities might be exploited for political purposes or manipulated by powerful interests. Several issues will need to be discussed at this stage. First, the intentions of the promoters of the assessment will have to be established: it should be clear who wants the assessment and what are the long-term development objectives related to the exercise. The primary clients should commit upfront to provide (or facilitate access to) all the information necessary for the assessment and to address the needs that the assessment will identify.

The capacity assessment process should therefore start with an open dialogue with the promoters (government, development partners) and the primary clients of the capacity assessment (management of the ACA) in order to clarify: i) the scope of the capacity assessment (which functions, departments are to be covered) ii) the objectives of the exercise;

iii)

the expectations regarding the assessment process and its output.

At this stage, the methodology and general approach of the capacity assessment should be explained and agreed with the clients. It is for instance important to avoid confusion between the capacity assessment and other types of assessment, e.g. performance assessment of the ACA. It is important to distinguish upfront between a capacity assessment and a performance assessment of an ACA. While capacities and performance are logically related (higher capacities should lead to better performance), the approach to capacity assessment in terms of method, focus, types and sources of data, ownership of the exercise, role of stakeholders, likely follow-up is fundamentally different from a performance assessment. The initial dialogue with primary clients is particularly important when multiple, potentially conflicting objectives are under consideration or when the focus exceeds the realm of available expertise10. The dialogue is also used to identify who the owner of the assessment will be. This is typically the person or entity responsible for managing the assessment, facilitating dialogue around the findings and serving as a liaison between the assessment team and key stakeholders.

3. Identification of stakeholders to be involved throughout the process

A capacity assessment will typically involve a range of stakeholders that can champion, drive or inform the assessment process: clients, the promoters of the assessment, other public institutions, civil society representatives, private sector partners, political, economic and social leaders, employees, development partners, academics, the media, and various public interest groups. Potential roles for stakeholders include:

- Provide political and administrative oversight; - Assist in designing the assessment; - Conduct research and participate in the assessment; - Analyze and disseminate the results and set priorities for follow-up action.
The involvement of all stakeholders is a key element for successful implementation of activities that promote transparency and integrity in the public sector. All state institutions that cooperate with the anti-corruption agency should participate in the assessment. Civil society organizations are among the most relevant stakeholders, especially considering their role in a number of most common preventive anti-corruption functions that agencies typically perform. The private sector should be included especially if the agency performs functions relating to any sectors or issues that affect the private sector (e.g. public procurement, conflict of interest, licensing and inspections regulations, tax collection regime etc.). Partners from international organizations or donors may also be involved. The participation of all stakeholders in the capacity assessment exercise permits a broader basis for identifying the shortcomings in the communication and coordination mechanisms or the services delivered by the agency. As a general rule, the broader the
10

UNDP Capacity Assessment Practice Note, the document can be downloaded at: http://www.undp.org/capacity/library_policynotes.shtml

consultation, the more extensive the information received, and the greater likelihood that key problems will be identified. At this stage, the terms of stakeholder input should be agreed. The matrix below can be useful in organizing stakeholders management.

Involving partners and stakeholders also offers opportunities to develop their capacity for planning and programming12.

3. Determining the data collection and analysis approach

The aim of collecting data is, first, to identify and refine the understanding of the needed capacities of an agency in a given country context (e.g. mandate, performance requirements); and second, to gather information, vis--vis these requirements, on its current capacities. The type of data to be collected will correspond to the functions that an agency performs. While at one level, certain basic capacity needs will be common to most agencies regardless of the functions they perform, the full extent and range of capacities required will vary significantly. The matrix of capacity assessment guidelines related to functions (Technical tool 1 at the end of this document) can guide the development of the data collection plan. To ensure accuracy of the information gathered and in order to cross-reference the findings, several sources and methodologies should be used, such as: 1. Verbal interviews (focus groups, one-on-one) 2. Written interviews (e.g. self assessment questionnaires) 3. Direct observation (job shadowing) 4. Indirect observation (what one can observe in the agency, e.g. quality of premises, work atmosphere staff playing solitaire etc.) 5. Quantitative data (e.g. statistic information on the services provided by the agency) 6. Other sources (other evaluations, reports etc.) While data on the corruption situation in the country is relevant for any assessment, in the case of a capacity assessment it should be interpreted with care. In principle, if an
12

UNDP Capacity Assessment Practice Note, the document can be downloaded at: http://www.undp.org/capacity/library_policynotes.shtml

10

ACA is successful, one would expect to see lower levels of corruption; thus estimated corruption levels over time can provide some indication of the effectiveness of the agency - e.g. if prevention efforts are focused on a specific sector, then information on incidence of corruption associated with that sector may reveal, over time, the (in)effectiveness of prevention strategies employed by the agency. However, levels of corruption may be explained by factors other than the effectiveness of the agency. Further, one should avoid confusion between a capacity assessment and a performance assessment of the ACA: while capacities and performance are logically related (higher capacities should lead to better performance), the approach to capacity assessment in terms of method, focus, types and sources of data, ownership of the exercise, role of stakeholders, likely follow-up is fundamentally different from a performance assessment. In a capacity assessment, data on the ACAs performance or effectiveness is not an end in itself, but can complement other information and serve as a basis to identify underlying capacity issues. Certain capacities can be assessed from the legal or procedural frameworks that shape their development. For instance, the national law on civil servants - if such a law applies to the ACA - will considerably influence the way in which human resource capacities can be developed. Qualitative assessments of capacities shaped by legislation and institutional arrangements are best performed as expert analyses. Other types of capacities are best assessed through performance reviews, however. For instance, if the agency operates a telephone hotline where citizens can report corruption, customer feedback can provide valuable data on performance challenges, and in turn, capacity constraints. Both quantitative and qualitative indicators will be needed to assess institutional capacities. Ideally, some indicators should have already been identified and tracked in the organizations own monitoring and evaluation plan. Input-output statistical data (e.g. number of complaints responded to against total received, investigations completed, administrative orders, guidelines and advice issued, laws and regulations reviewed) constitute useful indicators of the capacities in place against the capacities required to undertake the volume of work mandated. They reveal little about the quality of the services provided or the results achieved, however. Qualitative data can be obtained through self-assessments, structured interviews with stakeholders or citizen feedback instruments. Relevant citizen experience or perceptions may already be tracked by other surveys. Self-assessments that reflect the internal experiences and views of employees should ideally be cross-referenced with expert analysis, oversight bodies reports, as well as outside perspectives of other agencies and the public. The data collection and assessment plan should begin as broadly as possible but will likely require scaling down in line with available resources. It is unlikely that sufficient funds would be available to develop and apply new survey instruments, for instance. Existing measurements and assessments should be reviewed at the outset for their data and analysis, as some may contain useful information about ACAs capacities (e.g. UNCAC gap analysis, Global Integrity reports, National Integrity Assessments by national chapters of Transparency International, reports of monitoring mechanisms like GRECO and OECD/ACN etc.). When assessing organizational business processes and management systems of the ACA, it may be advisable to include in the assessment team an organizational management/assessment specialist, or obtain specialized advice on the tools and approaches that might be applied. Many management tools are simple to understand and apply by non-specialists, but others require a certain level of expertise. The final selection of sources and uses of data should be agreed with the clients of the capacity assessment.

11

4. Defining how the assessment will be conducted

Depending on the scope and scale of the assessment, an appropriate and tailored work plan should be devised that takes into account the following considerations: Who should be a part of the assessment team? Who should participate in the assessment? Where will the assessment be conducted? How will the assessment be conducted? o steps/tasks of the assessment and their sequence o human and financial resources needed for each step/task o person(s) responsible for each step/task o timeline for each step/task How will the results be used? Ideally, the assessment team should include a combination of expertise, specifically familiarity with (a) the national/local context; (b) the specific content or sector under assessment (in the case of capacity assessment of prevention of corruption agencies, this should include expertise on Anti-corruption and Public Sector Reform); and (c) the capacity assessment methodology. The team might also be complemented with experts in organizational management, or in the cross-cutting issues of human rights and gender equality. The assessment team leader will be expected to manage the adaptation of the capacity assessment guidelines to the context at hand; the execution of the assessment, including quantitative and qualitative data collection; and, in consultation with stakeholders, the interpretation of assessment results that will lead to the formulation of capacity development response strategies. On the side of the agency a focal point acting as interface between the agency and the assessment team should be appointed. It is also advisable to involve a senior manager of the agency to ensure that information is flowing to the head and other managers at all times.

ACA Capacity Assessment Step-by-Step 1. Preparation: consult with promoters and clients of the assessment about opportunity, feasibility and scope review the legal basis of the agency analyze circumstances of the agencys creation identify the main issues related to the legal, policy and institutional framework review the mandate (scope of preventive functions performed) and outline the main capacity issues that need to be assessed 2. Clarification of objectives and expectations with primary clients: clarify intentions of the promoters of the assessment o who wants the assessment? o what are the related long-term development objectives? agree on methodology and general approach secure agreement to provide all the necessary data obtain commitment that the identified needs will be addressed review the expertise, time, funds available, and clarify the scale and scope of the assessment 3. Identification and engagement of stakeholders: identify all relevant stakeholders o state institutions

12

o o o agree

civil society private sector other on terms of stakeholder input

4. Determining data collection and analysis approach identify the types of data needed for evaluating the range of capacity issues identified in step 1 map available data sources against data needs review feasibility of generating needed data compile overview of qualitative and quantitative data that will be collected or generated, and review data analysis requirements 5. Defining how the assessment will be conducted determine the composition of the assessment team determine participants in the assessment decide on location (usually a combination of desk work and field mission) define in detail the following: o steps/tasks of the assessment and their sequence o human and financial resources needed for each step/tasks o person(s) responsible for each step/task o timeline for each step/task plan on how the results of the assessment will be used

13

IV. APPLYING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR THE CONDUCTION OF CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS
A capacity assessment is an analysis of existing capacities against the desired ones, which generates an understanding of the assets and needs that serves as a basis for formulating a capacity development response. A capacity assessment should integrate the key capacity development dimensions and adapt them to the specific needs of the institution or system under consideration. For an overview of the main concepts, such as levels where capacity exists (enabling environment, organizational, individual) and types of capacities (functional and technical), please refer to the Annex. Below is a discussion of how the key UNDP capacity development concepts relate to ACAs performing preventive functions, and how they should be applied when conducting capacity assessments.

1. Enabling environment
In the context of ACAs capacities to perform preventive functions, the enabling environment should be understood as the political context and the national policies and institutional framework within which the agency operates. The capacity assessment should consider the extent to which the agencys constitutional definition, level of independence, extent of oversight, and powers in relation to other state bodies is appropriate and sufficient for the functions that it is mandated to perform. The following issues should be given particular consideration: The agency has to be integrated within a wider national integrity system. As evident from the range of necessary preventive functions (as stipulated in UNCAC Chapter II), it is clear that a single agency cannot perform all the preventive functions that states are required to address. This means that other state bodies will be mandated to perform a number of functions that are closely related to the mandate of the anticorruption agency, and upon which the effectiveness of the agency may depend. There will likely be a need for extensive interaction with other state bodies, including law enforcement institutions. Studies on ACAs performing preventive functions in Eastern Europe and the CIS demonstrate that their effectiveness and capacity are often hindered because of inadequate positioning within the institutional system, duplication of mandates, and lack of authority, all of which can result in rivalries and poor coordination. The enabling environment must therefore be analyzed to verify whether the respective mandates of each of the institutions that are part of the national integrity system form a coherent framework and whether there are effective coordination mechanisms in place. The enabling environment must also be analyzed to verify whether the anti-corruption agency has the necessary authority to implement its mandate. This is particularly important in cases where the agency is responsible for implementing, overseeing or coordinating the implementation of preventive anti-corruption policies. Corruptionprevention reforms typically entail redesigning the structures and business processes of the public administration, and developing systems of control over the operation of state agencies. In some cases, ACAs preventive mandate also includes enforcement of certain corruption prevention regimes (e.g. concerning conflict of interest, acceptance of gifts, public procurement, asset declaration, etc.). These activities can be obstructed by different and/or corrupt economic and political interests. Without sufficient authority to impose particular measures, the impact of the anti-corruption agency remains at the level of recommendations. It is therefore essential that agencies with the mandate to implement certain measures possess the necessary authority to do so.

14

An assessment of the enabling environment must further look at the level of independence that is required for an agency to perform its functions. Article 6 of the UNCAC states that each State Party shall grant the body or bodies [that prevent corruption] the necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal system, to enable the body or bodies to carry out its or their functions effectively and free from any undue influence. But how to determine the necessary level of independence?14 In practice, the issue is a rather complex one, as independence is a highly contextual concept. Here, a distinction between various forms of independence is useful, and a systematization offered by the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) applies equally to agencies considered here. INTOSAI distinguishes between three types of independence, as follows: Organizational independence refers to the least possible degree of government participation in the appointment of the agencys authorities, implementation of its functions, and its decision-making; Functional independence refers to the agencys ability to can carry out its functions without the undue interference of any third party or the executive; Financial independence refers to the impossibility of the government to impede or restrict the agencys activities by reducing its budget. The level of each of these types of independence needs to be reviewed in line with the specific preventive functions that the ACA performs, as different functions will require different types and levels of independence. For instance, if an agency is mandated to implement preventive anti-corruption policies, its independence is unlikely to be organizational, simply because most implementing agencies form part of the executive and are therefore unlikely to be organizationally independent. However, that same agency should enjoy a level of functional independence so that another government body cannot unduly interfere with its initiatives. For instance, if an agency is responsible for implementing the national conflict of interest regime, it should be able to impose sanctions on all non-compliant officials. The agency would also require financial independence, so that it has predictable resources to perform this function. On the other hand, if the anti-corruption agency is mandated to perform an oversight function, the level of independence required will depend on the type of oversight exercised. In the case where it oversees a comprehensive national anti-corruption strategy, both functional and financial independence would be necessary, while organizational independence would be useful to avoid undue interference. Institutional arrangements protecting agency independence include:

Clear and transparent procedures for appointing and dismissing the agency Director. Involvement in the selection process of the highest authorities of the judiciary and the legislature, civil society, and other relevant stakeholders has proven to be a useful approach. The position of the agency within the national institutional framework should be appropriate for its functions, with unambiguous accountability lines and cooperation protocols, especially in cases of shared competences. Its mandate and competences should be defined by law. Some measure of financial independence should be in place.

14

The guidelines presented here draw in part on an excellent discussion of the issue in the U4 Issue Paper 2009:4 Institutional arrangements for corruption prevention, www.cmi.no/publications/file/?3343=institutional-arrangements-for-corruption. They are also based on UNDP experience working with ACAs.

15

Further, the arrangements for the ACAs budget should be closely reviewed as financial resources have the most direct impact on institutional capacity. Indeed, many ACAs have failed, or endured periods of decline, due to a lack of resources. The establishment and operation of a successful ACA implies substantial costs that have to be borne by the government, sometimes at the expense of other items on the national budget. Strong political commitment is required to allocate to an anti-corruption agency the human and financial resources that it requires. Best practices for establishing the budgets of ACAs:

The agency should have either the ability to propose a budget directly to the parliament or a guarantee of budgetary stability. Ideally, performance-based budgeting should be employed: the budget might be based on the extent of corruption and the effectiveness of the agency (the higher is the level of corruption and the more effective the agency, the higher the budget). The agency should have the possibility to utilize extra funding, which arises from its work, e.g. proceeds from the sale of confiscated assets.

Most of the issues relevant for a positive enabling environment will be regulated by the legislation through which the agency is established. In most cases, agencies should be created through a law adopted through a (normal) legislative procedure, rather than by decree or another type of act that can easily be changed or even abolished. The law establishing an ACA should:

specify the competences and powers of the agency in detail; define relations with other institutions, accountability and reporting lines; describe clear procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the Director, giving the primary responsibility for the appointment to the parliament rather than any executive body; define the agency as accountable to the parliament; provide for the agency to have its own budget line, and the authority to decide independently on the utilization of the funds.

One should however be cautious about uniform, one size fits all approaches. For example, the notion of independence of an ACA may vary in function of the overall setup of the power structure in a country. Whether one deals with a pluralistic democracy with genuine separation of powers or with a mono-centric power structure dominated by the Executive, with competitive politics vs. single party regimes, carries great significance for the meaning of independence of the agency. Proxy notions such as various degrees of autonomy may operate more meaningfully in specific cases. It must be also borne in mind that both authority and independence require a proportional level of accountability. Although not an explicit UNCAC requirement, anticorruption bodies may operate more effectively if they are required to report to an oversight body, such as Parliament or a Public Council15 (including representation of key state authorities, civil society, professional associations). An oversight body with sufficient authority to review and report on the ACA conduct may enhance the ACAs public credibility and shield it from adverse public opinion. Oversight bodies may also look at the financial and resource needs of the anti-corruption body and make
15

For example, Romanias National Integrity Agency is overseen by a National Integrity Council comprising representatives of political groups in Parliament, of the ministries of Justice and Public Finance, of associations of local authorities, of civil servants, of magistrates, and of civil society.

16

recommendations to the government. Furthermore, oversight bodies may organize public meetings or media conferences to share their views on the ACAs progress reporting. Accountability systems help track performance. An effective accountability mechanism should lead to credibility and stronger public support. Finally, the capacity assessment at this level should consider the informal powers and dynamics that may impact the operations of an ACA. While many essential issues will be identified through the analysis of the overall political context, the assessment should also look into the informal relationships of key agency personnel. Personal or political affiliations and sympathies, even the professional profile (e.g. economists vs. lawyers) or background (e.g. former judges or ministers of finance), can significantly impact on an agencys capacity to advance the national anti-corruption agenda.

2. The organizational level

This level comprises the internal policies, procedures, and frameworks, as well as the infrastructure allowing an anti-corruption agency to deliver on its mandate. A number of core issues - internal institutional arrangements, leadership capacities, knowledge required to perform the mandated functions, and internally-driven accountability systems must be considered here. The organizational level frames the policies, procedures and business processes that are essential for effective performance of the agencies. The following key organizational business processes and management tools must be considered: Strategy formulation, design of annual work plans organizational and individual), goals, targets; decision-making and planning processes; performance management, including a periodic review of progress toward targets; arrangements for organizational learning and institutional memory, including archiving practices; knowledge management and information management structures as well as ICT systems.

Based on the ACAs mandate (see above), it is helpful for institutional identity, for motivating staff and creating a sense of purpose, to develop a vision and a mission, codified through succinct statements. The vision and mission statements should be publicly available (e.g. on the website of the anti-corruption body), should be well known by the staff and should be internalized as part of the organizational culture. The initial version of the vision and mission statements are to be developed through a participatory process involving all staff (in order to ensure ownership), possibly with external facilitation. They should be revisited and refreshed periodically (annually or every 2-3 years) to ensure their continued relevance, to strengthen organizational identity after staff turnover. If properly done, this process ensures better consistency, alignment and staff adherence to the mandate of the ACA, while also facilitating strategic planning within the organization. The existence of clear linkages between Agencys vision and long term strategy and department level and individual level work plans is fundamental as explained in this scheme:

17

Agencys vision and mid-term, multiyear Strategy

Agency vision details how the organization sees itself operating and its principles. The multi-year strategy supports achievement of activities in the National Action plan, but also gives broader more long term guidance. Development of it should be based on the input from an array of stakeholders (civil society, government etc).

Department Level Annual Plans

Department Annual Plans are based on the objectives described in the Strategy and specify key targets, activities, and indicators

Individual Annual Work Plans

Annual work plans tie to the Department Annual Plans and note key outputs staff are to produce and activities they are involved in.

Of particular importance to ACAs are also the internal policies and processes that help safeguard objectivity, professionalism, impartiality, integrity, honesty of the institution the key qualities that will more than any other factors assure public trust and support for the agency (particularly agencies that perform enforcement functions). Human resources management is a fundamentally relevant process for developing capacity at the organizational level. It is important that an agency have its own, dedicated staff for performing most preventive anti-corruption functions. Consideration about the size and specialization of the staff will vary according to the functions to be carried out, however. Not all agencies recruit civil servants only: specialized functions may be best addressed by external experts and support staff engaged on a temporary basis. Secondment has also proven to be effective in many cases, provided that the same conditions and safeguards apply to seconded personnel as they do to regular staff. Secondments present the advantage of institutional flexibility, and facilitate the exchange of specialist knowledge and expertise, which can be a significant advantage given the complexities of the corruption phenomenon. It is crucial to ensure that this arrangement does not hamper the development and sustainability of internal institutional expertise, however, particularly in context of international secondments, a commonly applied form of European Union technical assistance (twinning projects). Notwithstanding the fact that these elements have a considerable impact on the performance of the agencies it has to be noted that they are almost entirely regulated by general public services legislations and rulebooks. The matter resides mostly at the enabling environment level, leaving little room for the agencies initiative. The role of the agencies is often reduced to developing their own fiscal/non-fiscal incentive systems or performance management systems. Additional factors are as importantif not more importantfor ACAs in particular. capacity assessment should review the following elements: A

Integrity: Integrity of staff is crucial to the credibility and effectiveness of an anticorruption agency. Staff members at all levels should undergo some form of integrity checks, to minimize the risk of staff undermining the agency's role in curbing corruption. A system to promote integrity should be in place, including a code of conduct for

18

employees. Some agencies have an internal oversight body to investigate breaches of its code of conduct, or a body that monitors and reviews all complaints made against agency staff. Regulation of appointments and dismissals: Appointments and dismissals of ACAs non-executive staff should be safeguarded from interference of third parties. The hiring process should be merit-based, and performance reviews part of the reward and promotion system. Recruiting, development, and retention processes: A number of elements should underpin these processes: interest of the management in general staff development; existence of well-thought out and targeted development plans for key positions; continuous training and other expertise-development provisions16; job rotation; coaching/ feedback and performance appraisal; proactive initiatives to identify new talents. Staffing Levels: Levels of vacancies of positions within and peripheral to the organization (e.g., staff, volunteers, board, senior management); problems in turnover or attendance. Performance Management and Incentives: A performance management system should be in place that sets measurable performance targets for staff and ensures regular assessment and feedback on performance. Linked to that, an incentive system should be in place consisting of the following; competitive salary (partly performancebased); attractive career development options, opportunities for leadership. The system should motivate staff to excel at their job. Staff competencies: Staff backgrounds and experiences; capability of the staff to undertake multiple roles, commitment both to mission/ strategy and continuous learning; staff willingness and ability to take on special projects and collaborate across division lines. Management team and staff dependence on Director: Reliance but not dependence on Director; ability to continue operation during transition to new leader; capacity of members of management team to take on the directors role. Organizational Leadership: Existence and effectiveness of activities promoting successful, win-win relationships with others, both within and outside the organization; delivering of positive and reinforcing messages to motivate people; ability to let others make decisions and take charge (delegation of tasks, empowerment / delegation of authority). Monitoring and evaluation of the organizations internal work is another key capacity. This process is crucial for improving the performance of the agency (through result based management techniques) and for promoting its role and leadership in the fight against corruption. ACAs typically have the obligation to produce performance reports for oversight bodies and the general public as an element of institutional accountability. Progress reports should include performance benchmarks that are derived from organizational objectives and are linked to indicators against which achievement can be assessed.

16

A note of caution is necessary here though; trainings may be an effective tool for developing individual capacities, nonetheless they cannot work as stand-alone activities and have to be designed and developed in the framework of long/medium term assistance. For more information on this topic see the World Bank report on training effectiveness: http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/training/download.html

19

The monitoring and evaluation system should track performance against three types of indicators: Output indicators (workload or unit produced): examples of quantitative data at the output level include the number of diagnostic studies performed, number of civil servants trained in anti-corruption measures, or the number of administrative investigations performed. Outcome indicators (effectiveness in meeting objectives): correlated with particular functions, examples include the quality and impact of developed policies, levels of compliance with regulations that the agency is responsible for enforcing, or levels of trust in the agency tracked in surveys. Outcomes should be also compared to studies and measurements conducted by other organizations. Efficiency and productivity indicators: cost-effectiveness, ratio of input to output, unit costs. Finally, an ACA perhaps more than any other state institution should be transparent about its work and its decisions, and should have the capacities to inform the public about its work.

3. The individual level

In considering the capacities of ACAs, the individual level (which refers to the skills, experience and knowledge that are vested in people) will be extremely important due to the high level of expertise that many of the common preventive anti-corruption functions require. The core issue of knowledge is inextricably linked to this level of capacity, as are the important distinctions between functional and technical capacities. As we will see in the following section, even functions that require high levels of technical expertise depend on functional capacities to operationalize them within wider public policy processes. Capacity development efforts at the individual level must assess the agencies capacities necessary and appropriate for fulfilling the particular preventive anti-corruption functions in their mandate. A set of key functional capacities can be identified. Summary of key functional capacities: Engage with Stakeholders Assess a Situation and Define a Vision and Mandate Formulate Policies and Strategies Budget, Manage and Implement Monitor and Evaluate.

A different category of capacities at the individual level refers to the technical skills needed to carry out the activities of the agency. This category is more specific and generally speaking is relevant for specialized (expert) staff more than the managerial one17.

17

For a detailed overview of the technical capacities see next section and Technical Tool 1 Guidelines to assess capacities to perform specific functions

20

Examples of key technical capacities:

design and carry out communication and public relations activities conduct research and analysis of the corruption phenomenon and of the impact of the AC measures in place; draft legislation and regulatory instruments (such as instructions or decrees); provide consulting services to other executive agencies; design and deliver training to public agencies.

Concerning the design of recommendations for training of ACA staff, the assessment team may use the diagram below as a guide. All training should be provided based on the needs of the organization, with proper incentives in place to encourage application of the knowledge and skills, and in the mid-term a performance based measurement system.

INPUT
Training Skills

OUTPUT
Learning Knowledge

OUTCOME
Workplace Behavior Change (Attitudes)

IMPACT
Enhanced Institutional Capacity and Performance

i). Learning programme

based on a correct assessment of individual capacities, and relevant to trainees; ii). Appropriate pedagogical methods used including curriculum design, trainers, methods etc.

i).Training based on
assessment of organization needs. ii). Individual training correctly identified as necessary for org. improvement iii). Resources & incentives to encourage application

i). Macro level policies

in place to foster process and procedure changes ii). Sufficient legal framework allowing civil servant career growth; iii). Performance based manag.

Individual Level

Organizational Level

Enabling Environment

21

V. MOST COMMON PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION FUNCTIONS

Considering the great number of ACAs in the Eastern European and the CIS Region, their various functions and mandates, and given the specific national context of each country as well as the varying cultural, legal and administrative circumstances, it is virtually impossible to identify best models or functional and structural patterns for developing effective prevention of corruption agencies. For this reason, we decided to develop a methodology that would not refer to specific types or models of institutional arrangements but to agencies performing some specific functions, which fall within the area of prevention of corruption. For the identification of the functions to be analyzed, the main reference is the framework for prevention of corruption contained in Chapter II of the UNCAC. According to the Convention, the body or bodies for prevention of corruption18 shall be given the task of implementing and, where appropriate, overseeing and monitoring the implementation of effective, coordinated anticorruption policies. Chapter II of the Convention frames the prevention of corruption policies in the areas of public sector transparency and accountability, introduction of codes of conduct, public procurement and management of public finances, public reporting and civil society participation in the fight against corruption. The identification of the functions to be treated by the methodology was further refined by an analysis of the activities actually carried out by prevention of corruption bodies in the region. This analysis has been also enriched by surveys and interviews of prevention of corruption practitioners working in the region, conducted by the UNDP BRC during the last three years in the framework of its regional Anti-Corruption Practitioners Network19. Summary of most common preventive anti-corruption functions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Anti-Corruption Policy formulation Development of implementation plans Coordinating the implementation of preventive policies Monitoring the Implementation of Anti-Corruption Policies Evaluating the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies Conducting Diagnostic and research Legislative Drafting Promoting international cooperation and mainstreaming the international standards 9. Disseminating knowledge 10. Enhancing civil society participation in the fight against corruption 11. Development and implementation of corruption risk and integrity assessments 12. Enforcement of preventive anti-corruption measures

18 19

See above part II: Defining the Target: Agencies Performing Prevention of Corruption Functions For more information: http://europeandcis.undp.org/anticorruption

22

1. Anti-corruption policy formulation

At national level, AC policy formulation requires development in a participatory manner of effective national anti-corruption policies, giving a specific policy response to a specific situation. AC policy formulation requires continuous consultation and cooperation with different social actors public institutions, civil society and business. Often it may require adoption, harmonization and application into practice of international instruments, standards and practices in the fight against corruption.

One of the core preventive functions of an anti-corruption agency is to advise on and/or formulate anti-corruption policies. Expertise on anti-corruption approaches is quite specific however, and generally lacking in many countries. To the extent that a national capacity in this area exists, it is often scattered among different agencies (centre of Government, ministries/agencies of civil service, procurement agencies etc.). There is no dedicated academic discipline of anti-corruption, while the totality of knowledge required spans many different disciplines (economics, finance, law, political science, statistics, etc.). Anti-corruption expertise typically develops as a cross-section area within larger disciplines, or through practice, e.g. through public administration reform efforts that seek to address the problem. This mandate typically also includes the responsibility to develop, or to provide expert advice in developing comprehensive national anti-corruption strategies. Comprehensive strategies are a special challenge, as their purpose is to bring together in a single policy document the wide range of corruption prevention measures required across the public sector, as well as measures to strengthen law enforcement. They must furthermore take into consideration the links between many inter-related processes and set priorities, so that the totality of the challenge can be approached strategically and in a coordinated fashion, and resources be managed most efficiently. To accomplish all this, there must be expertise on the broad range of institutional regimes and public policy processes, including public financial management functions, public procurement, civil service management, service delivery systems (healthcare, pensions system), stateowned enterprises and privatization processes, among many others. Developing such a document furthermore requires extensive consultation and coordination with the various institutions involved in order to obtain their support and ownership of the proposed reforms. Anti-corruption policies are sometimes developed or revised to meet international obligations and/or in response to external pressure. The aim is to align the national legal or regulatory framework with international best practices, which implies a close knowledge of international instruments and standards that apply both nationally and for specific sectors. Similarly, knowledge of remedies is requiredthe regulatory and procedural approaches and good practices that have been demonstrated as effective in other countries and could be reasonably expected to produce results domestically. Potential remedies must be reviewed for applicability to the national context. Many anticorruption interventions result in disappointments precisely because they are imported without sufficient analysis of their appropriateness within the circumstances at hand. Anti-corruption policies are essentially responses to a specific societal and organizational problem. In order to develop an appropriate response, however, an assessment of the problem is needed first. Anti-corruption policy formulation necessarily entails diagnostic research in its numerous forms and requires related specialized expertise. We therefore treat diagnostic research as a separate function, below.

23

To summarize, in order for the Policy Formulation Function to be adequately performed, at least the following elements should exist:

Coordination framework, enabling exchange of information among stakeholders, including stakeholders from government, civil society and academia Capacity to gather information from the stakeholders and to formulate policy options (organizational and individual) Capacity among staff to actually review and to formulate policy documents (as evidenced by existing, high-quality policy documents) Existing (though maybe limited) sectoral specialization of staff to allow for better informed input on anti-corruption policies in specific sectors.

Often to complement the internal capacity some of the expertise would have to be outsourced, which represents a key opportunity to engage other public service agencies, civil society organizations and international partners. Civil society should be engaged even more broadly, however, including in the process of defining strategic priorities in sectoral and national anti-corruption policies. Capacities to establish effective cooperation mechanisms with civil society organizations and other expertise providers are required, as well the capacity to manage and evaluate the quality of this external expertise. Regardless of the level of outsourcing, the agency will need to have strong analytical capacities to evaluate and integrate the various sources of information and advice into coherent national policies.

2. Development of implementation plans

Anti-corruption Implementation Plans (action plans) are a secondary document to the Anti-corruption strategies, containing specific measures directed at reducing corruption in sectors and/or institutions. To be considered adequate, they should contain a meaningful set of proposed specific actions with specific deadlines, responsibilities and indicators / benchmarks for implementation of the related AC policies. There should be a clear link between the Strategy and the Action plan (i.e. the action plan measure should clearly contribute towards the completion of a strategy goal).

A final step of anti-corruption policy formulation, particularly in the case of comprehensive national anti-corruption strategies, is the elaboration of implementation plans that set specific deadlines, responsibilities, and benchmarks for evaluation, and provide cost estimates for the implementation of individual measures. We treat this function separately from the development of anti-corruption programmes because it requires a different set of capacities compared to other elements of the policy development process. Developing implementation plans requires project management skills, particularly monitoring and evaluation skills to formulate meaningful implementation indicators and costing skills to ensure that sufficient resources are planned for implementation. Ideally, the development of implementation plans automatically implies elaborating the actual monitoring and evaluation procedures themselves. To carry out this function, the agencies need extensive individual capacities as well as systems and processes for communication and coordination with all the institutions concerned, including civil society organizations that may have a role in implementing certain anti-corruption policy measures or in monitoring the efforts.

24

The following organizational capacities are of crucial importance for this function: capacity to engage stakeholders for action, to receive proposals and feedback; capacity to analyze the received proposals in the context of pro-integrity reforms to avoid inclusion in the implementation plan of measures that are not likely to achieve desired impact; specific project management skills (formulation of SMART objectives, understanding of project management concepts); monitoring and evaluation skills (definition of indicators, targets, design of contingency plans).

3. Coordinating the implementation of preventive policies

Providing guidance and supporting other institutions in their AC policies formulation and implementation requires excellent cooperation and communication with them. In addition, good acquaintance with the specifics of their work and functions performed is also important.

ACAs are typically mandated to coordinate the implementation of anti-corruption policies. This coordination takes place at many levels: at the stage of elaborating anticorruption policies and implementation plans with concerned institutions, at the stage of actual implementation, at the stage of monitoring progress on implementation, and when evaluating outcomes. Additional coordination may be required to ensure effective communication exchange among institutions that are responsible for related processes: for instance, between the body responsible for defining public procurement policy and the body receiving complaints from bidders on breaches of rules, or between the body receiving complaints and the body responsible for sanctions (law enforcement). Additional formal mechanisms may need to be established, for instance inter-agency cooperation protocols. The extent to which the ACA has the capacity to advise or otherwise serve as an intermediary for effective coordination, or even impose effective coordination, depends on its overall mandate, as well as institutional positioning and level of authority prescribed in its founding legislation. The effective implementation of any public policy often requires substantial changes in an institutions day-to-day operations, including new organizational arrangements, procedures, instruments, and new knowledge/technical capacities, all of which may require significant financial resources. Furthermore, institutions implementing new policies require support in change management20, as few will have the tools and techniques needed to initiate and sustain organizational transformation. An ACA may be requested to participate in drafting policy implementation guidelines for the various agencies implementing the anti-corruption action plan. Elaborating such guidelines should take place in close consultation with the implementing institutions and other stakeholders, in the same way that policy development took place. However, an ACA is unlikely to have the full range of specialized organizational management skills needed to operationalize policies and managing change.

20 Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. The current definition of Change Management includes both organizational change management processes and individual change management models, which together are used to manage the people side of change (source: Wikipedia).

25

To perform this function, an ACA should understand the complexity of the challenge and be able to advise institutions implementing the new policies on the kinds of support they need (organizational management) and where they may obtain it. It is probably unrealistic for ACAs to attempt to develop extensive organizational management capacities internally in view of the likely scope of their mandate. A far more valuable service that they can render is to monitor the implementation (function 4, below) and evaluate the impact (function 5) of the policies in question, and provide the institutions with feedback on the results of their efforts. ACAs must have excellent communication and coordination capacities, above all else, to effectively interact with the institutions in performing this function. This function requires capacity to engage stakeholders within an organization; capacity to collect data, including selection of the right data collection tools, design and development of data collection tools, actual data collection on organizational processes; capacity to perform data analysis, including trained staff to perform the analysis; capacity to assess administrative/business processes from the points of view of effectiveness and potential to generate corruption; capacity to develop new or to propose changes in existing administrative process and to provide further support for amending standard operating procedures/manuals/guidelines.

4. Monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption policies

Efficient performance of this function requires well developed information management supporting infrastructure to communicate and coordinate with relevant institutions and bodies. Monitoring uses reporting and measuring tools and instruments. ACAs are frequently mandated to monitor the implementation of the tasks assigned to the various agencies by the anti-corruption action plan. To perform this function effectively, ACAs would need an information management supporting infrastructure to effectively communicate and coordinate with all concerned national institutions in collecting periodic status reports, as well as an effective positioning within a countrys institutional set-up and leverage with counterpart institutions. Also, they need sufficient analytical capacities to formulate guidelines on reporting and perform quality control of the reports received from other institutions, review progress against set benchmarks and issue consolidated progress reports. Closer monitoring of the implementation of specific policies is a resource intensive prospect, requiring systematic collection of information over time, and systems for managing and analyzing data. Cooperation with civil society organizations is often invaluable for carrying out this level of monitoring, particularly as many of them may already engage in such activities, e.g. monitoring the procurement of public contracts, delivery of services, or compliance with political party and campaign finance rules, among others. Monitoring public service reforms can be done at points of interface between service suppliers and users, for instance, through the use of citizen report cards on municipal services. Such partnerships can enhance the legitimacy of results21 in addition to relieving some of the institutional burden of data collection, and contribute to awareness raising and mobilizing public support for ACAs. This function requires:

21 Preventing, for instance, situations when civil society organizations question the credibility of ACAs official progress reports on the implementation of anti-corruption programmes, or even issue shadow reports that contradict the official ones, further undermining the credibility of the ACA-run monitoring process.

26

capacity to develop and implement an effective monitoring methodology, including guidelines on reporting and quality control; capacity to collect data, including selection of the right data collection tools, design and development of data collection tools, actual data collection (the latter may also be outsourced); capacity to analyze data; capacity to draft meaningful reports.

5. Evaluating the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies

As opposed to monitoring, which looks at progress in implementation of activities contained in the action plan, evaluation concerns itself with the outcomes (the impact) of anti-corruption policies. The evaluation of the anti-corruption policies is a complex exercise; it should contain a broad and deep analysis of how the anti-corruption system has improved thanks to the policies implemented, as well as an assessment of the levels of corruption in given sectors/public services (since reducing corruption is the ultimate goal of the policies). In reality, for various reasons of political and technical nature this type of analysis is rarely implemented seriously. To overcome the difficulties related to the conduction of a good evaluation exercise, the ACAs should put in place a system that allows combining a series of sources of various type (statistical analysis concerning the operations of certain agencies like the prosecutor office, information on new measures introduced, perception and experience surveys) trying to understand in which way the anti-corruption policies may or may not have achieved certain results. To conduct this exercise, in addition to general knowledge of institutions and processes concerned, there is a need for competence in applying (or reading / understanding) specific evaluation methodologies and corruption surveys. There should be an explicit link between the work of diagnostic and research carried out by the ACA (function described below) and the evaluation of the anti-corruption policies. Findings of the research activity should be used to set the baseline for future measurements, and the same diagnostic exercises and surveys should be repeated under similar conditions in order to obtain comparable results after the implementation of the policies. If it is to be meaningful, the evaluation needs to be widely regarded as impartial and objective. If the function is carried out by an ACA, it would be imperative that the agency is recognized for its independence and impartiality, or that, at a minimum, independent and impartial stakeholders have a role in validating the findings. This function primarily requires extensive coordination. Capacities are also required to analyze and evaluate information and data from a wide range of sources.

27

6. Conducting diagnostics and research

Diagnostics and research is directed to support most of the other functions of the ACA. It helps identifying and understanding the spread of concentration of corruption within a structure or at the national level, pointing out the gaps and areas for improvement and helping identifying entry points for the activities of the ACAs.

Effective anti-corruption policies cannot be designed without a thorough assessment of the problem: corruption is a symptom ineffectiveness of institutions, system gaps or failures. Proper diagnostic research is needed to identify and understand the spread or concentration of corruption within a system (a single organization or a system of organizations), the specific forms that it takes, and the vulnerability of systems and processes to corruption. Diagnostic methodologies at the level of the public administration as a whole encompass legislative analysis; analysis of specific systems and how they operate in practice (e.g. public procurement); survey methodologies; analysis of statistical data to provide quantitative indicators on corruption; corruption risk assessments in institutional business processes or legislation to name only the most common approaches. The various methodologies require a range of social science research methods, such as interviews, surveys, observation and field tests, as well as analytical skills to link the findings with systems and policies. For instance, surveys require competencies related to sampling and processing of statistical data. Considering the likely scope of the research agenda and the range of required skills needed to undertake it, it is likely that some portion of the work will be outsourced. The opportunity to cooperate with civil society and academia in performing this function is particularly attractive, as domestic or international academic institutes, think tanks, and civil society organizations may already be involved in generating relevant data and analysis. In addition, ACAs may wish to dedicate their internal diagnostic research capacities to processing restricted information sources that are not open to external actors. With outsourcing, ACAs nevertheless need to have a minimum level of capacity for research design and analysis in order to manage and evaluate the quality of the research performed by other entities, and to integrate the findings into the policy formulation process. It should also be remembered that new methodologies are continually being developed, and part of the challenge lies in continued learning about the innovations. Staying abreast of resources and developments in the field of governance assessments (e.g. corruption, public administration, local governance assessments), including by sharing experiences with national and international assessment practitioners, is essential for enhancing and maintaining capacities. This functions requires: capacity to develop and adopt the proper research methodology; capacity to collect data, including selection of the right data collection tools, design and development of data collection tools, actual data collection capacity to outsource data collection and research tasks (development of terms of reference, contracting, quality control); capacity to perform data analysis, including trained staff; capacity to draft meaningful reports.

28

The main indicator for the presence of the above capacities however is not the formal presence of staff, but rather availability of outputs good quality research papers.

7. Legislative drafting
Legislative drafting is necessary for the translation of policy decisions into legal form. The realization of this function requires understanding of the international legal instruments in the field, as well as constant cooperation and communication with the relevant stakeholders and capacity to undertake regulatory impact assessment.

New or amended laws are often required for implementing anti-corruption policies; they provide the legal framework that underpins the desired policy changes. ACAs are often mandated to perform (or participate in) legislative drafting in areas linked to anticorruption policies; in some cases, they are also tasked with anti-corruption screening of other legislation (e.g. for early detection of loopholes in draft legal acts that may create room for corruption), possibly as part of ex-ante regulatory impact assessment. Too often, legislative drafting takes place prematurely, with policy being shaped by the drafting process rather than the reverse. Furthermore, a key feature of actual legislative drafting is to ensure that there are no conflicts created with other legislation in existence. For this reason, the technical aspects of legislative drafting would be best left to the dedicated staff of ministries of justice who should have the overview and the explicit responsibility to ensure overall national legislative harmonization. Ideally, the role of the ACA in this process would rather be to clearly formulate the desired policy goals and verify that the proposed legal language satisfies those policy objectives including compliance with relevant international obligations. If the function is the full responsibility of the ACA, however, at a minimum, extensive coordination with the relevant unit of the ministry of justice will be needed besides the internal capacity for producing good quality legal drafting/advice. This function requires: capacity to link the policy making with legislation drafting; capacity to analyze and draft legal texts; capacity to perform regulatory impact assessments; in-depth knowledge of the international anti-corruption comparative law in the area.

instruments

and

8. Promoting international cooperation and mainstreaming the international standards

Harmonization of the national anti-corruption instruments with the international standards and good practices is of major importance in fighting corruption. Capacities for cooperation with the relevant national and international counterparts will help in effectively delivering this function. Developing national anti-corruption policies, including legislation, that are harmonized with international standards and good practices implies a dimension of international

29

cooperation. ACAs are typically the national counterparts in initiatives to promote or verify compliance with such standards, for instance with UNCAC or relevant regional instruments. They are also typically the focal point for promoting and managing international cooperation on anti-corruption, and representing the country in international anti-corruption fora (in Eastern Europe and the CIS, these would primarily relate to Council of Europe GRECO, the OECD Anti-Corruption Network, and the Regional Anti-Corruption Initiative for South-Eastern Europe). A particular attention has to be given to the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). The Convention is the most comprehensive international treaty on anticorruption and it has been ratified or acceded to by all countries in the Eastern European and the CIS region and by over 145 states globally. The UNCAC provides for international cooperation through several articles, e.g. art.5.4 (on corruption prevention), art.60, and the full Chapter IV (the latter mostly concerned with international cooperation on law enforcement). Art.6.3 of the Convention requires the States Parties to designate or create an authority or authorities responsible for implementing and coordinating the implementation of prevention of corruption policies and activities, and for international cooperation in this area; in many countries this role has been assigned to ACAs. In November 2009, the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention adopted a Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the UNCAC. According to the Mechanism States Parties under review are requested to fill in a comprehensive UNCAC SelfAssessment Checklist and to send their Self-Assessment Reports to the Secretariat of the Convention (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime - UNODC). UNDP has developed a Guidance Note for the UNCAC Self Assessment22 and supports countries undergoing this process. The Note highlights the importance of engaging relevant stakeholders in a participatory process that allows exploiting the potential of the exercise as an advocacy and awareness raising tool for the introduction of anticorruption measures; in view of the fact that anti-corruption responses should be coordinated and comprehensive, it also encourages countries to cover all the chapters of the UNCAC through the self-assessment. ACAs are typically playing a key coordination role in the UNCAC self-assessment.

In general, ACAs may serve a clearing house function for discussions with international organizations and bilateral donors on specific technical assistance initiatives in support of anti-corruption policies. They do not, however, typically have the lead role in establishing law-enforcement related cooperation protocols such as mutual assistance in criminal matters and extradition treaties, or representing the country in sector-specific international regimes, such as the association of Supreme Audit Institutions-INTOSAI. Nevertheless, ACAs should have an overview of the various international anti-corruption related networks in which the country and individual institutions participate. Specific capacities are required for facilitating international cooperation. These include, in addition to in-depth knowledge of international frameworks, capacities for communication and coordination with all relevant national counterparts, and capacity for international communication starting with foreign language skills (particularly English).

22

The Guidance Note, entitled Going Beyond the Minimum and jointly endorsed by UNDP and UNODC, provides a detailed roadmap for the UNCAC self-assessment; it is available at http://www.undp.org/governance/focus_anti-corruption.shtml

30

9. Disseminating knowledge
Disseminating knowledge on corruption prevention, through public events, campaigns and provision of training or workshops aims at raising awareness of the patterns and consequences of corruption among the public and all the interested stakeholders.

Article 6 of the UNCAC explicitly identifies increasing and disseminating knowledge on the prevention of corruption as a key corruption prevention function. ACAs are nearly always mandated with this responsibility. Increasing and disseminating knowledge may be understood as two separate functions:

Increasing knowledge may be interpreted as generating and/or producing knowledge, which is arguably implicit in other functions: development of anti-corruption policies, diagnostic and research, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies. Disseminating knowledge, on the other hand, refers to efforts to extend this technical and specialized knowledge to different groups in society (thereby also increasing knowledge, in a sense). As there are very few stakeholders who are able to engage at the expert/technical level, the awareness materials produced need to be made more accessible to wider audiences that include state institutions and decision-makers, but also general public who would take an interest in such information. It is therefore essential that technical reports and analyses be accompanied by short, easy-tounderstand briefing summaries for decision-makers and the media.
Disseminating knowledge also concerns the production of easy-to-understand informative materials, including implementation guidelines, on the norms and guidelines that concern the staff of certain institutions or civil servants more generally (e.g. public procurement procedures or codes of conduct). Information that concerns the citizens role in fighting corruption needs to be disseminated most broadly (e.g. causes and consequences of corruption, citizens rights and obligations in specific administrative processes, public administration duties and procedures, mechanisms for reporting corruption etc.). Dissemination takes different forms as appropriate for the target audiences, each requiring different capacities. For instance, disseminating technical reports and analyses can be accomplished though simple distribution of electronic and printed copies to target audiences. Dissemination of analytical findings and policy recommendations, or other report summaries intended for less technical audiences, on the other hand, would require dedicated presentations to executive decision-makers or the parliament, and press briefings for the media, along with posting of the materials on the internet. Other methods are more appropriate for the dissemination of knowledge about more complex sets of rules or policies, for instance codes of conduct. These may include approaches such as trainings, seminars, and workshops for civil servants and public officials. Finally, while the media are an effective intermediary for disseminating knowledge to the general public, educational and awareness raising campaigns may also be useful at times. The different objectives of knowledge dissemination noted above, and the approaches appropriate to reach those objectives require a number of capacities, the most important of which is the capacity to translate sometimes difficult technical concepts into more accessible form. Different instruments for knowledge dissemination also require different types of capacities ranging from effective communication abilities, to formal training

31

skills, to public relations/mass communication competencies. Considering the extent of capacities needed to perform this function, at least partial outsourcing may be considered. In practice, this is also a function where much cooperation with civil society organizations takes place. To the extent that the dissemination of information is carried out through workshops and seminars, the only required capacity (apart of the technical ability to organize events) is the individual staff members capacity to deliver presentations in a meaningful way. With regard to organizing awareness raising campaigns though, the required capacity is highly specialized and often is managed by external entities (outsourced). The key aspect here for the ACA is to participate in the process of defining campaign message, target groups, communication means and models and campaign tools in a meaningful and effective way, avoiding approaches that may increase perception of corruption in the society without necessarily contributing to strengthening anti-corruption responses.

10. Enhancing civil society participation in the fight against corruption

Specialized ACAs are often mandated to facilitate the participation of the civil society both in the policy making process, as well as in the activities for monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption programmes.

This function should be understood as including three separate components. The first component concerns developing systems and policies that promote transparency and accountability of the public sector, and citizen participation in decisionmaking processes. These objectives typically constitute part of preventive anticorruption policies and it is therefore more appropriate to consider them as part of the policy development function. The second component consists of including civil society in the performance of preventive functions such as anti-corruption policy formulation, diagnostic research, monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption policies, and dissemination of knowledge on corruption prevention, as already discussed in the relevant sections, above. The third component relates to receiving reports and complaints about corruption from the citizens. This requires the elaboration of reliable and trust-inspiring mechanisms for citizens to actively resist and report corruption. ACAs are often entrusted with this function in situations where traditional law enforcement institutions (e.g. police) do not enjoy the trust of citizens or have in place procedures that appear difficult or intimidating. The capacities needed for this function are fairly specific and concern the effective receipt and management of potentially high volumes of contacts; customer servicerelated competencies; data and case management capabilities (including maintaining the confidentiality of personal information and protection of sources); analytical capacities to produce statistical and systems-related reports about the information received (which also constitute a form of diagnostic research and monitoring); and, communication and coordination capacities to provide feedback to relevant state institutions whom the citizen reports concern, on one hand, and to refer specific cases to law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution, on the other . In addition to that, effective whistleblower protection mechanisms are needed to ensure that there will be no retaliation to bona fide disclosers.

32

11. Development and implementation of corruption risk and integrity assessments

Specific fraud and corruption risk assessment policy is at the core of corruption prevention work in public institutions. The assessment exercise should focus on the risks that are likely to occur and/or have potential of seriously affecting the functioning of the organization and/or public trust. Every risk assessment exercise should end with development of a plan to address the risks identified. Corruption risk assessments are often underestimated corruption prevention tools, increasingly being used by ACAs in the area of corruption prevention. Corruption risk assessments are diagnostic exercises, not be confused with corruption measurements; they involve a detailed review of the regulatory framework and business processes and the indication of corruption risks at the organizational as well as personnel level. The requirement to perform corruption risk assessments in the different institutions is sometimes included in the legislation and very often in the anti-corruption strategies and action plans; however there are few success stories in consistently implementing these tasks. The main challenges for ACAs in putting in place an effective system of corruption risks management include:

the extraordinary high degree of trust required that is trust by the audited institution in the ACA, which acts as a coordinator of this process, and sometimes even performs the risk assessments itself; the capacity to involve other agencies in the exercise through building trust and mutual cooperation is therefore crucial; insufficient capacity to actually perform risk assessments at organizational and individual level; the lack of knowledgeable and committed staff who are ready to cooperate and participate in the process is a major hindrance to establishing an effective corruption risk management system; lack of political will required to actually draft a meaningful risk response plan that would address the identified risks and deficiencies and to carry it out in full.

The assessment of the organizational (institutional) risks looks at the organization as a system of norms and business processes. It focuses on conducting in-depth reviews of the way the organization operates, with a full cataloguing of the processes and analyzing them to determine whether excessive levels of discretion or monopoly exist, or whether the general control functions are effective or not. The assessments result in a series of red flags indicating corruption risks and in the subsequent development of regulatory and management responses. Examples of corruption red flags may include24: Outdated/inadequate policy and instructions The public servants lack knowledge of what is expected from them There are no clear, legitimately set goals and objectives The processes are not timely and effective
24

Some of these red flags are developed and used by the Hong Kong ICAC (as per Tony Kwok Man-Wai)

33


Non enforced Inappropriate

The processes are not regularly reviewed / non enforceable laws Generate selective/inconsistent enforcement Law do not give effect to policy aims There is no regular Review of law implementation discretion and delay Systems and procedure are unclear and bureaucratic Often bias or discrimination are displayed No clear, well known timelines Low client satisfaction Lack of open communication channels

Public servants work without supervision Managers rely exclusively on reports and statistics There are no surprise checks There are no clear and realistic targets There is lack of supervisory accountability There is no proper internal audit procedure Lack of transparency Policy, procedures, performance pledge and complaint channels are not public There is no external monitoring by the public Poor Information Security Leakage of confidential/sensitive information Personal data privacy not respected Lacking of computer security controls Breakdowns in communication Staff communication ineffective The system review procedure usually involves the following steps: development of terms of reference of the assessment team establishment of ownership by involving the audited organization in the process data collection through focus groups, surveys, interviews; document and process review, including: o audits, revisions, process reviews and other external control reviews o gathering information on life-styles and personal habits of employees (as applicable within the legal / constitutional limits) o analysis of whistleblowers complaints and reports o reviewing the way which the regular operating procedures are carried out and the logged exceptions from procedures o reviewing the legal and regulatory framework description of the processes graphically; recording them on paper. The output of the risk assessment should be a series of recommendation on how to close the gaps identified, including definition of: Risk - is a possible event in the future, that if realized will bring about negative consequences and will stop the organization from achieving a goal. Trigger (or a red flag) - is an event, closely linked to the risk; it happens before the risk has occurred. The difference in time between the occurrence of the trigger and the risk allows to take countermeasures in order to avoid the risk. Follow up activities may include:

34

development of a contingency plan a plan that, if carried out, would minimize the negative consequences from the occurrence of the risk introduction of missing accountability and control mechanisms abolishment of redundant procedures and introduction of the missing ones drafting Code of conduct and designing and putting in place of enforcement mechanisms staff training establishment of a regular review system.

This function requires capacities to design and implement a risk assessment as outlined above; more specifically, this entails: understanding the concepts of corruption indicators/red flags; capacity to identify risks and propose appropriate management responses; knowledge of integrity audit principles and practices; understanding of the concepts related to management, organizational psychology, and organizational dynamics. If the ACA is mandated to coordinate and guide the implementation of a risk assessment (instead of implementing it directly) it should have also the capacity of training others to perform the assessment and the organizational structures and processes to gather information from the agencies in which the assessment is being conducted, process inputs received from various sources and communicating with the agencies including through information and communication technology (ICT) means.

12. Enforcement of preventive anti-corruption measures

ACAs are frequently mandated to implement and/or enforce elements of certain corruption preventive regimes. In particular there is a tendency of having ACAs dealing (among other issues) with the implementation mechanisms related to: a) Conflict of Interest (CoI) regulation and management (and sometimes enforcement) b) Rules on gifts received by public officials c) Asset and income disclosure regimes. In carrying out these functions, ACAs may be tasked to conduct administrative investigations (administrative fact-finding) and to possibly propose disciplinary actions against civil servants or high level officials for breaches of these regimes. Capacities required for the performance of these functions depend on the different regulatory frameworks and the different roles played by the ACAs. The possible approaches to enforcement imply various levels of engagement that have different capacity implications for ACAs. We will focus here on the more frequent scenarios and the related capacities. Conflict of interest regulation is a key corruption prevention function, often centralized in the Eastern European and the CIS countries within the ACA particularly with regard to high-level officials. This function may be combined with Assets Disclosure mechanisms and gifts management rules. Capacity to work in this area requires clear understanding of what CoI is, and what it is not; as well as understanding of and capacity to implement different CoI management approaches required by the particular legislation.

35

12.1 Conflict of interest regulation and management

All people have interests and these interests very largely define them as individuals. In social life people interact in different capacities and play different roles, depending on the particular function they exercise at a particular moment. When the persons private capacity interferes with the duty to act impartially and disinterestedly in public interest, a clash between the private interests and public professional duties may appear. A conflict of interest involves a conflict between the public duty and the private interest of a public official, in which the public officials private-capacity interests could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities25. These conflicts may, or may not be connected to monetary gain. Particularly in the human resource management area, they could be related to a multitude of non-pecuniary interests. When not managed properly, CoI have the potential of undermining the fundamental integrity of officials, decisions, agencies, and governments. Integrity is used in the public sector to refer to the proper use of funds, resources, assets, and powers, for the official purposes for which they are intended to be used. In this sense the opposite of integrity" is "corruption", or abuse 26. CoI management is essentially the core Public Sector Ethics concept. Though relatively simple to explain, due to the multiple forms they may take (monetary/non-monetary; actual, perceived or potential) CoI are hard to manage in a uniform way, making them a particularly difficult matter for legal regulation. Resolution of a specific conflict requires specific skills of the individuals involved, in conjunction with existing management practices and ethics framework. CoI situations cannot be simply avoided or banned/outlawed. Indeed, certain forms of CoI may be prevented through a system of incompatibilities or prohibitions; but most of the more subtle forms will not be covered through such a regulation. It is necessary to mainstream CoI management in the day-to-day management practices of all organizations, along with building individual capacity for recognizing and managing CoI. In the Eastern European and the CIS region, both domestic (from the civil society) and external pressure for integrity in the public service (from international organization and donors, particularly in the context of EU accession) resulted in adoption of different rules with regard to the conduct of public servants and high-level officials, CoI avoidance, prevention and management. Often the oversight of the CoI regime is entrusted to a specialized organization. Though various national legislations may regard CoI in a somewhat different way, there is a fundamental agreement that proper control of the private interests of public officials exercising public functions is crucial.

Legal framework The effective management of CoI depends on the existence of adequate legal framework. The trend in most countries is to strive for a higher degree of transparency with regard to private lives of high public officials. New requirements include an obligation to provide information on additional jobs, private income or business interests, an obligation to provide information about the jobs/activities of high level officials spouse and closest relatives. In most EU Member States, members of Government and high ranking public servants are required to avoid or withdraw from activities,

25

Managing conflict of interest in the public sector: a toolkit, Howard Whitton,Jnos Bertk,OECD, 2005 26 Ibidem

36

memberships, financial interest or situations that would place them in real or apparent CoI. This framework may exist at the level of primary legislation, secondary legislation and/or at the level of different organizations internal rules. There is no uniform requirement for parliamentary legislation to be passed in order to establish an effective ethics regime. Rather on the contrary, due to the specific nature of CoI as a phenomenon, the adoption of a CoI law may be regarded as neither necessary, nor sufficient. Rather, an approach that includes all the CoI management strategies and practices into the day-to-day management should be called for, usually through adopting and enforcing Codes of Ethics. Codes of ethics Sometimes referred to as Codes of Conduct, or Disciplinary Rules, they are usually internal documents, that:

formulate principles of behavior of public servants in their capacity bearing in mind that they occupy a position of trust, and are wielding specific, very real power; formulate specific norms that regulate the behavior of public servants in typical situations; define sanctions, and sometimes procedures to be followed to impose sanctions for their violation.

There are generally two types of Codes: 1. Aspirational, defining the highest possible standards the public servants should strive to achieve. These are usually not related to sanctions, and are used in well established public services, where the main challenge is effectiveness and efficiency, not corruption. 2. Compliance-based where the norms are specific and set the lowest acceptable standard for behavior, with sanctions attached to violations usually employed where establishing a culture of compliance is prioritized over managerial freedom, initiative and responsibility.

Functions of ACA in relation to Conflict of Interest There are two distinctly different models of addressing the Conflict of Interest in the public service. To a certain extent the difference between these models is explained by the fact that they address different categories of officials public servants vs. elected (or politically appointed) officials. The models could be described as centralized and decentralized model of CoI management. The Anti-corruption Agency may be expected to provide certain guidance to developing CoI policies for the line ministries and agencies; or it may be directly involved in providing ethics advice or even investigating allegations of irregularities and mismanaged CoI. In some situations, the Agency may be able to impose administrative sanctions or recommend to other qualified bodies the application of administrative sanctions to officials who have been found to be in breach of CoI rules. The centralized model defines a central agency (which can be the ACA) as the main structure responsible for enforcing the national CoI legislation (particularly concerning high officials). This model requires the agency to have specific capacity to perform administrative investigations; it requires tight coordination with the units/structures that are in charge of assets declarations (that are useful also as potential CoI identification tool) and requires capacity to identify situations of CoI, capacity to identify the specific

37

legal framework to be applied; capacity to actually apply the correct resolution of the CoI dilemmas and capacity to justify the decision taken if necessary, before the judicial authorities, should the decision of the ACA be challenged in Court. The decentralized model, concerning all public officials, prescribes the CoI management to be performed by the line managers in relation to appropriate internal codes of conduct and disciplinary rules. In this model the function of the ACA is more of providing support and guidance for introducing the necessary rules and procedures, to ensure their uniform application throughout the public service and to provide training. The decentralized model requires the ACA to have specific capacity in the areas of policy development, provision of policy advice, understanding of CoI management strategies and approaches and to be generally able to develop, implement, coordinate and monitor policy. Some of the capacities required are shared between the two models. These include knowledge of CoI management strategies, in-depth ethics competence, capacity to establish relevant facts, apply the relevant law and policy, and distinguish between actual, perceived, and potential conflict situations when proposing specific CoI management strategies.

12.2 Rules governing gifts received by public officials

Gifts between private and public entities or between the citizens and public service providers may assume different relevance and significance according to the administrative and cultural settings. In many cases though they can be treated as corrupt practices or somehow leading to corruption. Acceptance and management of gifts and other benefits is usually strictly regulated by relevant legislation and the Ethics Codes. Codes stipulate when and whether it is appropriate to accept a gift or benefit, or whether it is completely forbidden. There are at least two different approaches in managing gifts in the public service. One such approach allows receiving small gifts, either up to a certain value or when it may not be reasonably expected that they would have impact on the exercise of public functions - and bans all other gifts. The alternative approach bans uniformly all gifts, with the possible exception of traditional ones, received from relatives and close associates. A number of checklists are developed to determine whether a gift is genuine and may be accepted, or not. Those usually require looking at genuineness of gift, whether it is given openly and transparently, whether it affects independence of the person accepting the gift. The gifts accepted by public officials (particularly when received in official quality) should be registered in a register of the responsible agency27. Regular awareness raising events and trainings are needed in order to achieve greater effectiveness and better understanding of the essential aspects of gifts regimes. Functions of ACA in relation to regulations on gifts may cover the following: 1. Maintaining a registry of gifts to ensure transparency; 2. Performing administrative investigations to ascertain whether a certain gift is genuine or is a concealed form of bribe; 3. Referring cases of gifts to the law enforcement agencies for further investigation when violations of the gifts regime are established.

27

OSCE, Best practices in combating corruption

38

The capacities needed for this function are the knowledge of the provisions and requirements for gifts acceptance and management, the capacity to identify the specific legal norm to be applied and define whether a certain gift should have or should have not been accepted under that specific legal provisions and the capacity to justify the decision taken, if necessary, before the judicial authorities. In addition, the capacity to properly store and process data (including appropriate ICT systems) in necessary in case the ACA maintains a gifts register.

12.3 Asset and income disclosure regimes

Asset and income disclosure has become a key global anti-corruption issue, as evidenced by its inclusion in the UNCAC (art.8.5). The importance of effective disclosure instruments being set in place is threefold. First, it sends a message of government commitment to transparency and accountability and thus helps increase trust in government. Second, disclosure of information on personal income may be used as an early-warning system, an indicator that a person whose financial profile and lifestyle are inconsistent with his/her official income should be required to explain the situation or should be monitored carefully. Third, disclosure of information may be used as a separate vehicle for prosecution when the underlying corruption that generated the illegal income or assets may not be provable. Thus it may assist the detection of illicit enrichment and contribute to investigations and disciplinary procedures28. In OECD countries29 generally, the main reasons given for Assets and Income Disclosure processes are: 1. Monitoring of assets accumulated in public office/employment; 2. Detection of corruption / misconduct; 3. Deterrence of Corrupt conduct / misconduct; 4. Discovery and management of CoI; 5. Deterrence of conflicting interests; 6. Risk-management in specific areas (e.g. procurement); 7. Education/awareness-raising (internal) about CoI; 8. Enhanced public confidence in the integrity of the organisation; 9. Compliance with international requirements (UNCAC). Thus two different types of Assets Disclosure regimes could be outlined: 1) focusing mainly on corruption detection (targeting especially points 1 to 3 from the above list): the disclosure of assets provides a baseline and thus means for comparison to identify assets that may have been corruptly acquired, and which a public official may legitimately be asked to account for (this approach is common in Eastern Europea and the CIS). 2) emphasizing the CoI management30: disclosure of information on private interests increases the transparency of decision-making processes, and thereby lays the foundations for the accountability of office holders for their actions.

28

Larbi, G. Between Spin and Reality: Disclosure of assets and Interests by public officials in developing countries, IDPM, University of Manchester, 2005 29 OECD, Managing Confl ict of Interest in the Public Service: OECD Guidelines and Country Experiences, 2003 30 A World Bank report (R. Messick) looks at the assets disclosure in a different way: as a voluntary process that is primary aiming at building trust in the society, and must not be associated to law enforcement in any way.

39

The content of assets and income information required to be reported depends on the purpose of the scheme broadly, corruption detection or CoI prevention. In general, registration of assets and incomes requires identifying information on the following categories of assets and interests for the official concerned and usually for dependant family and spouse31: land property/assets (e.g. houses, land and farms); employment and business interests (e.g. income, industrial and commercial firms, professional firms); securities and bank accounts (e.g. shareholdings and deposit accounts); other assets (e.g. vehicles and other capital assets); liabilities (e.g. mortgages and loans). Assets and income declarations as corruption prevention tools are either incorporated into anti-corruption laws or adopted as stand-alone legislation or codes of conduct, introducing an assets and income declaration for public officials. However, there are exceptions from this approach in many Western democracies, which have proceeded without assets and income declarations relying instead on traditions of institutional ethics, efficient income tax systems and public access to information. Asset disclosure laws have some common dimensions: most laws and rules outline coverage (who is governed), declaration content, filing frequency and method, declaration processing, punishment for breach, and public access to declarations. Potential Functions of ACAs in relation to asset declarations Effective mechanisms for enforcement and monitoring of assets and income are vital for the proper implementation of the assets declaration regimes. The role of an ACA in this respect may be either in collecting the information on the assets (assets disclosure declarations) and checking its accuracy, or may extend to monitoring of the assets, income, liabilities and life-styles of categories of public decision-makers and public service officials. ACAs commonly perform the following functions: collect the asset disclosure declarations (usually from high level officials only) coordinate the overall assets disclosure policy (when the assets declarations are collected in a decentralized manner) perform verification of the declarations by comparing them to other sources that may include information from the cadastre/real estate register, tax declarations, bank accounts make a decision whether to refer a case of violation of the law to lawenforcement agencies for further investigation. Capacities to perform this function relate first of all to professional independence of the staff, to ensure that the assets declarations verification is done timely and without undue influence. Technical capacities needed are the clear understanding of the applicable standards in the assets disclosure area; and capacity to perform administrative verification process as per the manuals/guidelines. The ACA would also need appropriate ICT systems to store and process the data contained in the declarations, while observing applicable data protection laws.

The next section contains a matrix of guidelines for assessing the capacity of anti-corruption agencies according to the most common preventive anti-corruption functions.

31

SIGMA Working paper 36: Conflict-of-Interest Policies and Practices in Nine EU Member States: A Comparative Review, 2006

40

Technical tool 1: Guidelines for assessing the capacities to perform specific functions
Function 1. ANTI-CORRUPTION
POLICY FORMULATION

Enabling environment
Review the institutional arrangements in place (in particular referring to level of independence, authority) that may impact on the formulation of the agencys policy recommendations. The relationship (formal and informal) with other stakeholders participating in policy formulation should also be reviewed. Communication protocols and memoranda of understanding with other agencies may be indicators of a well structured communication system, as well as a communication strategy for external partners and other government bodies.

Guidelines for the capacity assessment Organizational level

Individual level

The function of policy formulation requires cooperation with state agencies, civil society, and international organizations; technical capacities (expertise) and functional capacities to manage extensive communication and coordination. Related functions: 2) implementation plans 3) coordinating implementation of policies 4) monitoring the implementation of policies 5) evaluating policies 6) diagnostic and research 7) legislative drafting 8) international cooperation

The institutional arrangements, structure, internal division of responsibilities/ functions and business processes of the agency should be reviewed to assess its capacity to: consult with a range of stakeholders (state institutions, civil society, international community) to obtain broad input into the policy formulation process; process inputs received from various sources; promote consensus over the proposed measures. The assessment will look at the knowledge management and information management structures as well as the ICT systems necessary to perform this function, in addition to the underlying business process linking the work of different units/structures within the organization that divides roles and responsibilities for the research, drafting, evaluation and other steps. A well organized department or unit is needed to perform the function. Human Resources: In addition to the overall human resource management issues common to all functions, the capacity assessment should verify that a system is in place to recruit and retain staff having the necessary technical and functional capacities. In light of fiscal constraints, evidence of nonfiscal incentive policies or internal regulations should be ascertained.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: conduct or manage diagnostic research, including to develop targeted research designs that link to specific policy objectives; assess the effectiveness of the measures currently in place; evaluate the level of compliance with international legal instruments; propose remedies based on international standards and good practices, adapted to the specific national context. Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate formulate policies and strategies budget, manage and implement

41

2. DEVELOPMENT OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Enabling environment
The agency needs the capacity to engage stakeholders for action, to receive and discuss proactively the various activities of the action plan. A good level of communication with the various agencies that are required to implement the plan is required. Focal point should exist both within the assessed ACA and within the various agencies implementing the activities of the plan. Protocols / procedures for consultation should be in place.

Organizational level
The institutional arrangements, structure, internal division of responsibilities/ functions and business processes of the agency should be reviewed to assess its capacity to: gather information from a range of stakeholders for the development of the action plan (memoranda of understanding may be needed); process inputs received from various sources; communicate with other agencies also through ICT means A department or unit dedicated to following closely the development of the Action Plan and monitoring its implementation with dedicated and professional staff should be present (ideally should be the same department implementing functions 1, 3, 4) Human Resources A number of dedicated staff with the necessary skills will have to be present.

Individual level
An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: capacity to analyze the received proposals in the context of prointegrity reforms to avoid inclusion in the implementation plan of measures that are not likely to achieve desired impact project management skills (formulation of SMART objectives, understanding of PM concepts) monitoring and evaluation skills (definition of indicators, targets, design of contingency plans) Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate formulate policies and strategies budget, manage and implement

Typically undertaken together with policy formulation (particularly when policies take the form of comprehensive national strategies), this function requires project management and evaluation-related methodologies to operationalize policy objectives. Related functions: 1) policy formulation 3) coordinating implementation of policies 4) monitoring the implementation of policies 5) evaluating policies

42

3. COORDINATING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF PREVENTIVE POLICIES

Enabling Environment

Organizational level

Individual Level

Coordinating anti-corruption activities is one of the most vital yet problematic functions of prevention of corruption agencies. Any one ACA can perform only a limited set of anti-corruption functions, and will have to rely of other agencies for the remaining preventive and law enforcement functions as enumerated in the UNCAC.

The capacity to perform this function will depend significantly on the agencys authority and positioning within the national integrity system. Areas of shared competences and possible overlapping should be identified. Accountability lines and the independence of the various institutions should be analyzed. Tensions can arise from unclear or duplicated competencies, and from potential conflict with other independent bodies (e.g. courts). Coordination protocols (memoranda of understanding or similar mechanism) may be useful in preventing potential inter-institutional conflicts.

The institutional arrangements, structure, internal division of responsibilities/ functions and business processes of the agency should be reviewed to assess its capacity to: gather information from a range of stakeholders in relation to the status of implementation of a given activity (memoranda of understanding may be needed); process inputs received from various sources; communicating with other agencies including through ICT means A department or unit dedicated to coordinating the implementation of the Action Plan with dedicated and professional staff should be present (ideally it should be the same department implementing functions 1, 2, 4) Human Resources A number of dedicated staff with the necessary skills will have to be present. Training needs will have to be identified by the assessment and a training plan eventually developed.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: knowledge of the specific sectors having a role in anti-corruption policies implementation, and of the policies themselves research and data analysis Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate formulate policies and strategies budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate

Related functions: 1) policy formulation 2) implementations plans 4) monitoring the implementation of policies 5) evaluating policies

43

4. MONITORING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES

Enabling Environment

Organizational level

Individual Level

This function primarily requires extensive coordination. Capacities are also required to analyze and evaluate information received.

Related functions: 1) policy formulation 2) implementations plans 3) coordinating implementation of policies 5) evaluating policies 6) diagnostic and research

Due consideration should be given to the authority of the agency and its ability to: compel the reporting of agencies responsible for the implementation of AC policies, and influence the responsible agencies to meet their obligations regarding the implementation of AC policies. Accountability lines and the independence of the relevant institutions should be analyzed. Tensions can arise from potential disagreements with other state agencies that enjoy a high degree of independence (e.g. courts). The agency should have sufficient independence to be able to impartially and objectively assess the performance of institutions responsible for implementing specific AC policies in question. Engaging civil society in this process may help enhance the credibility of the monitoring.

The institutional arrangements, structure, internal division of responsibilities/ functions and business processes of the agency should be reviewed to assess its capacity to: gather information from a range of stakeholders in relation to the status of implementation of a given activity (memoranda of understanding may be needed); process inputs received from various sources; communicating with other agencies including through ICT means ensure that communication is regular and timely particularly if the ACAs mandate is to receive regular periodic reporting on the implementation of assigned measures from other institutions performing quality checks of the reports received and if needed require improvements Independent monitoring requires additional data management processes (e.g. supporting ICT infrastructure, databases, etc.). A department or unit dedicated to the monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan with dedicated and professional staff should be present (ideally the same department implementing functions 1, 2, 3). Human resources The agency will need sufficient staff to process the potentially significant volume of reporting from various state agencies, and to consolidate/summarize these individual reports. A single consolidated report is needed to inform about progress the executive, the legislative and the general public.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: knowledge of the specific sectors covered by the anticorruption policies that the ACA is mandated to monitor; knowledge of the anticorruption policies that the ACA is mandated to monitor; if conducting independent monitoring, specific monitoring techniques appropriate for issue/sector; ability to analyze data and translate findings into actionable policy recommendations.

Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate monitor and evaluate

44

5. EVALUATING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI CORRUPTION POLICIES

Enabling Environment
If it is to be meaningful, evaluation of the outcomes of anticorruption policies should be impartial and objective. In this respect, it is essential that the function be performed by a state agency with a very high degree of functional (and ideally organizational) independence, if it is not outsourced to a non-state actor altogether.

Organizational level

Individual Level

Differently from the monitoring function, the evaluation function focuses on assessing the outcomes (results) of anti-corruption measures rather than only progress on implementation (activities undertaken). Related functions: 1) policy formulation 2) implementations plans 3) coordinating implementation of policies 4) monitoring the implementation of policies 6) diagnostic and research

For this function, the capacities inherent in the agencys institutional framework and business processes should resemble to those required to conduct research more generally. There should be adequate capacity to: engage expertise as necessary to support the work of the agency; produce evaluation reports to be presented to the executive, the legislative, and the public. A department or unit dedicated to the evaluation of the strategy with dedicated and professional staff should be present (ideally the same department implementing function 6).

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: knowledge of the anticorruption policies that the ACA is mandated to evaluate; capacity to conduct or manage diagnostic research on national institutional and regulatory systems; knowledge of various diagnostic methodologies available; competence with various statistical and other technical approaches; evaluation of the quality of the research undertaken/received (quality control); ability to analyze data and translate findings into actionable policy recommendations. Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate formulate policies and strategies budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate

Human Resources In addition to specialized internal expertise, the agency will likely need to engage external expertise to undertake specific evaluations. These methodologies will be consistent with, if not identical, to the diagnostic methodologies required for assessing needs and establishing baselines during the policy formulation process. Where research is not performed internally, the agency should have sufficient human resources to manage, perform quality control, and apply the external research.

45

6. CONDUCTING
DIAGNOSTIC AND RESEARCH

Enabling Environment
No special institutional arrangements (independence) are necessary to conduct corruptionrelated research as such, but a level of objectivity and impartiality is imperative if the research results are to be widely recognized as legitimate and valid. The role of the agency should be analyzed in view of various actors already involved in research on corruption at the national and international level. It is important to build on existing activities in order to exploit synergies, avoid duplication, and save resources usable for other functions. Ideally, provisions should be in place at this level to enable the use of information (including nonpublic / classified) gathered by investigative units or agencies, and to facilitate research collaboration between relevant government bodies. Another issue to consider is the extent and predictability of the agencys resources (human resources and budget). Research of this type can be a time- and personnel-intensive prospect requiring a significant level of financing, whether it is done inhouse or outsourced.

Organizational level
The agencys institutional arrangements, organizational, structure, internal division of responsibilities/ functions and business processes should be analyzed to determine its capacity to: cooperate with international and national organizations working on assessing and monitoring corruption (is there a unit of staff with this specific function, or is it a shared function, does a plan exist noting key deadlines and reporting requirements to international bodies etc.); collaborate on research with investigative units and other state agencies (which requires a research plan, underlying process to determine the quality assurance and review of the research, a robust information management system) create and maintain a pool of researchers and experts able to support the work of the agency; develop performance indicators and monitoring systems (research is ideally conducted to establish baselines and then monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures). Human Resources To perform the research function, the agency should be able to rely on pool of researchers and experts. Research can be performed by the specialized staff of the agency or outsourced to other agencies or existing institutes, think tanks and NGOs already operating in the field. Where research is not performed internally, the agency should have sufficient staff capacity to manage, perform quality control, and apply the externally-commissioned research.

Individual Level
An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: define a research objective that links to policy objectives and practical actions; interpret and analyze data (quantitative and qualitative analysis), and generate actionable recommendations identify, review, and assess the quality of existing information sources (academic, NGO and donor reports and assessments, administrative data, etc.); conduct or manage diagnostic research, including: -knowledge of various diagnostic methodologies available; -competence in statistical and other social science methodologies (higher levels of expertise if undertaking diagnostic research in-house). Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate

ACAs may conduct their own research, utilize external knowledge (including commissioning it), or combine the two approaches. The guidelines presented here primarily refer to situations where ACAs conduct research themselves through approaches such as: corruption-related surveys; generation and analysis of statistical data on corruption; assessments of the levels of corruption. Related functions: This function is supporting all the other functions in the matrix

46

7. LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING
In many cases, new anticorruption policies may require legislative changes. Anti-corruption conventions, for instance, are not selfenforcing, and national legislation is necessary for their implementation. The ACA may also be required to screen other legislation from an anti-corruption perspective, possibly as part of ex-ante regulatory impact assessment. Legislative drafting, however, should be viewed as strictly a technical process that gives legal form to policy decisions. The requisite consultations and discussions of policy options should take place within the policy formulation process rather than within the legislative drafting function. Related functions: 1) policy formulation 6) diagnostic and research

Enabling Environment
Formally no special institutional profile is required to perform this function provided that it represents, as noted in the previous column, a purely technical process that gives the necessary legal form to policy decision reached through the policy formulation process (function 1). In practice though the performance of this function will require a good level of cooperation with the Parliament and the Ministry of Justice.

Organizational level
Coordination with various state agencies involved in the particular sector/issue area. In particular; coordination with the Ministry of Justice is essential to ensure that the proposed legislation is harmonized with the overall national legal framework and not in conflict with any other laws. Human resources As the category of corruption-related legislation and regulation is very diverse, the agency should also have the capacity to rely on external experts (domestic and foreign) and consultants. Procedures for contracting consultants should be assessed, along with the capacity to cooperate with international organizations.

Individual Level
An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: knowledge of international standards and good practices; comparative knowledge of legislative solutions; specialized legislative drafting skills; regulatory impact assessment. Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders

47

8. PROMOTING
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND MAINSTREAMING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Enabling Environment

Organizational level

Individual Level

Anti-corruption treaties (e.g. Council of Europe Conventions) often require the member states participation in the relevant monitoring mechanisms (e.g. GRECO); the State Parties to UNCAC have also adopted a review mechanism. ACAs are often mandated to represent the country in the various activities involved. Another form of international cooperation may involve a clearing-house role for donors technical assistance initiatives. Not least, a common form of international cooperation consists of liaising with various external expertise that may be required for other functions.

The assessment should examine the authority and the functional independence of the agency to represent the country in international fora, and the availability of resources (budget) to do so effectively. Where mandated to perform a clearing house role, the agencys institutional relationships should be reviewed to enable effective communication with other state institutions and donors about the needs for technical assistance.

The agency should have the capacities to: participate to international meetings, trainings, monitoring mechanisms; represent the national anti-corruption activities at the international level; share anti-corruption expertise with specialists in other countries; organize staff exchanges and visits to promote learning; strengthen bilateral co-operation with anticorruption bodies in other countries. The second aspect of this function requires the capacities to: coordinate with state institutions having a role in the fight against corruption; represent their needs to international organizations and donors; assess the quality and suitability of the technical assistance offered. Human resources management The agency should have specialized staff for international relations who possess both the substantive knowledge, as well as the language skills required to communicate directly with their foreign counterparts. Participation in international trainings should be routinely followed by debriefings and intra-agency knowledge sharing.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: foreign language skills; knowledge of the range of national anti-corruption policies; public speaking and presentation skills; knowledge of international anticorruption instruments, of good practices and anti-corruption approaches and remedies at international level. Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate formulate policies and strategies budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate

Related functions: 1) policy formulation 2) implementations plans 3) coordinating implementation of policies 4) monitoring the implementation of policies 6) diagnostic and research 7) legislative drafting

48

9.DISSEMINATING
KNOWLEDGE

Enabling Environment

Organizational level

Individual Level

This function consists of two components: trainings, seminars, workshops and other forms for public officials and civil service; promotional and educational campaigns for increasing public awareness of corruption (causes and consequences), or the rights and responsibilities of citizens in administrative processes.

A predictable flow of resources (budget) that permits the realization of planned activities is necessary, as public campaigns may be resource intensive. Good cooperation with civil service training institutes, schools, universities and different government ministries is necessary to facilitate provision of training and educational activities. As a great number of such activities either are or can be undertaken by national NGOs or international organizations, and are financed by donors, the assessment should review any potential institutional obstacles for coordination and cooperation with such organizations. As with research, it is important to build on existing activities in order to exploit synergies, avoid duplication, and save resources usable for other functions.

Both training and mass education activities should form part of a broader institutional sustainability strategy that is rooted in strategic national anticorruption policy objectives. Training programs, in particular, require cooperation and joint planning with state institutions that are the clients for training activities (and/or with public institutions that regulate or deliver such training themselves). Training should be planned based on staff learning needs (which must be assessed). Further, follow up to see if the training is applied is also crucial (as well as establishment of the necessary incentives or removal of impediments to the application of the training). Coordination with potential partners (national and international organizations and donors) is essential to avoid duplication and securing the needed resources. A unit dedicated to Public Relations and communication should be present, with staff having the required skills. Internet-based communications should be an important component of this function, which requires adequate ICT infrastructure and knowledgeable staff. Human Resources The function requires the capacity to involve and contract expertise present at the national and international level, and to develop, implement, and manage educational activities. If training is to be performed by agency staff, a trainers development process should be in place.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: training skills and methodologies; public speaking and presentation skills; public relations skills; capacity to use the following tools: -media of broad or general distribution; -internet and other digital media.

Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate

Related to functions: 1) policy formulation 6) diagnostic and research 8) international cooperation

49

10. ENHANCING CIVIL

SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION

Enabling Environment

Organizational level

Individual Level

This function has three components: - promoting public sector transparency and accountability, and citizen participation; - engaging civil society in corruption prevention efforts (e.g. policy formulation, research, monitoring, dissemination of knowledge); - receiving reports and complaints on corruption from citizens. The latter function is frequently assigned to ACAs and we will mostly concentrate on it here, since the other components are covered above.

Two factors are essential in achieving the profile needed for citizens to turn to an ACA to report corruption. One is the perceived independence of the agency, and its ability to resist potential political pressures to ignore the misconduct of particular officials. A level of functional independence is the minimum needed, while organizational independence would be desirable in resisting potential political influence. Second, the agency must also have a predictable flow of resources (budget) that permits the consistent operation of mechanisms to receive citizen complaints (e.g. telephone hotlines) and to respond to citizen reports in a timely manner. Where reports of corruption are then forwarded to agencies for investigation and prosecution, the position of the ACA vis--vis law enforcement bodies should also be examined. Special protocols may be needed to ensure the necessary levels of cooperation and feedback on the reported cases, and to prevent potential inter-institutional conflicts.

Related to the question of independence is the public perception of the agencys integrity and its determination to act on behalf of the citizens rather than protect state officials. Maximum transparency and public reporting on activities is essential to promote these commitments (information that may compromise investigations or data protected by privacy laws must be withheld). Some agencies have introduced citizens oversight boards to promote this kind of profile. Equally important is the existence of a system for reporting corruption that is simple and accessible. Use of information technologies is invaluable in this respect, but cannot substitute for good customer service practices (courteous, responsive, and clear communication of the relevant laws, procedures, rights and obligations). There should also be strong data management processes to protect sensitive data, analyze the information received and integrate the information on most commonly encountered types of corruption, as well as law enforcement responses, into the overall anti-corruption policy process. Human resources: Sufficient staffing levels and specialized training are essential.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: public relations and communication skills; customer service skills; data management and analysis Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate formulate policies and strategies budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate

Related functions: 1) policy formulation 2) implementations plans 3) coordinating implementation of policies 4) monitoring the implementation of policies 5) evaluating policies 6) diagnostic and research 7) legislative drafting 8) international cooperation 9) disseminating knowledge

50

11. DEVELOPMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRUPTION RISKS AND INTEGRITY ASSESSMENTS

Enabling Environment

Organizational level

Individual Level

The assessment of institutional corruption risks includes: conducting functional and process reviews; identification of excessive and unnecessary discretion; identification of monopoly over a process / spending and proposing accountability where lacking. Identification of flaws in processes that may be exploited by opportunistic staff members, closing the gaps identified, determining the public servants participating in the processes as well as processes duration and the resources for their completion are part of the institutional risk management cycle. Related functions: 12.1) CoI Management 12.2) Gifts management 12.3) Assets disclosure

The following are key factors to look at: effective legislation that empowers the ACA to perform or to coordinate the process of performing risk assessments and that obliges all structures to cooperate sufficient trust within the public service and political will for the ACA to be able to organize and carry out the process as evidenced by budgetary allocations, provision of human resources and political and administrative support supportive public service training system that ensures the availability of prepared staff in the line ministries and agencies to participate in the assessment process existence of an overall coordination mechanism that allows for cooperation and exchange of practices and experience with other specialized agencies in the area, like the ones performing financial, performance and integrity audits.

In some cases the ACA will not implement the assessment itself but will coordinate and guide the work of the other agencies that will do a self-assessment exercise. The institutional arrangements, structure, internal division of responsibilities should enable the agency to: gather information from the agencies in which the assessment is being performed; process inputs received from various sources; communicating with other agencies including through ICT means A dedicated department / unit equipped with specific procedures, manuals and guidelines to perform coordination of the risk assessment work and/or to directly perform risk assessments is needed. Human resources A number of dedicated staff with the necessary skills will have to be present. Training needs will have to be identified by the assessment and a training plan eventually developed.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: in-depth knowledge of the concepts of corruption indicators/red flags capacity to identify risks and to propose appropriate management responses knowledge of integrity audit principles and practice understanding of the concepts related to management, organizational psychology, organizational dynamics train others to perform the assessment.

Functional capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate.

51

12.1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGULATION AND

MANAGEMENT

Enabling Environment

Organizational level

Individual Level

CoI related functions of the ACA may be structured in function of the applicable model: as the ACA being the main structure responsible for enforcing the national CoI legislation (particularly concerning highest officials), or the ACA being a policy advisor, providing support and guidance for introducing the necessary rules and procedures, ensuring their uniform application throughout the public service and providing training. Related functions: 11) Risk assessments 12.2) Gifts management 12.3) Asset disclosure

The following are enabling factors for the effective delivery of this function: legislation / Code of Ethics that provides for regulation of the CoI and empowers the ACA to perform or to coordinate the process of CoI management; sufficient trust within the public service and political will for the ACA to be able to organize and carry out the process - as evidenced by budgetary allocations, provision of human resources and political and administrative support; supportive public service training system that ensures ethics competence is being addressed throughout the public service; existence of an overall coordination mechanism that allows for exchange of practices and experience; existence of effective assets and interests disclosure system.

A dedicated department / unit that has specific procedures, manuals and guidelines to perform the CoI related functions prescribed by the law should be in place. For the centralized model of CoI management: capacity to perform administrative investigations; capacity to identify situations of CoI and the specific legal framework to be applied; capacity to apply the correct resolution of the CoI dilemmas; capacity to justify the decision taken if necessary, before the judicial authorities (should the decision of the ACA be challenged in Court). For the decentralized model: capacity for policy development, provision of policy advice; understanding of CoI management strategies and approaches be generally able to develop, implement, coordinate and monitor policy. Well developed ICT infrastructure is important for achieving better access to information and enhancing the demand and supply of information to all the interested stakeholders. Human resources Sufficient qualified and knowledgeable staff dealing with CoI management. Training needs will have to be identified during the capacity assessment and a training plan eventually developed.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: knowledge of CoI management strategies, in-depth ethics competence; capacity to establish relevant facts, apply the law and policy, distinguish between apparent, real and actual CoI; clear understanding of the national and international standards in the field of CoI management. Functional Capacities: engage with stakeholders assess a situation and define a vision and mandate budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate.

52

12.2. GIFTS MANAGEMENT

Gifts acceptance and management is often regarded as a part of the CoI management tasks implemented by an ACA. The ACA functions in this area usually include: maintaining a register of gifts to ensure the transparency of the process; performing administrative investigations to ascertain whether a certain gift is genuine or is rather a concealed form of bribe referring cases of gifts to the law enforcement agencies for further investigation when violations of the gifts regime are established. Related functions: 11) Risk assessments 12.1) CoI management 12.3) Assed declarations disclosure

Enabling Environment
The following are enabling factors for the effective delivery of this function: clear legislation, empowering the ACA to monitor the receipt of gifts by public servants and to ensure the transparency of the process; political will for the ACA to be able to organize and carry out the process (as evidenced by budgetary allocations, provision of human resources and political and administrative support); supportive public service training system that ensures the public servants are aware of their gifts-related duties and obligations; existence of an overall coordination mechanism that allows for exchange of practices and experience; existence of effective assets and interests disclosure system.

Organizational level
The agency should have the capacity to maintain the necessary registries and archives, in particular ICT registration capacity and storage capacity for the surrendered gifts. A dedicated department / unit should be present, with specific procedures, manuals and guidelines to perform the gifts related functions prescribed by the law (this unit may be stand-alone or it may be a part of a bigger Conflicts of Interest department). Human resources Sufficient staff dealing with gifts management, qualified and knowledgeable about gifts regulation and management. Training needs will have to be identified during the capacity assessment and a training plan developed as applicable.

Individual Level
An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: knowledge of the provisions and requirements for gifts acceptance and management; capacity to identify the specific legal norm to be applied; capacity to define whether a certain gift should have or should have not been accepted under specific legal provisions; capacity to justify the decision taken if necessary, before the judicial authorities, should the decision of the ACA be challenged in court. Functional Capacities: engage with stakeholders monitor and evaluate.

53

12.3. ASSET AND

INCOME DISCLOSURE REGIMES

Enabling Environment

Organizational level

Individual Level

The role of an ACA in this area is in collecting and ensuring the transparency of the information on the assets (assets disclosure declarations) and their verification, possibly extending to monitoring of the assets, income, liabilities and life-styles of categories of public decision-makers and public service officials. The ACA usually has the following functions: collect the asset disclosure declarations; coordinate the overall assets disclosure policy; perform verification of the declarations; make a decision whether to refer a case of violation to law enforcement agencies for further investigation. Related functions: 11) Risk assessments 12.1) CoI management 12.2) Gifts management

The following are enabling factors for the effective delivery of this function: adequate legislation, clearly describing the assets disclosure regime, ensuring its transparency and enabling the ACA to perform effective verification including obligation for other Government bodies to cooperate; political will, expressed in provision of the human and budgetary resources necessary for the implementation of the activities prescribed by the law; In particular, legislative solutions that overburden the ACA with tasks to collect information that is far beyond its capacity should be avoided as they undermine the assets disclosure regime. Legislative stability must be ensured so that the assets disclosure regime have the chance to establish itself.

The ACA should have: adequate facilities to support the assets registration process (in person, through mail or electronically); capacity to file and store the declarations in a secure manner; capacity to verify the data contained in the assets declarations, by obtaining information from other government bodies, own sources, and - where legislation permits - banks; capacity to exchange information with other government agencies (tax administration, cadastre, money laundering unit etc.); capacity to actively disseminate information to the public, observing applicable regulations; the widely recognized best practice in this respect involves active publication of the assets declarations on the Internet, in searchable form (within restrictions related to personal data protection as applicable); procedures and methods for processing data (information from the asset declarations), perform risk analysis, monitor trends, produce aggregate reports; clear rules for the collection, filing, verification and follow up procedures; clear organizational structure, where the number of positions, within the departments/units/sectors corresponds to the workload and where the positions are actually staffed; clear line of responsibility, which eliminates confusion in the daily management of the operations of the organization; optimally the level of representation of this function should be high enough to ensure that it is being taken seriously by the rest of the organization; actual space (physical and on the Internet) and technical means to provide unobstructed access to the declarations when this is allowed or required by the legislation; an electronic archive, connected to the databases or other government bodies, in order to facilitate the comparisons and checks. A dedicated department / unit that has specific procedures, manuals and guidelines to perform the assets disclosure related functions prescribed by the law should be in place. Human Resources Sufficient staff acquainted with the specifics of assets declarations collection and processing. Training is also essential.

An adequate number of staff should have the following capacities: Technical capacities: clear understanding of the national and international standards in the assets disclosure area;

capacity to perform

administrative verification process as per the manuals /guidelines; statistical literacy and data processing skills. Functional Capacities: engage with stakeholders budget, manage and implement monitor and evaluate

54

Technical tool 2: Benchmarking matrix

This benchmarking matrix contains examples for the development of a quick assessment of the existing capacities of the ACA. The aim of this tool is to assess the capacity in place in a standardized way, allowing to measure change over time (by repeating the exercise). Ideally, an assessment should be done to set the baseline at the beginning of the capacity development support, and repeated at the end in order to measure the progress made. The matrix contains sample statements corresponding to different levels of capacity (none basic moderate high) for different functions. The assessment exercise will consist in ticking the box with the description that closest matches the reality in the ACA. The matrix can be used in two main ways: 1) for the conduction of a self-assessment (in this case the staff of the ACA are asked to complete the questionnaire anonymously). The results of the self-assessment will constitute an input to the actual capacity assessment facilitated by a team of experts and will give preliminary ideas to the assessment team about the perception of capacity that the staff of the ACA has. The self assessment also allows for a preliminary identification of capacity gaps (that will have to be cross-checked and validated through interviews). 2) as a measurement framework for the capacity assessment (by the assessment team). The matrix below is not to be considered as a comprehensive benchmarking system to be used ad litteram, but rather as a guidance containing practical examples for the development of benchmarking and assessments that will have to be tailored to the characteristics of the individual ACA being assessed. The tailoring of this tool to the ACA being assessed will consist in: the identification of key capacities to be measured; the refinement of statements corresponding to different capacity levels in function of the specific context; and the assessment of existing capacities against those benchmarks. The matrix is divided in two parts: the first is relative to the general assessment of the capacities of the ACA at the organizational level; these capacities are relevant for the performance of all the functions, they pertain to the good structuring of the organization. The second part is relative to the capacities to perform specific anti-corruption functions.

55

General organizational level capacities (examples)

1. Limited or no capacity Strategy of the ACA

Goals/Targets (Goals of the agency set internally in relation to the national AC action plan) Targets are non-existent or few; targets are vague, or confusing, or either too easy or impossible to achieve, and may change from year to year; targets largely unknown or ignored by staff

2. Basic level of capacity

Realistic targets exist in some key areas, and are mostly aligned with the national action plan but are short-term, lack implementation plans. Staff dont always know and adopt targets. Most projects, activities and services are well defined and can be solidly linked with mission and goals; service offerings may be somewhat scattered and not fully integrated into a clear strategy. Performance partially measured and progress partially tracked; organization regularly collects solid data on activities and outputs. A brief discussion every year on the objectives to be reached during the year with supervisor, but no formal work plan.

3. Moderate level of capacity

4. High level of capacity

Limited set of quantified, well designed performance targets are present in all areas; targets are tightly linked to the national action plan, have annual milestones, and are long-term in nature; staff consistently adopt targets and works diligently to achieve them.

Quantified, well designed targets exist in most areas and are linked to the national action plan. The targets are long term (multiyear). Targets are known and adopted by most staff, who use them to broadly guide their work.

Projects / activities (services) relevance and alignment with the broader strategy of the ACA

Projects and services are vaguely defined and lack clear alignment with the ACA mission and goals; activities are few and largely unrelated to each other.

Core projects, activities and services well defined and aligned with mission and goals; service offerings fit together well as part of clear strategy.

All projects, activities and services well defined and fully aligned with mission and goals; service offerings are clearly linked to one another and to overall strategy; synergies across programs are captured.

Performance Management
Organizations Performance Measurement Very limited measurement and tracking of performance; all or most evaluation based on anecdotal evidence; organization collects only some performance data on activities in an ad-hoc fashion. No individual annual work plan, work mostly done on demand and following the indications of my supervisor. Performance measured and progress tracked in multiple ways, several times a year, by monitoring a multiplicity of performance indicators. Well-developed comprehensive, integrated system used for measuring organizations performance and progress on continual basis; small number of clear, measurable, and meaningful performance indicators A work plan is formally established, with goals for the year, linked to performance evaluation. The work plan is linked to the broader objectives of the ACA and it is a useful tool used on a regular basis by staff and supervisor.

Individual work plans

A work plan is formally established, with goals for the year, linked to performance evaluation. However, the work plan remains mostly a formality than something really relevant for day to day work.

Decision making planning

56

Decision making Framework (how decisions are taken in the ACA)

Decisions are made largely on an ad-hoc basis by one person and/or whomever is accessible; highly informal.

Appropriate decision makers known; decision making process fairly well established and process is generally followed, but often breaks down and becomes informal.

Clear, largely formal lines/ systems for decision making, however decisions are not always appropriately implemented or followed; dissemination of decisions generally good but could be improved.

Clear, formal lines/ systems and documented, replicable processes for decision making that involve as broad participation as practical and appropriate along with dissemination/ interpretation of decision.

Human Resources
Human resources planning Organization tackles HR needs only when too large to ignore; lack of HR planning activities and expertise, no experience in HR planning. Some ability and attempts to develop HR plan either internally or via external assistance; HR plan not linked to targets and goals of the ACA. No active development tools/ programs; feedback and coaching occur sporadically; individual performance evaluated occasionally; limited focus on ensuring high-quality staffing; sporadic initiatives to identify new talent. High dependence on Director; organization would continue to function without his/her presence, but likely in a very different form. Ability and drive to develop and refine concrete, realistic HR plan; some internal expertise in HR planning or access to relevant external assistance; HR planning carried out often but not regularly. Limited use of active development tools/programs; frequent formal and informal coaching and feedback; performance regularly evaluated and discussed; regular concerted initiatives to identify new talent. Organization is able to develop and refine concrete, realistic, and detailed HR plan; HR planning exercise carried out regularly and linked to the targets and goals of the ACA.

Staff recruitment, development, and retention

No preset career paths in place with a view to ensure staff development; limited training, coaching and feedback; no regular performance assessments; no systems/processes to identify new talent.

Management team and staff dependence on Director (Chief Executive)

Very strong dependence on Director; organization would cease to function properly without his/her presence.

Limited dependence on Director; organization would continue in similar way without his/her presence, but operations would likely suffer significantly during transition period; no member of team could potentially take on Director role.

Management actively interested in general staff development; wellthought out and targeted development plans for key positions; frequent, relevant training, job rotation, coaching/ feedback, and consistent performance appraisal institutionalized; proven interest to ensure high quality job occupancy; continuous, proactive initiatives to identify new talent. Reliance but not dependence on Director; smooth transition to new leader could be expected; operations likely to continue without major problems; team can fill in during transition time; several members of management team could potentially take on Director role.

57

Benchmarking for the capacities of the ACA in relation to specific functions (examples)

1. Limited or no capacity
1. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY FORMULATION Structures for coordination with stakeholders Organizational Level There are no focal points or dedicated untit for the coordination with stakeholders. Cooperation happens ad-hoc and the staff that have some time free are given this task.

2. Basic level of capacity

There are no focal points or dedicated untit for the coordination with stakeholders. Informal internal division of labour is in place that allows smooth cooperation and keeping track of the information. No staff has received formal training or has long term substantial experience in this area. Some training is provided in the framework of larger training events, but without follow up.

3. Moderate level of capacity

4. High level of capacity

There is a dedicated focal point or unit for inter-agency cooperation, but the focal point / unit performs several other tasks and in not equipped with a good system for keeping track of he information relative to coordination with other agencies. Some staff members have received formal training and have substantial experience in this area, but learning is mostly ad-hoc.

There is a dedicated focal point or unit for dealing with cooperation, the focal point / unit performs predominantely this task and has good capacity to gather and analyze information necessary for the development of the strategy.

Staffs technical capacities in specific areas (e.g Parliament and legislative processes ) Individual Level

No staff has received formal training or has long term substantial experience in this area. No learning systems in place.

There are staff members with formal training or with experience in this area. Effective learning systems are in place.

58

4. MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI CORRUPTION POLICIES General cooperation with other Agencies for the collection of data on the implementation of the AC program Enabling Environment Cooperation with most of the other State Agencies is infrequent, based on ad-hoc procedures (meetings and consultations organized on a need basis). There are no focal points within the majority of the agencies that work with the ACA. Cooperation with most of the other State Agencies is regular but can be improved. There are no institutionalized procedures for cooperation. There are no permanent focal points and referents in the agencies that work with the ACA. Cooperation with most of the other Agencies is regular, it allows the Agency to carry out its task, but it has to be very proactive in order to collect the information. There are institutionalized procedures for cooperation with some agencies but not with all of them. There are no permanent focal points and referents in some of the agencies that work with the ACA. Several trainings each year on conducting research and analysis are provided to the staff of the ACA; these trainings are designed mostly by international agencies but the ACA tries to link them with its main targets. Cooperation with most of the other State Agencies is very good, the other agencies have a proactive role in providing the required information to the ACA. The role of the ACA is institutionalized and recognized by the other agencies. There are institutionalized procedures for cooperation and focal points or main referents in most of the agencies.

Staff training Organizational Level

There are no regular trainings; no training programs, no training tools for developing competence and strangthening the capacity of the staff of the ACA to perform data collection and analysis.

Some training on conducting research and analysis is provided to the staff of the ACA. These activities are mostly designed and promoted by international organizations.

ACA has a well developed training strategy related to its targets. Training programs, tools exist and trainers are identified. Research and analyses are carried out in-house on a regular basis.

Collection and processing of data Individual Level

Staff of the ACA is not prepared to perform collection and analysis of data. Most of the work on data collection, analysis or reports is produced by NGOs.

Few staff of the ACA are prepared to perform collection and analysis of data. Some of the analysis work is outsourced. ACA uses some reports produced by NGOs and other agencies.

A certain number of staff members are well prepared to perform collection and analysis of data. Reports produced by NGOs and other agencies are used as well. The activity is somehow useful for monitoring the implementation of the action plan but could be improved.

The internal capacity to collect and analyze data is very good. Reports are useful for monitoring and evaluation of the activities of the AC program. Relevant work of NGOs and other agencies in this area is collected and analyzed.

59

9.DISSEMINATING KNOWLEDGE Organizing trainings, seminars, workshops and other forms of training for public officials Organizational Level The ACA staff (almost) never deliver (or participate in the delivery) of trainings to other state agencies. Trainings are delivered by external consultants or by few senior managers with some training experience. The ACA staff sometimes deliver trainings, however there is little internal capacity for that. The ACA relies mostly on external experts. Trainings are organized mostly ad-hoc, when there are funds available or in line with international organizations programmes. The ACA participates in discussions over project ideas and provides some input for the development and implementation of the projects, but most of the work is done by the international community or consultants. ACA hosts or organizes trainings quite regularly, but the activities are mostly stand-alone and not part of a long term capacity development strategy. Some of the activities are delivered by own staff. ACA has long term training programs for other agencies. It has developed a good in-house capacity to deliver trainings.

Project formulation / development of project proposals Organizational Level

The ACA does not have the capacity to develop project ideas, plan a budget and implement. Projects in reality are developed by the intenational organizations and consultants.

There are specific project ideas that were designed and developed byt the ACA to a stage that has ensured they will become a full project proposal with external assistance. Implementation is also partially carried out by the staff of the ACA.

Full scale projects are formulated inhouse, including budget plans; the ACA has participated in discussions on project ideas and has formulated project ideas to international donors/consultants, meaningfully participating in all stages of project development.

60

10. ENHANCING CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION Organization of promotional and educational campaigns for increasing of the level of public awareness of corruption problem Enabling Environment Participation of civil society and other representatives of the local community (e.g., academics) in the activities of the ACA Organizational Level Significant resource, political or regulatory constraints prevent public institutions (including ACA) from organizing significant public awareness campaigns. Educational activities and public awareness campaigns exist, but are mostly developed by other organizations. The role of the ACA is very limited. The ACA develops some small scale educational projects and public campaigns, but it does not have its own strategy and often depends on donor funding. The ACA is recognized as the main agency for educational and public awareness activities on anti-corruption, and has a strategy in this area with a dedicated budget. When other organizations initiate such activities, they are coordinated with the ACA.

The ACA does not have procedures allowing civil society participation to its activities or projects.

The ACA sometimes organizes seminars or round-tables and invites participation, but the involvement of the citizens and local communities in the work of the ACA is very limited. The ACA takes opportunities to engage in PR/marketing as they arise; ACA has some PR/ marketing skills and experience among its staff or via external assistance.

Some of ACAs projects or activities have been developed upon request from, or in partnership with NGOs. The ACA has a procedure for consultation with the civil society, but it is loosely implemented. The ACA considers PR/ marketing to be useful and actively seeks opportunities to engage in these activities; the ACA has good internal expertise and experience in PR/marketing or access to relevant external assistance.

Public relations and marketing Organizational Level / Individual level

The ACA makes no or limited use of PR/marketing; general lack of PR/marketing skills and expertise (either internal or accessible external expertise)

Representatives of the civil society and local community sit on the Board of the ACA. Procedures for consultation with the NGOs exist and are applied consistently. Some of the activities of the ACA have been promoted by private citizens, who are also empowered to monitor the activities of the ACA. The ACA is fully aware of the necessity of PR/marketing and is engaged actively in these activities. The ACA has a broad pool of PR/marketing expertise and experience and makes efficient use of external assistance.

61

11. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRUPTION RISKS AND INTEGRITY ASSESSMENTS Fraud and corruption risk policies, involvement of the ACA Enabling Environment There is no formal requirement for public institutions to undertake risk assessments, ACA is not involved in developing corruption risk policies of other national institutions. Public institutions are required to conduct risk assessments and the ACA is expected to assist them. However, there is no effective enforcement. The ACA has no leverage to push other institutions to undertake risk assessments and followup to the findings, and plays a limited role, e.g. providing technical assistance if and when requested. Procedures and internal documents/ manuals/ methodologies/ guidelines exist, but are not effectively applied in practice. Key public institutions are required to conduct risk assessment and there is an enforcement mechanism. ACA is expected to play a key role in implementation and monitoring, but coordination mechanisms and interinstitutional leverage are weak, which leads to inconsistent implementation. Specific fraud and corruption risk policy is at a place in the public institutions and is effectively applied. The ACA has sufficient authority and proactively supports other institutions in implementing the policies. The ACA is recognized as the main actor and centre of expertise in this area.

The ACAs risk review and assessment process is thoroughly documented Organizational Level

There are no written records for the ACAs risk review and assessment process.

There are detailed procedures and internal documents / manuals / guidelines for conducting risk review and assessment. Some practical application can be documented.

The ACAs risk review and assessment are thoroughly documented and consistently applied in practice. Based on application experience, the guidelines and methodologies are regularly reviewed and refined.

12.1) CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT COI, Legislation Drafting Enabling Environment Legal and policy framework for CoI management is lacking, poor or incomplete. The ACA has provided no opinions on legislation drafting with regard to CoI management. The ACA has provided some opinions on legislation drafting with regard to CoI Management, but there is no structured process, activities are mainly adhoc. Regulatory impact assessment, consultative process and stakeholders involvement are limited and on ad-hoc basis. The ACA is providing opinions on legislation drafting with regard to CoI management in the framework of a structured process. The ACA is regularly providing opinions on legal development with regard to CoI management in the framework of a structured process; regulation impact assessment is done systematically; consultative process and broad-based stakeholders involvement.

62

CoI Management Section/ Department Organizational Level

No department exists within the ACA, no capacity to report and manage CoI, or the Department is not staffed.

There is a CoI Management department or unit, which is not fully operational. The staff is not fully trained and competent. The ACA has a policy document and related administrative procedures for CoI management, but they are not consistently applied.

Structured CoI Management Department exists within the ACA. The Department is adequately staffed and has a well structured Strategy for reporting and managing CoI. The ACA has a full-fledged, working policy and defined administrative procedures on CoI management, which are implemented in practice.

Fully structured and functional CoI Management Department within the ACA. The CoI management functions of the Department are tightly linked to the strategic national strategic documents. Staff is well trained and experienced in the field. The policy and written administrative procedure for CoI management are clearly defined in the work of the ACA and are applied effectively and consistently into practice. Lessons from experience in application are captured and used to improve legal, methodological and procedural frameworks for CoI.

CoI management process Organizational Level

The ACA does not have a policy and administrative procedures for reviewing cases of CoI, including additional employment, inside information issues, gifts management, personal pecuniary and nonpecuniary interests.

12.3) ASSET AND INCOME DISCLOSURE REGIMES Legislation Enabling Environment No legislation in the field is in place. There is no mechanism for verification of assets and income declarations. There is legislation describing the assets disclosure regime, but it is not up to the international standards and not applied into practice. Mechanism for enforcement and verification exist in law but are not applied. There is a unit; but no specific procedures/ manuals/ guidelines exist to guide its work; staff does not receive proper training. There is limited training provided in order to raise the qualification of staff in this area. There are no formal qualification requirements. There is a proper legislation describing the assets disclosure regimes and mechanism for enforcement and verification exists. Application is not complete or fully consistent due to various limitations. There is a proper legislation, describing the assets disclosure regimes and ensuring the transparency and enabling the mechanism for enforcement and verification to perform their functions effectively. The law is applied in practice with results that can be documented. There is a unit performing such functions; specific procedures/ manuals/ guidelines exist and operate in practice; training is provided on a systematic basis to cover capacity gaps; good HR practices are in place. There is an understanding of the national and international standards in the field of assets disclosure. There are formal qualification requirements for the staff. A re-training and international experience exchange system is in place.

Existence of internal unit in charge with Assets declarations collection and processing. Organizational Level Understanding of the national and international standards regarding assets disclosure regimes Individual Level

There is no department /unit in charge with asset declarations collection and processing, or unit is not staffed.

There is a unit performing such functions. Internal procedures/ manuals/ guidelines exist and applied to some extent. Some training is provided to staff, but mostly ad-hoc. There is an understanding of the national and international standards in the field of assets disclosure. Formal qualification is required for the staff.

The staff of the ACA is not trained in the area and has limited understanding of the national and international standards in the assets disclosure area.

63

ANNEX: BASIC UNDP CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS

The UNDP, as well as other international development agencies and donors, has a considerable experience in promoting capacity development as part of its core mandate. In its Capacity Development Practice Note,32 UNDP identifies distinct dimensions that need to be considered in capacity development of institutions, for the development o this Methodology two main dimensions were utilized: 1) points of entry, or levels where capacity of institutions exists; 2) types of capacities that need to be addressed. These dimensions are closely interrelated and must be approached in an integrated manner when designing capacity development programs. Let us briefly examine these dimensions in turn.

1. Points of entry (levels where capacity exists) Capacity of institutions is identified to reside at three levels: the enabling environment, the organizational level, and the individual level. Capacity development efforts need to address each of these levels. The enabling environment refers to the broader system within which individuals and organizations function, which facilitates or hampers their existence and performance. It includes policies, rules and norms, values, governing mandates, priorities, modes of operation, and civic engagement across different parts of society: in short, the rules of the game for interaction between and among organizations. The organizational level of capacity comprises the internal policies, arrangements, procedures and frameworks that allow an organization to operate and deliver on its mandate, and that enable the coming together of individual capacities to work together and achieve goals. If these exist, are well-resourced and well-aligned, the capability of an organization to perform will be greater than that of the sum of its parts. The individual level refers to the skills, experience and knowledge that are vested in people. Each person is endowed with a mix of capacities that allows them to perform, whether at home, at work or in society at large. Some of these are acquired through formal training and education, others through learning by doing and experience. The three levels of capacity are mutually interactive and each level influences the other through complex co-dependency relationships, which can be visualized in the following manner: Enabling environment (Policies, legislation, power relations, social norms)

Organizational level (Internal policies, arrangements, procedures, frameworks)

Individual level (Experience, knowledge, technical skills)

32

The following section is adapted from the UNDP Capacity Development Practice Note, October 2008.

64

Each of these levels needs to be considered when designing capacity development initiatives, and each of these levels can be the point of entry for a capacity assessmentthe first step in designing capacity development programs.

2. Types of capacities UNDP distinguishes between two types of capacities: functional and technical. Functional capacities are cross-cutting capacities that are relevant across various levels and are not associated with one particular sector or theme. They are the management capacities needed to formulate, implement and review policies, strategies, programs and projects. Since they focus on getting things done, they are of key importance for successful capacity development. Technical capacities are those associated with particular areas of expertise and practice in specific sectors or themes, such as climate change, HIV/AIDS, legal empowerment, elections or anti-corruption. They are closely related to the issues, sectors or organizations in focus.

Both types of capacities are needed for the success of an institution, but it is often the technical capacities that receive attention, while the functional capacities are neglected. UNDP experience has identified the following functional capacities as key in all institutional contexts, regardless of the particular function an institution performs. The five functional capacities that UNDP emphasizes are: Capacity to engage stakeholders, including the capacity to: Identify, motivate and mobilize stakeholders; Create partnerships and networks; Promote engagement of civil society and the private sector; Manage large group processes and open dialogue; Mediate divergent interests; Establish collaborative mechanisms. Capacity to assess a situation and define a vision and mandate, including the capacity to: Access, gather and disaggregate data and information; Analyze and synthesize data and information; Articulate capacity assets and needs; Translate information into a vision and/or a mandate. Capacity to formulate policies and strategies, including the capacity to: Explore different perspectives; Set objectives; Elaborate sectoral and cross-sectoral policies; Manage priority-setting mechanisms. Capacity to budget, manage and implement, including the capacity to: Formulate, plan, manage and implement projects and programs, including the capacity to prepare a budget and to estimate capacity development costs; Manage human and financial resources and procurement; Set indicators for monitoring and monitor progress. Capacity to evaluate, including the capacity to: Measure results and collect feedback to adjust policies; Codify lessons and promote learning; Ensure accountability to all relevant stakeholders.
UNDP Capacity Development Practice Note p. 12

65

In developing countries, many state institutions are obliged to seek funding beyond the allocations from the national budgets to perform effectively. It could therefore be argued that fundraising capacity (capacity to design projects, formulate funding proposals, track and report on the achievements, etc.) should be considered as an additional functional capacity, particularly in the context of anti-corruption agencies under consideration here. As we will see, the capacity to perform the most commonly-mandated corruption-prevention functions requires a significant level of functional capacities in addition to the technical ones.

Underlying the functional capacities are the Core issues/Drivers of capacity change: are the issues that UNDP has encountered most commonly across sectors and levels of capacity. In other words, the following are the domains where the bulk of changes in capacity take place: institutional arrangements; leadership; knowledge; and accountability. Institutional arrangements refer to the policies, procedures and processes that countries have in place to legislate, plan and manage governance and development, measure change, and administer other state functions. Efficient and well-functioning institutional arrangements are relevant at both the national or inter-institutional level, and also at the level of the institution itself. At this level, human resources management is a particularly critical aspect, as are intra-institutional policies (mission and strategy) and business processes (including monitoring and evaluation procedures). Sub-optimal institutional arrangements can lead to inefficiencies and poor performance both at the organizational level and also more broadly across the public sector. Leadership is the ability to influence, inspire and motivate people, organizations and societies to achieve and exceed their goals. An important characteristic of good leadership is the ability to anticipate and manage change to foster human development. Leadership is not synonymous with a position of authority; it can also be informal and manifest itself in many ways and at different levels. Although leadership is most commonly associated with an individual leader, it can equally reside within a government unit that takes the lead in implementing public administration reform, or in large social movements that bring about society-wide change. Knowledge refers to the creation, absorption and diffusion of information and expertise towards effective development solutions. What people know underpins their capacities. Knowledge needs can be addressed at different levels (national/local/sector, institution) and through different means (formal education, technical training, knowledge networks and informal learning). While the growth and sharing of knowledge is primarily fostered at the level of the individual, it can also be stimulated at the level of organizations, for example, through a knowledge management system or an organizational learning strategy. Accountability exists when two parties adhere to a set of rules and procedures that govern their interactions and the way in which they deliver on their obligations. In a national institutional context, accountability also relates to a proportional relationship of powers and oversight of those powers to ensure that authority is wielded in the public interest (rather than for particular political or personal interests) and without undue discretion. Appropriate accountability systems provide legitimacy to decision-making, increase transparency, and help reduce the influence of vested interests.

66