Monitoring public institutions’ integrity plans

This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from a U4 Partner Agency. The U4 Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International in collaboration with the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre based at the Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Query

Can you share some best practices on systems for monitoring the implementation of public institutions’ integrity plans, including possible indicators that help to measure results?

Purpose

We are supporting the anti-corruption agency in Serbia. One of the tasks of the agency is assisting the different public institutions in elaboration of integrity plans. The anti-corruption agency is now working on a system for monitoring the implementation of such plans and needs some advice on how to proceed. Author(s): Marie Chêne, Transparency International, [email protected]
Reviewed by: Robin Hodess PhD, Transparency International, [email protected]
Date: 27 September 2011 Number: 296
U4 Expert Answers provide targeted and timely anti-corruption expert advice to U4 partner agency staff www.U4.no

Content

1. Overview of public sector integrity assessment tools
2. Country examples of public sector integrity monitoring systems
3. References

Summary

Monitoring integrity requires a conceptual framework that defines integrity as well as set clear objectives, targets and SMART performance indicators by which progress can be measured. The OECD has developed a comprehensive integrity assessment framework, which aims at: 1) collecting valid and reliable data on the existence and functioning of the key instruments, processes and actors in place for defining integrity, guiding integrity, and monitoring and enforcing compliance and; 2) comparing them with benchmarks compiled across comparable government institutions.

Optimal monitoring relies on a mixture of both objective and perception-based data and involves to some degree a combination of various monitoring methods such as desk reviews, expert assessments, surveys, focus group discussions, field observation, professional assessment of integrity provisions and practices, corruption and integrity checklists, risk assessments, etc. Whatever the option selected, the monitoring system should be inclusive and participatory and provide for civil society’s participation and access to information and documents.

The review of monitoring systems in countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan or Tanzania indicates that, in spite of considerable efforts invested in their design, existing monitoring mechanisms face major implementation and coordination challenges in practice, due to lack of resources, capacity, and political backing. Given constraints relating to access and quality of data in many countries, there is a need to build monitoring systems which allow the collection of accurate and reliable data in a sustainable manner, while taking into account the information management capacities of local institutions.

Authors

Reviewers

Date

27/09/2011

Tags