b y ACRC(Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission, Republic of Korea)

Integrity AssessmentOf Public Organizations

1. Concept and Background

Lord Kelvin (British physicist)

An innovative initiative to encourage public institutions

to engage in voluntary efforts to prevent corruption

by regularly assessing and disclosing

the integrity levels at public institutions

Concept of Integrity Assessment

1

1. Concept and Background

Implement preventive measuresfor corruption-causing factors

Reactive approachbased on crack-down and punishment

Efficiency

Background

2

Introduce scientificassessment model

Limits ofconventionalcorruption assessment models

Accuracy

Promote citizens’rights to know and participation

Growing public awareness about corruption issues

Transparency

Integrity AssessmentInitiative

Solutions

Problems

Values

’

Increase national

competitiveness

through enhanced

integrity

2. Objectives and Features

Understand trends in corruption levelsof public organizations

Identify corruption-prone areasin the public sector and root causes of corruption

Encourage public institutionsto engage in voluntary anti-corruption efforts

Provide basic data for devising government-wideanti-corruption strategies

Objectives

3

2. Objectives and Features

Areas to be assessed Persons to be surveyed

?

Survey questions

Individual organizations

and their specific tasksFirst-hand service users

and internal staff of pub-

lic organizations

Personal perception

of corruption & actual ex-

perience with corrupt

practices

(offering of money, gifts,

entertainment or favors)

Features

4

Data sources Assessment results

A++

Phone or online sur-

veys & statistics

on the public

officials punished

for corrupt acts

Disclosed to relevant or-

ganizations and

the media

5

2. Objectives and Features

Features

3. History of development

Integrity Assessment

6

Developed, tested & im-proved the integrity assessment model

Officially con-

ducted the 1st assess-ment(71 organizations, 348 lines of work, about 30,000 people)

Introduced

internal in-tegrity as-sessment methods

Revamped the

assessment model (to the current system)

Conducted

the 11th assess-ment(627 organiza-tions, 2,507 lines of work, about 240,000people)

1999-2001 2007 2008 2012 20132002

To conduct

the 12th as-sessment(653 organiza-tions, 2,628 lines of work, about 240,000people)

4. Assessment Model Structure

Comprehensive

integrity

(Deducted)

How transparently and accountably public officialscarry out duties without committing corruption

Statistics on employees punished for their corruptionor corruption cases reported in media

Levels of corruption in managerial activities, institutional practices and organizational culture

Levels of corruption in the processesof determining and executing policies

Internalintegrity

Policy customerevaluation

Externalintegrity

Cases ofCorruption

Integrity Assessment Model (2013)

7

5. Effectiveness

Reliable data is collected by surveying some 240,000 people

Provide accurate information on the current status of corruption01

Analysis of corruption-prone areas in each public organization

02Provide an effective tool to encourage voluntary anti-corruption efforts

Results are disclosed though the media to raise the issue of corruption

Raise public awareness about corruption in the public sector03

8

Gyeonggi provincial govern-ments trying hard to enhance integrity scores Local governments to take

drastic measures to come out on the bottom in the Integrity Index

Low integrity, no promotion

5. Effectiveness

9

6.43

7.718.38 8.68 8.77 8.89

8.20 8.51 8.44 8.43

4.13.5

1.50.9

0.7 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4

0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3

Comprehensive Integrity (points)

Offering entertainment (%)

Offering money / gifts (%)

Offering money / gifts / entertainment (%)

7.86

0.5

0.4

2012

6. Achievements

Integrity Index and rate of offering money, gifts and entertainment to public officials

Integrity levels have continued to improve in the public sector

10

*Time series interrupted in 2012 due to modification of the model

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013

7.86

0.29

0.25

“Integrity Assessment” Program wins

2012 UN Public Service Awardsin the category of Preventing & Combating Corruption

at the UN Headquarters in New Yorkon June 25, 2012.

11

7. International Recognition & Technical Assistance

Winner of 2012 UN Public Service Awards

Contact Information

Thank YouMr. Dong Hyun KimDeputy Director, Anti-Corruption Survey & Evaluation Division

Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission

Republic of Korea

Tel: 82-2-360-6548

Fax: 82-2-360-3547

E-mail: kimdhyun@korea.kr