Capacity Assessment Methodology-AC Agencies 1 1

8/9/2019 Capacity Assessment Methodology-AC Agencies 1 1

1/47

Methodology for Assessing the Capacities ofAnti-Corruption Agencies

to Perform Preventive Functions

UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre

March 2010


2/47


3/47

I. INTRODUCTION

This Methodology has been developed by UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC)1 building on best practices and lessons learned derived from support provided to anti-corruption agencies in the specific context of the Eastern European and the CIScountries, as well as on a series of analysis/researches regarding the same area. Whilethe Methodology can be considered as a valid instrument for supporting anti-corruptionagencies 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 theobservations and recommendations contained in the document that may not fully applyor may have different application in other regions.

The Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs) that were subject to the mentioned research andanalysis operate in an environment, in which levels of administrative corruption andstate capture remain high after almost two decades of transition; it seems evident that,despite the distinctive characteristics of the different countries, some of their sharedlegacy from recent history has a bear on the degree and specifics of the corruptionphenomenon across the region.

One of the features shaping the context of anti-corruption in many of the countries ofthe region is the persistent capacity deficit in their public administrations. From theprevious regime, they inherited very hierarchical administrative structures, politicallycontrolled, secretive and accountable much more to the vertical of power than to thecitizens whom public institutions are supposed to serve. Several countries (especially inthe CIS, but not only) present an administrative environment in which patronage,

nepotism and decision-making through non-transparent channels of personal influenceare an entrenched part 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 civilsociety. The long suppression of civil liberties, the impossibility of creating socialstructures outside the party’s control, as well as the lack of independent media,annihilated or severely reduced the capacity of civil society to organize itself forpromoting collective interests autonomously from the state. Partially the problem isrelated to the lack of organizational structure within the civil society itself.

To address the issue of corruption many governments in the region started, during thelast decade, developing anti-corruption strategies and institutional arrangements forfighting corruption. It must be said that the international community played afundamental role in this development through both political pressure and direct technicalsupport. An inventory of the anti-corruption agencies existing in the region reveals a

l f i li d ti f ti i ll th i t f


4/47


5/47

The UNDP Capacity Development Process consists of five steps:

The methodology presented here aims to assist practitioners in designing quality

programs to assess and develop the capacities of anti-corruption agencies by guidingthem through the second and third steps of the diagram above: the capacity assessmentand the formulation of capacity development responses.

The assessment phase is critical to capacity development efforts as it lays thefoundations for the design and implementation of informed, appropriate, and effectivecapacity development responses. It can also set the baseline for continuous monitoringand evaluation of progress, and thereby lay a solid foundation for long-term planning,implementation and sustainable results.

This methodology will:

Present and explain the preventive anti-corruption functionsmost commonly performed by anti-corruption agencies;

Step 3:

FormulateCD

Responses

Step 4:

ImplementCD

Responses

Step 1:Engage

Stakeholder s on

CD Process

Step 5: Evaluate

CD

Step 2: AssessCapacity

Assets andNeeds

Capacity

Development

Process


6/47

II. DEFINING THE TARGET: CORRUPTION PREVENTION AGENCIES

Co r r u p t i o n p r e v e n t i o n a g e n c i e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e UNCAC

Governments and development agencies have been grappling with the challenge ofcurbing corruption for decades: it is a difficult task as corruption is a complexphenomenon, 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 received more attention over the years, and there exist quite clear legal andoperational guidelines on how to best organize and strengthen law enforcementcapacities in the fight against corruption.4 Prevention, however, has been more difficultto conceptualize and codify, in part because it concerns a wide diversity of sectors,institutions, and regulatory systems, each requiring significantly different approachesand norms.

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)—the most far-reachinginternational instrument both geographically and substantively—is the first convention to

codify the range of preventive issues that need to be addressed by states. Preventivemeasures are outlined Chapter II of the UNCAC, and include effective public financialmanagement; streamlining of administrative procedures; transparency across the publicsector; effective rules to monitor the financial situation of public officials and financing ofpolitical parties; conflict of interest provisions—to name only a few. Standards and goodpractices on operationalizing each of the required preventive measures exist in a numberof different sources.5 The achievement of the UNCAC is to approach themcomprehensively; to create the necessary link between fighting corruption and

promoting the principles of rule of law, proper management of public affairs and publicproperty, integrity, transparency and accountability; and to recognize the essential roleof civil society in anti-corruption efforts.

The UNCAC emphasizes the importance of prevention by setting for participating statesthe obligation to ensure the existence of institution(s) responsible for corruptionprevention.

What does corruption prevention mean? Why are agencies that preventcorruption important? The United Nations Convention againstCorruption (UNCAC) is the first international legal instrument to set therequirement of state institutions responsible for preventing corruption.Below we will review the role of such agencies and the capacity challenges


7/47

The UNCAC is a relatively recent instrument, and its treatment of preventive functionsand agencies required to perform those functions is unique. There are consequently fewresources developed to date to assist governments, development partners, and civilsociety activists in implementing the obligations it sets out with regard to preventivefunctions in particular. Hence, this Toolkit.

T h e p r o b l e m o f c r e at i n g p r e v e n t i o n o f c o r r u p t i o n b o d i e s

The UNCAC does not provide many explicit requirements for the body or bodiesresponsible for preventing corruption, recognizing the diversity of national institutionalframeworks. Many, if not most, countries have in the course of their institutionaldevelopment established implementing or oversight agencies to regulate or monitor

public procurement, the merit-based recruitment of civil servants, or ethical conduct ofofficials. In other words, in most countries, a number of agencies performing certainpreventive functions will be in existence. The UNCAC recognizes this reality andemphasizes preventive functions that must be performed, rather than to specify aspecific institutional framework for performing those functions.

At the same time, anti-corruption practice around the world has given rise to a numberof anti-corruption agencies and some trends in thinking about such bodies. The earlysuccesses of a select number of such bodies—most notably, the multi-purpose agencies

of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Botswana—have given impetus to efforts to replicate theirsuccess, and a reflex to promote the formula of specialized multi-purpose agencies. Theresults, however, have been largely disappointing. Furthermore, the rash of activity hasgiven rise to some serious misunderstandings about what precisely the UNCACprescribes. The existence of multi-purpose bodies, and requirements for specialized lawenforcement capacities (UNCAC Article 36) have sometimes been erroneously interpretedto also apply to agencies working on prevention This is not the case The bodies

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 ofthose policies;(b) Increasing and disseminating knowledge about the prevention ofcorruption.


8/47

Today in the region Eastern Europe and the CIS, but also globally, there exists quite arange of agencies with anti-corruption mandates, including those that relate to

corruption prevention. Many of them are relatively new bodies, established to undertakefunctions that were not addressed previously, and where it did not seem appropriate oreffective to integrate the new functions into existing institutions. Often, the motivationto establish a new agency was a wish to signal a new beginning and demonstrate a newcommitment. Whatever the reason, building a new institution is not an easy task: itrequires the introduction of reforms and considerable human and financial investmentsthat are sometimes obstructed for political reasons; the new agency may have problemsin developing the necessary cooperation with the other bodies, which may createtensions and conflicts (over resources, powers, responsibilities); it may lack the

necessary administrative support in terms of appropriate human resources, finances, ICTsystems, premises, and thus be prevented from carrying out much meaningful activity.In sum, the capacity challenges facing agencies with corruption-preventionresponsibilities are many and diverse.

In view of the importance of these agencies in the overall national anti-corruptionframeworks, it is critical that these capacity deficiencies be addressed. Significantnational and/or donor resources have been invested in their establishment in the greatmajority of cases, and cost of their failure extends far beyond the financial investmentthat has been made. Unsuccessful or stagnant anti-corruption efforts can increase publicdisappointment in reforms and in the national political leadership more generally. It canbreed public cynicism about the democratic process altogether, which is a serious threatfor all countries in transition. For these reasons, assistance is essential.

The purpose of this Methodology is to assist practitioners inassessing the capacities of anti-corruption agencies to performkey corruption prevention functions.


9/47

III. MOST COMMON CORRUPTION PREVENTION FUNCTIONS

Considering the great number of anti-corruption agencies in the Eastern European andthe CIS Region, their various functions and mandates, and given the specific nationalcontext of each country as well as the varying cultural, legal and administrativecircumstances, it is virtually impossible to identify “best models” or functional andstructural patterns for developing effective prevention of corruption agencies. For thisreason, we decided to develop a methodology that would not refer to specific types ormodels of institutional arrangements but to agencies performing some specific functionswhich fall within the area of prevention of corruption.

For the identification of the functions to be analyzed, the main reference that we used isthe framework for prevention of corruption contained in Chapter II of the UNCAC.According to the Convention, the body or bodies for prevention of corruption7 shall begiven the task of developing, maintaining, revising and monitoring the implementation ofeffective, coordinated anticorruption policies. Chapter II of the Convention frames theprevention of corruption policies in the areas of public sector transparency andaccountability, introduction of codes of conduct, public procurement and management of

public finances, public reporting and civil society participation in the fight againstcorruption.

The identification of the functions to be treated by the methodology was further refinedby an analysis of the activities actually carried out by prevention of corruption bodies inthe region. This analysis has been also enriched by surveys and interviews of preventionof corruption practitioners working in the region, conducted by the UNDP BRC during thelast three years in the framework of its regional “Anti-Corruption Practitioners Network” 8.

In this section the preventive anti-corruption functions are presented and explained inbroad terms, for more details on the capacities necessary to carry out each of thefunctions please refer to the Capacity Assessment Guidelines at p. 36.

Summary of most common preventive anti-corruption functions

1. Anti-Corruption Policy formulation2. Conducting diagnostics and research on corruption

3. Development of implementation plans4. Legislative drafting5. Production of implementation guidelines6. Monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption policies7. Evaluating the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies8. Coordinating the implementation of preventive policies9 Promoting international cooperation


10/47

generally lacking in most countries around the world. There is no dedicated academicdiscipline 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 focus area within a larger discipline, orthrough practice, e.g. through public administration reform efforts that seek to addressthe problem. It is unsurprising that many agencies experience capacity challenges inthis respect.

This mandate typically also includes the responsibility to develop, or provide expertadvice in developing comprehensive national anti-corruption strategies.Comprehensive strategies are a special challenge, as their purpose is to bring together in

a single comprehensive policy document the wide range of corruption-preventionmeasures required across the public sector as well as measures to strengthen lawenforcement. They must furthermore note the links between many inter-relatedprocesses and set priorities, so that the totality of the challenge can be approachedstrategically and in a coordinated fashion, and resources be managed most efficiently.To accomplish all this, there must be expertise on the broad range of institutionalregimes and public policy processes, including public financial managementfunctions, public procurement, civil service management, service delivery systems(healthcare, pensions system), state-owned enterprises, and privatization processes,among numerous others. Developing such a document furthermore requires extensiveconsultation and coordination with the various institutions involved in order toobtain their support and ownership of the proposed reforms.

Anti-corruption policies are often developed or revised to meet international obligations.Even when no such obligation exists, the aim would be to align the national legal orregulatory framework with international best practices, which implies a close knowledgeof international instruments and standards that apply both nationally and for

specific sectors. Similarly, knowledge of remedies is required—the regulatory andprocedural approaches and good practices that have been demonstrated aseffective both domestically and in other countries. Of course, any potential remediesmust be reviewed for applicability to the national context. Many anti-corruptioninterventions result in disappointments precisely because they are “imported” withoutsufficient analysis of their appropriateness in the different locality.

Anti-corruption policies are essentially reform responses. In order to arrive at anappropriate response, however, an assessment of the problem is needed first. Anti-

corruption policy formulation necessarily entails diagnostic research in its numerousforms and requires related specialized expertise. We therefore treat diagnostic researchas a separate function, below.

It is unlikely that any one agency can have the totality of the expertise enumeratedhere. It is far more likely that at least some of the expertise would have to be


11/47

2 . Co n d u c t i n g d i a g n o s t i c s a n d r e s e a r c h

Effective anti-corruption policies cannot be designed without a thorough assessment ofthe problem: corruption is a symptom of any number of system gaps or failures. Properdiagnostic research is needed to identify and understand the spread or concentration ofcorruption within a system, the specific forms it takes, and the vulnerability of systemsand processes to corruption. Diagnostic methodologies encompass legislative analysis;analysis of specific systems and how they operate in practice (e.g. public procurement);various survey methodologies; analysis of statistical data to provide quantitativeindicators on corruption; corruption risk assessments in institutional business processesor legislation; to name only the most common approaches. (As we will see in section 7

below, these approaches are also necessary for the evaluation of anti-corruption policies,with initial findings constituting a baseline against which change can be measured.)The various methodologies require a range of social science research methods, such asinterviews, surveys, observation and field tests, as well as analytical skills to link thefindings with systems and policies.

In addition to research and analytical capacities that are also needed for policydevelopment, the diagnostic research function is treated separately because of additional

expertise needed for applying the specific social science research methods. 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 skillsneeded to undertake it, is probable that some portion of the work will be outsourced.The opportunity to collaborate with civil society in performing this function is particularlyattractive, as domestic or international academic institutes, think tanks, and civil societyorganizations may already be involved in generating relevant data. In addition, Anti-corruption Agencies (ACAs) may wish to dedicate their internal diagnostic researchcapacities to processing classified information sources that are not open to external

actors. With outsourcing, ACAs nevertheless need to have a minimum level of capacityfor research design and analysis to manage and evaluate the quality of the receivedresearch, 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. Stayingabreast of resources and developments in the field of governance assessments (e.g.corruption, public administration, local governance assessments), including by sharingexperiences with national and international assessment practitioners, is essential forenhancing and maintaining capacities.

3 . D e v e l o p m e n t o f I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n s


12/47

To carry out this function the agencies need extensive individual capacities as well assystems and processes for communication and coordination with all the institutions

concerned, including civil society organizations that may have a role in implementingcertain anti-corruption policy measures or in monitoring the efforts.

4 . L e g i sl a t i v e d r a f t i n g

New or amended laws often represent an important step in implementing anti-corruptionpolicies in that they provide the legal framework which underpins the desired policy

changes. ACAs are often also mandated to perform legislative drafting, which is in factonly a technical function that translates policy decisions into legal form. Too often,legislative drafting takes place prematurely, with policy being shaped by the draftingprocess rather than the reverse. Furthermore, a key feature of actual legislative draftingis to ensure that there are no conflicts created with other legislation in existence. Forthis reason, the technical aspects of legislative drafting would be best left to thededicated staff of ministries of justice who should have the overview and the explicitresponsibility to ensure overall national legislative harmonization. Ideally, the role

of the ACA in this process would rather be to clearly formulate the desired policyoutcomes and verify that the proposed legal language satisfies those policy objectives.If the function is the full responsibility of the ACA, however, at a minimum, extensivecoordination with the relevant unit of the ministry of justice will be required.

5 . Pr o d u c t i o n o f I m p l e m e n t a t i o n g u i d e l in e s

The effective implementation of any public policy often requires substantial changes inan institution’s day-to-day operations, including new organizational arrangements,procedures, instruments, and new knowledge/technical capacities, all of which mayrequire significant financial resources. Furthermore, institutions implementing newpolicies require support in change management9, as few will have the tools andtechniques needed to initiate and sustain organizational transformation.

Anti-corruption agencies are often mandated to guide and support institutions in

implementing anti-corruption policies. If an ACA has led the process of policydevelopment, it will have a minimum level of the substantive technical knowledge aboutthe issue being regulated, and may be able to participate in drafting policyimplementation guidelines, including the definition of roles and responsibilities for allaffected parties. Elaborating such guidelines should take place in close consultation withthe implementing institutions and other stakeholders, in the same way that policydevelopment took place However an ACA is unlikely to have the full range of


13/47

the impact (function 7) of the policies in question, and provide the institutions withfeedback on the results of their efforts. ACAs must have excellent communication and

coordination capacities, above all else, to effectively interact with the institutions inperforming this function.

6 . M o n i t o r i n g t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a n t i - c o r r u p t i o n p o l i c i e s

Anti-corruption agencies are also frequently mandated to monitor the implementation ofanti-corruption policies by other institutions, particularly elements of comprehensive

national strategies and the related implementation plans. To perform that taskeffectively, agencies would need an information management supporting infrastructureto effectively communicate and coordinate with all concerned national institutions incollecting periodic status reports, as well as the correct positioning within a country’sinstitutional set-up and leverage with counterpart institutions. Also, they need sufficientanalytical capacities to formulate guidelines on reporting and perform qualitycontrol of the reports received from other institutions, review progress against setbenchmarks and issue consolidated progress reports.

Closer monitoring of the implementation of specific policies is a more resource intensiveprospect, requiring systematic collection of information over time, and systems formanaging and analyzing data. Collaboration with CSOs is often invaluable for carryingout this level of monitoring, particularly as many of them may already engage in suchactivities, e.g. monitoring the procurement of public contracts, delivery of services, orcompliance with political party and campaign finance rules, among others. Monitoringpublic service reforms can be done at points of interface between service suppliers andusers, for instance, through the use of citizen report cards on municipal services. Such

partnerships can enhance the legitimacy of results in addition to relieving some of theinstitutional burden of data collection, and contribute to awareness raising and mobilizingpublic support for ACAs.

7 . Ev a l u a t i n g t h e e f f e ct i v e n e s s o f a n t i - c o r r u p t i o n p o l i c ie s

As opposed to monitoring, which looks at progress in implementation, evaluationconcerns itself with the outcomes (the impact) of anti-corruption measures. To do this,in addition to general knowledge of institutions and processes concerned, there is a needfor competence in applying specific evaluation methodologies. These will resemble toa significant extent the diagnostic approaches noted above (section 2). In fact, thereshould be an explicit link between the initial diagnostic research and researchundertaken subsequently for evaluation purposes: the initial findings should constitute a


14/47

8 . Co o r d i n a t i n g t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f p r e v e n t i v e p o l i ci e s

Anti-corruption agencies are likewise typically mandated to coordinate theimplementation of anti-corruption policies, including measures that strengthen lawenforcement capacities within the framework of comprehensive national strategies. Aswe will have seen from the discussion above, coordination already takes place at manylevels: at the stage of elaborating anti-corruption policies and implementation plans withconcerned institutions, at the stage of monitoring progress on implementation, and whenevaluating outcomes.

Additional coordination may be required nevertheless 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 bodyreceiving complaints from bidders on breaches of rules, or between the body receivingcomplaints and the body responsible for sanctions (law enforcement). Additional formalmechanisms may need to be established, for instance inter-agency cooperationprotocols. The extent to which the anti-corruption agency has the capacity to advise orotherwise serve as an intermediary for effective coordination, or even impose effectivecoordination, depends on its overall mandate, as well as institutional positioning and

level of authority prescribed in its founding legislation.

9 . Pr o m o t i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o o p e r a t io n

Developing national anti-corruption policies, including legislation, that are harmonizedwith international standards and good practices implies a dimension of internationalcooperation. Recognizing this need, the UNCAC provides for international cooperation in

several articles, e.g. art. 5.4 (on corruption prevention), art.60, and the full Chapter IVof UNCAC (the latter mostly concerned with international cooperation on lawenforcement). Anti-corruption agencies are typically the national counterparts ininitiatives to promote or verify compliance with such standards, for instance with UNCACor relevant regional instruments. They are also typically the focal point for promotingand managing international cooperation on anti-corruption, and representing thecountry in international anti-corruption fora (in Central and Eastern Europe andCIS, these would primarily relate to Council of Europe GRECO and the OECD Anti-

Corruption Network)/Stability Pact Anti-Corruption Initiative). Anti-corruption agenciesmay also serve a “clearing house” function for discussions with internationalorganizations and bilateral donors on specific technical assistance initiatives in support ofanti-corruption policies. (They do not, however, typically have the lead role inestablishing law-enforcement related cooperation protocols such as mutual assistance incriminal matters and extradition treaties, or representing the country in sector-specificinternational regimes such as the association of Supreme Audit Institutions-INTOSAI )


15/47

1 0 . D is se m i n a t i n g k n o w l e d g e o n c o r r u p t i o n p r e v e n t i o n

Article 6 of the UNCAC explicitly identifies “increasing and disseminating knowledge onthe prevention of corruption” as a key corruption prevention function. Anti-corruptionagencies are nearly always mandated with this responsibility. Increasing anddisseminating knowledge must be understood as two separate functions, however.

Increasing knowledge might be interpreted as generating and/or producingknowledge, which is arguably implicit in other functions: development of anti-corruptionpolicies, diagnostic research, or evaluating the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies.

Disseminating knowledge, on the other hand, refers to efforts to extend this technicaland specialized knowledge to different groups in society (thereby also increasingknowledge, in a sense). As there are very few stakeholders who are able to engage onthe expert/technical level, the materials produced need to be made more accessible towider audiences that include state institutions and decision-makes, but also members ofsociety who would take an interest in such information. It is therefore essential thatmore technical reports and analyses be accompanied by short, easy-to-understandbriefing summaries for decision-makers and the media.

Disseminating knowledge also concerns the production of easy-to-understandinformative materials, including implementation guidelines, on the norms andguidelines that concern the staff of certain institutions or civil servants more generally(e.g. public procurement procedures or codes of conduct). Information that concernsthe citizens’ role in fighting corruption needs to be disseminated most broadly (e.g.causes and consequences of corruption, citizens’ rights and obligations in specificadministrative processes, public administration duties and procedures, mechanisms forreporting corruption, etc.).

Dissemination takes different forms as appropriate for the target audiences, eachrequiring different capacities. For instance, disseminating technical reports and analysescan be accomplished though simple distribution of electronic and printed copies to targetaudiences. Dissemination of analytical findings and policy recommendations, or otherreport summaries intended for less technical audiences, on the other hand, wouldrequire dedicated presentations to executive decision-makers or the parliament, andpress briefings for the media, along with posting of the materials on the internet.

Other methods are more appropriate for the dissemination of knowledge about morecomplex sets of rules or policies, for instance codes of conduct. These may includeapproaches such as trainings, seminars, and workshops for civil servants and publicofficials.

Finally, while the media are an effective intermediary for disseminating knowledge to the


16/47

1 1 . En h a n c i n g c i v i l s o c ie t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e f i g h t a g a i n s t c o r r u p t i o n

This function should be understood as including three separate components. The firstcomponent concerns developing systems and policies that promote transparencyand accountability of the public sector, and citizen participation in decision-making processes. These objectives typically constitute part of preventive anti-corruption policies, however, and it is therefore more appropriate to consider them aspart of the policy development function.

The second component consists of including civil society in the performance ofpreventive functions such as anti-corruption policy formulation, diagnostic research,

monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption policies, and dissemination ofknowledge on corruption prevention, as already discussed in the relevant sections,above.

The third component relates to receiving reports and complaints about corruptionfrom the citizens.

This final component requires the elaboration of a reliable and trust-inspiring

mechanisms for citizens to actively resist and report corruption. Anti-corruptionagencies are often entrusted with this function in situations were traditional lawenforcement institutions (e.g. police) do not enjoy the trust of citizens or have in placeprocedures that appear difficult or intimidating.

The capacities needed for this function are fairly specific and concern the effectivereceipt and management of potentially high volumes of contacts; customer service-related competencies; data and case management capabilities (including maintaining theconfidentiality of personal information and protection of sources); analytical capacities to

produce statistical and systems-related reports about the information received (whichalso constitute a form of diagnostic research and monitoring); and finally,communication and coordination capacities to provide feedback to relevant stateinstitutions whom the citizen reports concern, on one hand, and to refer specific cases tolaw enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution, on the other .

1 2 . En f o r c e m e n t o f p r e v e n t i v e a n t i - c o r r u p t i o n m e a su r e s

Anti-corruption agencies are further frequently mandated to implement and/or enforcethe totality or elements of certain preventive regimes, particularly the following:• conflict of interest provisions;• codes of ethics;• asset declaration regulations;


17/47

in another country, the agency may be responsible for verifying the accuracy of thedeclarations. The required capacities differ significantly in the two cases, and individualassessments would need to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each legislativeand institutional context.

Additional topic-specific guidelines on capacity assessment for this function will beforthcoming from UNDP Bratislava Regional Center.

In the next section, we will review the key UNDP capacitydevelopment concepts before turning to a closer look at

the capacities required for the effective performance ofthe above-enumerated preventive functions.


18/47

IV. APPLYING UNDP CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS

The UNDP, as well as other international development agencies and donors, has aconsiderable experience in promoting capacity development as part of its core mandate.In its Capacity Development Practice Note,10 UNDP identifies distinct dimensions thatneed to be considered in capacity development of institutions, for the development o thisMethodology 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 integratedmanner when designing capacity development programs. Let us briefly examine these

dimensions in turn.

1 . P o in t s o f e n t r y ( l e v e l s w h e r e c a p a ci t y e x i s t s )

Capacity of institutions is identified to reside at three levels: the enabling environment,the organizational level, and the individual level. Capacity development efforts need toaddress each of these levels.

The enabling environment refers to the broader system within which individualsand organizations function, which facilitates or hampers their existence andperformance. 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 worktogether and achieve goals. If these exist, are well-resourced and well-aligned, thecapability of an organization to perform will be greater than that of the sum of itsparts.

The individual level refers to the skills, experience and knowledge that are vestedin people Each pe son is endo ed ith a mi of capacities that allo s them to

In this section we will consider some of the key UNDP capacity developmentconcepts and how their relate to supporting anti-corruption agenciesperforming preventive functions.


19/47

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

2 . T y p e s o f c a p a c i t i e s :

UNDP distinguishes between two types of capacities: functional and technical.

Functional capacities are ‘cross-cutting’ capacities that are relevant acrossvarious levels and are not associated with one particular sector or theme. Theyare the management capacities needed to formulate, implement and reviewpolicies, strategies, programs and projects. Since they focus on ‘getting thingsdone’, they are of key importance for successful capacity development regardlessof the situation.

Technical capacities are those associated with particular areas of expertise and

practice in specific sectors or themes, such as climate change, HIV/AIDS, legalempowerment, 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 theh i l i i h i i hil h f i l i i l d

Enabling environment(policies, legislation, power relations, social norms)

Organizational level

(internal policies, arrangements, procedures, frameworks)

Individual level(experience, knowledge, technical skills)


20/47

In developing countries, many state institutions are obliged to seek funding beyond theallocations from the national budgets to perform effectively. It could therefore be arguedthat fundraising capacity (capacity to design projects, formulate funding proposals,track and report on the achievements, etc.) should be considered as an additionalf ti l it ti l l i th t t f ti ti i d

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


21/47

Underlying the functional capacities are the Core issues/Drivers of capacitychange: are the issues that UNDP has encountered most commonly across sectors

and levels of capacity. In other words, the following are the domains where thebulk of changes in capacity take place: institutional arrangements; leadership; knowledge; and accountability.

Institutional arrangements refer to the policies, procedures and processesthat countries have in place to legislate, plan and manage governance and

development, measure change, and administer other state functions. Efficientand well-functioning institutional arrangements are relevant at both thenational or inter-institutional level, and also at the level of the institution itself.At this level, human resources management is a particularly critical aspect, asare intra-institutional policies (mission and strategy) and business processes(including monitoring and evaluation procedures). Sub-optimal institutionalarrangements can lead to inefficiencies and poor performance both at theorganizational 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 importantcharacteristic of good leadership is the ability to anticipate and manage changeto foster human development. Leadership is not synonymous with a position ofauthority; it can also be informal and manifest itself in many ways and atdifferent levels. Although leadership is most commonly associated with anindividual leader, it can equally reside within a government unit that takes thelead 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 andexpertise towards effective development solutions. What people knowunderpins their capacities. Knowledge needs can be addressed at differentlevels (national/local/sector, institution) and through different means (formaleducation, technical training, knowledge networks and informal learning). Whilethe growth and sharing of knowledge is primarily fostered at the level of theindividual, it can also be stimulated at the level of organizations, for example,through a knowledge management system or an organizational learningstrategy.

Accountability exists when two parties adhere to a set of rules andprocedures that govern their interactions and the way in which they deliver ontheir obligations In a national institutional context accountability also relates


22/47

A p p l y i n g CD c o n c e p t s f o r t h e c o n d u c t i o n o f c a p a c it y a s s e ssm e n t s

A capacity assessment is an analysis of desired capacities against existing capacities,which generates an understanding of the assets and needs that serves as a basis forformulating a capacity development response. A capacity assessment should integratethe key capacity development dimensions discussed and adapt them to the specificneeds of the institution or system under consideration.

Below is a discussion of how the key UNDP capacity development concepts relate to anti-corruption agencies performing preventive functions, and how they should be appliedwhen conducting capacity assessments.

1 . En a b l i n g e n v i r o n m e n t :

In the context of anti-corruption agencies’ capacities to perform preventive functions,

the enabling environment should be understood as the political context and the nationalinstitutional framework within which the agency operates. The capacity assessmentshould consider the extent to which the agency’s constitutional definition, level ofindependence, extent of oversight, and powers in relation to other state bodies isappropriate and sufficient for the functions it is mandated to perform. The key cross-cutting core issues that apply at this level are the (national) institutional arrangementsand accountability.

The following issues should be given particular consideration.

The agency has to be integrated within a wider national integrity system. Asevident from the range of necessary preventive functions (as outlined in UNCAC ChapterII), it is clear that a single agency cannot perform all the preventive functions that statesare obligated to address. This means that other state bodies will be mandated toperform a number of functions that are closely related to the mandate of the anti-corruption agency, and upon which the effectiveness of the agency may depend. Therewill likely be a need for extensive interaction with other state bodies, including lawenforcement institutions. Studies of anti-corruption agencies performing preventivefunctions in Eastern Europe and the CIS demonstrate that their effectiveness andcapacity are often hindered because of inadequate positioning within the institutionalsystem, duplication of competencies, and lack of authority, all of which can result inrivalries and poor coordination. The enabling environment must therefore be analyzed toverify whether the respective mandates of each of the institutions that are part of thenational integrity system form a coherent institutional framework and whether there are


23/47

recommendations. It is therefore essential that agencies with the mandate implementcertain measures possess the necessary authority to do so.

An assessment of the enabling environment must further look to the level ofindependence that is required for an agency to perform its functions. Article 6 of theUNCAC states that “each State Party shall grant the body or bodies [that preventcorruption] the necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principlesof its legal system, to enable the body or bodies to carry out its or their functionseffectively and free from any undue influence.” But how to determine the necessary levelof independence?11

Here, a distinction between various forms of independence is useful, and asystematization offered by the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions(INTOSAI) applies equally to agencies considered here. INTOSAI distinguishes betweenthree types of independence, as follows:

Organizational independence refers to the least possible degree of governmentparticipation in the appointment of the agency’s authorities, implementation of itsfunctions, and its decision-making;

Functional independence refers to the agency’s ability to can carry out itsfunctions without the undue interference of any third party or the executive;

Financial independence refers to the impossibility of the government to impede orrestrict the agency’s activities by reducing its budget.

The level of each of these types of independence needs to be reviewed in line with thespecific preventive functions the anti-corruption agency performs, as different functionswill require different types and levels of independence. For instance, if an agency ismandated to implement preventive anti-corruption policies, its independence is unlikelyto be organizational , simply because most implementing agencies form part of the

executive and are therefore unlikely to be organizationally independent. However, thatsame agency should enjoy a level of functional independence so that anothergovernment body cannot unduly interfere with its initiatives. For instance, if an agency isresponsible for implementing the national conflict of interest regime, it should be able toimpose sanctions on all non-compliant officials. The agency would also require financialindependence, so that it has predictable resources to perform this function.

On the other hand, if the anti-corruption agency is mandated to perform an oversightfunction, the level of independence required will depend on the type of oversight

exercised. In the case where it oversees a comprehensive national anti-corruptionstrategy, both functional and financial independence would be necessary, whileorganizational independence would be useful to avoid undue interference. Of course, itmust be borne in mind that both authority and independence require a proportional levelof accountability.


24/47

Further, the arrangements for the institutional budget should be closely reviewed asfinancial resources have the most direct impact on institutional capacity. Indeed, manyanti-corruption agencies have failed, or endured periods of decline, due to a lack ofresources. The establishment and operation of a successful anti-corruption agencyimplies substantial costs that have to be borne by the government, sometimes at theexpense of other items on the national budget. Strong political commitment is required

to attribute to an anti-corruption agency the human and financial resources it requires.

Most of the issues relevant for a positive enabling environment will be regulated by

legislation through which the agency is established. In most cases, agencies should becreated through a law adopted through a (normal) legislative procedure, rather than bydecree or another type of act that can easily be changed or even abolished.

The law establishing an anti-corruption agency should:

Best practices for establishing the budgets of anti-corruption agencies:

The agency should have either the ability to propose a budget directly to thelegislature or a guarantee of budgetary stability.

Ideally, performance-based budgeting should be employed: the budget might bebased 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 thebudget).

The agency should have the possibility to utilize extra funding which arises fromits work, like the use of confiscated assets.

Institutional arrangements protecting agency independence include:

Clear and transparent procedures for appointing and dismissing the agencyDirector. Involvement in the selection process of the highest authorities of the judiciary and the legislature, civil society, and other relevant stakeholders hasproven to be a useful approach.

The position of the agency within the national institutional framework should beappropriate for its functions, with unambiguous accountability lines andcooperation protocols, especially in cases of shared competences.

Its mandate and competencies should be defined by law. Some measure of financial independence should be in place.


25/47

with genuine separation of powers or with a mono-centric power structure dominated bythe Executive, with competitive politics vs single party regimes, carries great significancefor the meaning of independence of the agency. Proxy notions – such as various degreesof autonomy – may operate more meaningfully in specific cases.

Finally, the capacity assessment at this level should consider the informal powers anddynamics that may impact the operations of an anti-corruption agency. While manyessential issues will be identified through the analysis of the overall political context, theassessment 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 enhance or undermine an agency’s capacity to advance the national anti-corruption agenda.

2 . T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l

This level comprises the internal policies, procedures, and frameworks, as well as theinfrastructure allowing an anti-corruption agency to deliver on its mandate. A number ofcore issues - internal institutional arrangements, leadership capacities, knowledgerequired to perform the mandated functions, and internally-driven accountabilitysystems – must be considered here.

The organizational level frames the policies, procedures and business processes that areessential for effective performance of the agencies.The following key organizational business processes and management tools mustbe 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.

The existence of clear linkages between Agency’s vision and long term strategy anddepartment level and individual level work plans is fundamental as explained in thisscheme:


26/47

Of particular importance to ACAs are also the internal policies and processes that helpsafeguard objectivity, professionalism, impartiality, integrity, honesty of the institution—the key qualities that will more than any other factors assure public trust and support forthe agency (particularly agencies that perform enforcement functions).

Human resources management is a fundamentally relevant process for developingcapacity at the organizational level. It is important that an agency have its own,dedicated staff for performing most preventive anti-corruption functions. Considerationabout the size and specialization of the staff will vary according to the functions to becarried out, however. Not all agencies recruit civil servants only: specialized functionsmay be best addressed by external experts and support staff engaged on a temporarybasis. Secondment has also proven to be effective in many cases, provided that thesame 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 advantagegiven the complexities of the corruption phenomenon. It is crucial to ensure that thisarrangement does not hamper the development and sustainability of internal institutionalexpertise, however, particularly in context of international secondments, a commonlyapplied form of European Union technical assistance (“twinning projects”).

Agency’s v is ionand Mid term, multi-

year Strategy

Department Level Annual Plans

Individual AnnualWork Plans

Agency vision details how the organization sees itselfoperating and its principles. The multi-year strategy

supports achievement of activities in the NationalAction plan, but also gives broader more long termguidance. Development of it should be based on theinput from an array of stakeholders (civil society,government etc).

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

Annual work plans tie to the Department Annual Plansand note key outputs staff are to produce andactivities they are involved in.


27/47

conduct for employees. Some agencies have an internal oversight body to investigatebreaches of its code of conduct, or a body that monitors and reviews all complaintsmade against agency staff.

Regulation of appointments and dismissals: Appointments and dismissals ofanti-corruption agencies’ non-executive staff should be safeguarded frominterference of third parties. The hiring process should be merit-based, andperformance reviews part of the reward and promotion system.

Recruiting, development, and retention processes: A number of elementsshould underpin these processes: interest of the management in general staff

development; existence of well-thought out and targeted development plans for keypositions; continuous training and other expertise-development provisions12; jobrotation; coaching/ feedback and performance appraisal; proactive initiatives toidentify new talents.

Staffing Levels: Levels of vacancies of positions within and peripheral to theorganization (e.g., staff, volunteers, board, senior management); problems inturnover or attendance.

Performance Management and Incentives: A performance management systemshould be in place that sets measurable performance targets for staff and ensuresregular assessment and feedback on performance. Linked to that, an incentivesystem should be in place consisting of the following; competitive salary (partlyperformance-based); attractive career development options, opportunities forleadership. The system should motivate staff to excel at their job.

Staff competencies: Staff backgrounds and experiences; capability of the staff toundertake multiple roles, commitment both to mission/ strategy and continuouslearning; staff willingness and ability to take on special projects and collaborateacross division lines.

Management team and staff dependence on Director: Reliance but notdependence on Director; ability to continue operation during transition to new leader;capacity of members of management team to take on the director’s role.

Organizational Leadership: Existence and effectiveness of activities promoting

successful, win-win relationships with others, both within and outside theorganization; 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 organization’s internal work is another key


28/47

The monitoring and evaluation system should track performance against three types ofindicators: Output indicators (workload or unit produced): examples of quantitative data at

the output level include the number of diagnostic studies performed, number of civilservants trained in anti-corruption measures, or the number of administrativeinvestigations performed.

Outcome indicators (effectiveness in meeting objectives): correlated with particularfunctions, examples include the quality and impact of developed policies, levels ofcompliance with regulations that the agency is responsible for enforcing, or levels oftrust in the agency tracked in surveys. Outcomes should be also compared to studiesand measurements conducted by other organizations.

Efficiency and productivity indicators: cost-effectiveness, ratio of input to output,unit costs.

A crucial but often-underestimated set of capacities of anti-corruption agencies relates tocoordination and cooperation with the stakeholders, particularly civil society. Aswe have seen from the discussion of functions in section III, most preventive functionsrequire extensive cooperation with other state institutions, and civil society participationis likely indispensable for actually managing the high levels of expertise and extent ofoutputs required. In addition, cooperation with civil society organizations and

sometimes citizens directly is essential in establishing the legitimacy of the agency asacting in the public interest, and in building credibility and public trust. There are anumber of experiences of agencies managing to resist strong political attacks onlythanks to public support (e.g. The Slovenian Commission for Corruption Prevention andthe Latvian KNAB). Mechanisms for civil society participation in the work of the agenciesare often poorly structured or non-existent, and cooperation rather takes place on an adhoc basis. Sometimes, such cooperation is fictitious, or obstructed by political interests.Problems may also exist in poorly designed systems for reporting corruption cases. Theproper functioning of all elements relating to civil society participation must be reviewedand an analysis of the possibilities to include CSOs in key business processes such asplanning or advocacy must be carried out.

Finally, an anti-corruption agency—perhaps more than any other state institution—should be maximally transparent about its work and its decisions, and should have thecapacities to inform the public about its work.

3 . T h e i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l

In considering the capacities of anti-corruption agencies, the individual level (whichrefers to the skills, experience and knowledge that are vested in people) will beextremely important due to the high level of expertise that many of the commonpreventive anti-corruption functions require. The core issue of knowledge is inextricably


29/47

A different category of capacities at the individual level refers to the technical skillsneeded to carry out the activities of the agency. This category is more specific andgenerally speaking is relevant for specialized (expert) staff more than the managerialone13.

Concerning the design of recommendations for training of ACA staff, the

assessment team may use the diagram below as a guide. Namely, all training should beprovided based on the needs of the organization, with proper incentives in place toencourage application of the knowledge and skills, and in the mid term a performancebased measurement system. Training is to be provided in various forms depending onwhether knowledge needs to be developed (in which case classroom training maysuffice) or skills (in which case coaching and mentoring may be more relevant).

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.

Summary 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 ordecrees);

• provide consulting services to other executive agencies;• design and deliver training to public agencies.


30/47

Training(Knowledge) Learning(Skills) WorkplaceBehavior Change(Attitudes)

EnhancedInstitutional Capacityand Performance

i). Learning programmebased on a correctassessment of individualcapacities, and relevantto trainees;

ii). Appropriatepedagogical methodsused includingcurriculum design,trainers, methods etc.

Individual Level

i).Training based on

assessment oforganization needs.

ii). Individual trainingcorrectly identifiedas necessary fororg. improvement

iii). Resources &incentives toencourage

application

Organizational Level

i). Macro level policies

in place to fosterprocess andprocedure changes

ii). Sufficient legalframework allowingcivil servant careergrowth;

iii). Performancebased

management

EnablingEnvironment

IMPACTOUTCOMEOUTPUTINPUT

Having reviewed the major UNDP capacity developmentconcepts as they apply to agencies performing corruptionprevention functions, we next turn to the steps necessary toundertake a capacity assessment.


31/47

V. DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING A CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

1 . Pr e p a r a t i o n

The Capacity assessment has to be preceded by a phase of mobilization of the

stakeholders that should then be engaged throughout all the capacity assessmentprocess.

An assessment can involve a range of stakeholders that can champion and drive theassessment process: beneficiaries, those initiating the assessment, civil societyrepresentatives, private sector partners, political, economic and social leaders,employees, development partners, academics, the media, and various public interestgroups. 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;

Involving partners and stakeholders also offers opportunities to develop their capacityfor planning and programming14.

During the preparation phase the various aspects of the process should also bereviewed. Preliminary research and analysis will be necessary in order to tailor theassessment to the functions that an agency is mandated to perform and thecorresponding capacity requirements. The matrix of capacity assessment guidelines for most common preventive functions presented in the next section should be used toensure that all relevant issues are considered.

Development practitioners should begin by collecting and analyzing information aboutthe 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 inwhich the agency was introduced.

This preliminary set of considerations should allow the identification of the main enablingenvironment issues and function-related capacity challenges that need to be addressedby the assessment.

This section will guide the practitioners through the steps of assessing of an anti-corruption agency’s capacity to perform preventive functions.


32/47

the data necessary for the assessment and to address the needs that the assessmentwill identify.

The capacity assessment process should therefore start with an open dialogue with theprimary clients of the assessment in order to clarify:

i) The priorities for the capacity assessment and capacity development;ii) the goals of the exercise;iii) the expectations regarding its output.

The dialogue is also used to identify who the ‘owner’ of the assessment will be. This isthe person or entity responsible for managing the assessment, facilitating dialogue

around the findings and serving as a liaison between the assessment team and keystakeholders. The initial dialogue with primary clients is particularly important whenmultiple, potentially conflicting objectives are under consideration or when the focusexceeds the realm of available expertise15.

3 . I d e n t i f i ca t i o n o f s t a k e h o l d e r s t o b e i n v o l v e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e s s

The involvement of all stakeholders is a key element for successful implementation of

activities that promote transparency and integrity in the public sector. All stateinstitutions that cooperate with the anti-corruption agency should participate in theassessment. Civil society organizations are among the most relevant stakeholders,especially considering their role in a number of most common preventive anti-corruptionfunctions that agencies typically perform. The private sector will also need to beincluded if the agency performs functions relating to any sectors or issues that affect theprivate sector (e.g. public procurement, conflict of interest, licensing and inspectionsregulations, 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 abroader basis for identifying the shortcomings in the communication and coordinationmechanisms or the services delivered by the agency. As a general rule, the broader theconsultation, the more extensive the information received, and the greater likelihoodthat key problems will be identified. At this stage, the terms of stakeholder input shouldbe agreed. The matrix below can be useful in organizing stakeholders’ management.


33/47

4 . D e t e r m i n i n g t h e d a t a c o l l e ct i o n a n d a n a l y s is a p p r o a c h

The aim of collecting data at this level is, first, to identify and refine the needed

capacities of an agency in a given country context (e.g. performance indicators), andsecond, to gather information, vis-à-vis these standards, on its current capacities.

The type of data to be gathered will correspond to the functions that an agencyperforms. While at one level, certain basic capacity needs will be common to mostagencies regardless of the functions they perform, the full extent and range of capacitiesrequired will vary significantly. The matrix of capacity assessment guidelines related tofunctions presented in the next section, which was used to compile an overview ofagency capacities in Step 1 above, can also guide the development of the data collection

plan.To ensure accuracy of the information gathered and in order to cross-reference thefindings several sources and methodologies should be utilized. There are generally 6different categories of information in an assessment:

1. Verbal interviews (focus groups, one-on-one)2. Written interviews (self assessment questionnaires etc)3. Direct observation (job shadowing)4. Indirect observation (what you see when you are in the organization – quality ofpremises, staff playing solitaire etc.)5. Quantitative data on service provision (basically the numbers regarding the servicesprovided by the agency)6. Other sources (other evaluations, reports etc.)

In principle, if an anti-corruption agency is successful, then one would expect to seelower levels of corruption, and estimated corruption levels over time can provide someindication of the effectiveness of the agency. For instance, if prevention efforts are

focused on a specific sector, then information on known incidences and perceptions ofcorruption associated with that sector may reveal, over time, the (in)effectiveness ofprevention strategies employed by the agency. Of course, high perceptions of corruptionmay simply indicate a lag in the impact of reforms and public awareness. Furthermore,levels of corruption may be explained by factors other than the effectiveness of theagency. In sum, data on corruption levels needs to be interpreted with care.

Participation of the civil society in the capacity assessment also provides theadded value of demonstrating the openness of the agency to discuss notonly its successes but also its capacity gaps and problems. This contributesto increasing public trust in the agency and provides arguments forreceiving adequate resources and support.


34/47

completed, administrative orders, guidelines and advice issued, laws and regulationreviewed) constitute useful objective indicators of the capacities in place against thecapacities required to undertake the volume of work mandated. They reveal little about

the quality of the services provided or the results achieved, however. More qualitativedata can be obtained through self-assessments, interviews with stakeholders or citizenfeedback instruments. Relevant citizen experience or perceptions may already be trackedby other organizations’ surveys. Self-assessments that reflect the internal experiencesand views of employees should ideally be cross-referenced with expert analysis,oversight bodies’ reports, as well as outside perspectives of other agencies and thepublic.

The data collection and assessment plan should begin as broadly as possible but willlikely require scaling down in line with available resources. It is unlikely that sufficientfunds would be available to develop and apply new survey instruments, for instance.Existing measurements and assessments should be reviewed at the outset for thecontent of their analysis, as some may contain useful information about an ACAscapacities (e.g. Global Integrity Indicators and Reports, National Integrity Assessmentsby national chapters of Transparency International, reports of monitoring mechanismslike GRECO and OECD, etc.).

Many management tools are simple to understand and apply by non-specialists, butothers require a certain level of expertise. It may therefore be sensible to include on theassessment team an organizational management/assessment specialist, or at leastobtain some specialized advice on the tools and approaches that might be applied.

The final selection of sources and uses of data should be agreed with the clients.

5 . D e f i n i n g h o w t h e a s se s sm e n t w i l l b e co n d u c t e d

Depending on the scope and scale of the assessment, an appropriate and tailored workplan should be devised that takes into account the following considerations: Who should be a part of the assessment management 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 sequenceo human and financial resources needed for each step/taskso person(s) responsible for each step/tasko timeline for each step/task

How will the results be used?


35/47

the agency to ensure that information is flowing to the head and other managers at alltimes.

ACA Capacity Assessment Step-by-Step

1. Preparation:

• mobilize the stakeholders• review the legal basis of the agency • analyze circumstances of the agency’s creation • identify the main enabling environment issues

• review the mandate (scope of preventive functions performed) and outline themain capacity issues that need to be assessed

2. Clarification of objectives and expectations with primary clients:

• clarify intentions of the promoters of the assessmento who wants the assessment?o what are the related long-term development objectives

• 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 theassessment

3. Identification and engagement of stakeholders:

• identify all relevant stakeholderso state institutionso civil societyo private sectoro other

• agree 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• correlate 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

define the assessment management team determine participants decide on location


36/47


37/47

3 DEVELOPMENT OF No special institutional profile A well organized secretariat is needed to perform Implementation plans and the


38/47

36

3 DEVELOPMENT OFIMPLEMENTATIONPLANS

Typically undertaken

together with policyformulation (particularlywhen policies take theform of comprehensivenational strategies), thisfunction requires projectmanagement andevaluation-related

methodologies tooperationalize policyobjectives.

Related functions:

1) policy formulation

No special institutional profileis required to perform thisfunction; capacities arerequired at other levels.

A well organized secretariat is needed to performthe function, with processes in place to allow foreffective coordination with other agencies. TheSecretariat should be adequately resourced –both in terms of finances and human resources.

Coordination mechanisms should be establishedand documented.

Implementation plans, and theconsultative process through whichthey are formulated, typically requirethe following functional capacities: engage stakeholders; budget, manage and implement; evaluate.

4 LEGISLATIVE No special institutional profile Coordination with various state agencies involved Technical capacities:


39/47

37

4 LEGISLATIVEDRAFTING

In many cases, new anti-corruption policies may

require legislativechanges. Anti-corruptionconventions, for instance,are not self-enforcing,and national legislation isnecessary for theirimplementation.

Legislative drafting,however, should beviewed as strictly atechnical process thatgives legal form to policydecisions. The requisiteconsultations anddiscussions of policyoptions should take place

within the policyformulation processrather than within thelegislative draftingfunction.

Related functions:1) policy formulation

No special institutional profileis required to perform thisfunction provided that itrepresents, as noted in theprevious column, a purely

technical process that givesthe necessary legal form topolicy decision reachedthrough the policy formulationprocess (function 1).

Coordination with various state agencies involvedin the particular sector/issue area. In particular;coordination with the Ministry of Justice isessential to ensure that the proposed legislationis harmonized with the overall national legal

framework and not in conflict with any otherlaws. Human resourcesAs the category of corruption-related legislationand regulation is very diverse, the agency shouldalso have the capacity to rely on external experts(domestic and foreign) and consultants.Procedures for contracting consultants should beassessed, along with the capacity to cooperatewith international organizations.

Technical capacities: knowledge of international

standards and good practices; comparative knowledge of

legislative solutions; specialized legislative drafting

skills.

Functional capacities: engage stakeholders.

5 IMPLEMENTATION No special institutional profile The institutional arrangements and business Technical capacities needed


40/47

38

5 IMPLEMENTATIONGUIDELINES

Policy implementation canrequire substantial

changes in an institution’soperations, including neworganizationalarrangements andprocedures, as well aschange managementcapacities. Guiding otherinstitutions through thisprocess requires not onlytechnical expertise on thepolicy in question, butalso organizationalmanagement skills thatACAs are unlikely topossess and areimpractical to develop.The most valuable

practical role they canhope to play is advisory.

Related functions:1) policy formulation3) implementation plans6) monitoringimplementation7) evaluation of policies

No special institutional profileis required if this is understoodas an advisory function.

By contrast, if the ACA is also

mandated to ensure that itsguidance is followed, theinstitutional arrangementsshould be reviewed as towhether the ACA has thesufficient authority to imposeits recommendations on otherinstitutions or otherwisecompel compliance.

The institutional arrangements and businessprocesses of the agency should be reviewed toassess its capacity to: consult with a range of stakeholders to

achieve broad input into the policy

implementation guidelines; identify, engage, and supervise the necessary

external expertise; manage the various sources of input and/or

support; promote consensus over the proposed

measures.

Human ResourcesThe agency should be able to engage externaladvisors to gather the range of expertisenecessary for the development of operationalguidelines and other implementationinstruments, including specialists onorganizational management. Internally, theagency should have sufficient staff to manage

and supervise external expertise.

Technical capacities neededcorrespond to the specific policiesthat are being implemented.

A minimum level of internal technical

capacities in organizationalmanagement would be useful toidentify and assess the quality ofexternal expertise received.

The full range of identifiedfunctional capacities is alsonecessary. These are the capacitiesto: engage stakeholders; assess a situation; formulate policies and strategies. budget, manage and implement; evaluate.


41/47

7 EVALUATION OF If it is to be meaningful, For this function, the capacities inherent in the Technical capacities:


42/47

40

EFFECTIVENESS OFANTI-CORRUPTIONPOLICIES

Different from above, theevaluation functionfocuses on assessing theoutcomes (results) ofanti-corruption measuresrather than only progresson implementation(activities undertaken).

Related functions:2) diagnostic research

g ,evaluation of the outcomes ofanti-corruption policies shouldbe impartial and objective. Inthis respect, it is essential that

the function be performed by astate agency with a very highdegree of functional (andideally organizational)independence, if it is notoutsourced to a non-stateactor altogether.

, pagency’s institutional framework and businessprocesses should resemble to those required toconduct research more generally. There shouldbe adequate capacity to: engage expertise as necessary to support the

work of the agency; produce evaluation reports to be presented to

the executive, the legislature, and the public.

Human ResourcesIn addition to specialized internal expertise, theagency will likely need to engage externalexpertise to undertake specific evaluations.These methodologies will be consistent with, ifnot identical, to the diagnostic methodologiesrequired for assessing needs and establishingbaselines during the policy formulation process.Where research is not performed internally, theagency should have sufficient human resourcesto manage, perform quality control, and applythe external research.

pCapacity to conduct or managediagnostic research on nationalinstitutional and regulatory systems: knowledge of various diagnostic

methodologies available; competence with various

statistical and other technicalapproaches;

evaluation of the quality of theresearch undertaken/received(quality control).

In addition, the agency will need thefunctional capacities to: engage stakeholders; assess a situation; budget, manage and implement; evaluate.

8 COORDINATING THE The capacity to perform this A well organized secretariat is needed to perform Technical capacities:


43/47

41

IMPLEMENTATION OFPREVENTIVE POLICIES

Coordinating anti-

corruption activities isone of the most vital yetproblematic functions ofprevention of corruptionagencies. Any one ACAcan perform only alimited set of anti-corruption functions, andwill have to rely of otheragencies for theremaining preventive andlaw enforcementfunctions as enumeratedin the UNCAC.

Related functions:

3) implementation plans4) implementationguidelines6) monitoringimplementation

function will dependsignificantly on the agency’sauthority and positioningwithin the national integrity

system. Areas of sharedcompetences and possibleoverlapping should beidentified. Accountability linesand the independence of thevarious institutions should beanalyzed. Tensions can arisefrom unclear or duplicatedcompetencies, and frompotential conflict with otherindependent bodies (e.g.courts). Coordination protocols(memoranda of understandingor similar mechanism) may beuseful in preventing potentialinter-institutional conflicts.

the function. Capacities and resources for timelyand effective communication are essential. Insome cases, the presence of staff seconded fromother agencies can help to facilitate cooperation.

knowledge of each specific sectorhaving a role in anti-corruptionpolicies implementation, and ofthe policies themselves.

Functional capacities:

engage stakeholders; manage and implement.

9 INTERNATIONAL

OO OThe assessment should

h h d hThe agency should have the capacities to:

lTechnical capacities:

f l k ll


44/47

42

COOPERATION

Anti-corruption treaties(e.g. Council of Europe

Conventions) oftenrequire the memberstates’ participation in therelevant monitoringmechanisms (e.g.GRECO). ACAs are oftenmandated to representthe country in the variousactivities involved.

Another form ofinternational cooperationmay involve a “clearing-house” role for donors’technical assistanceinitiatives.

Not least, a common formof internationalcooperation consists ofliaising with variousexternal expertise thatmay be required for otherfunctions.

Related functions:1) policy formulation2) diagnostic research3) implementation plans4) legislative drafting

examine the authority and thefunctional independence of theagency to represent thecountry in international fora,

and the availability ofresources (budget) to do soeffectively.

Where mandated to perform a “clearing house” role, theagency’s institutionalrelationships should be reviewto enable

Capacity Assessment Methodology-AC Agencies 1 1

Documents

Transcript of Capacity Assessment Methodology-AC Agencies 1 1