1. Module 8 Integrity indicators and indices Transparency/accountability/integrity indicators: focus on the effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms which are within the control of policy makers tend to be actionable Example: performance indicators for political party finance disclosure (e.g. CRINIS) Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices

2. Mini-lecture Integrity indicators, Macedonian case The challenge: to combat corruption at the municipal level. But other challenges had to be overcome first: Polarized political climate, with little trust of perception based indicators of corruption generating buy-in from all stakeholders Inadequacy of existing tools Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices

3. Solution? Developed a Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability (RTA) Index for the local level to assess progress in public procurement, local planning and financial management and property. The method and index is accepted by local authorities, political actors, media and the general public. Criteria for indicators: Clear Indisputable Simple Impartial Mini-lecture Integrity indicators, Macedonian case

4. So how did they go about designing integrity, transparency and accountability indicators? Step 1 = corruption risk mapping Mini-lecture Integrity indicators, Macedonian case

5. Requests for new connections Authorization of new connections Hiring touts/ middlemen to fill in forms Bribes to get filled forms deposited Payment to expedite new connections Bribes to secure a new connection Bribes to speed up an application Bribes to ensure forms are accepted Service delivery Offered extra payment to resolve problem Asked for payment to resolve problem Bribes to stop reporting illegal connections Payments to expedite repair work Payments to make illegal connections Unofficial private repairs Choice of contractors – personal or political gain Meter arrangement Install meters/replacement of meters Meter reading Enter meter reading into billing system Billing Payment Outputs billing/estimate billing for unmetered accounts Computerized billing Account summaries prepared and billing prepared for distribution …. Extort payment to reduce meter reading Bribes to reduce meter reading Payment to overlook an illegal connection False meter readings Payment to reduce bill WEDC, Loughborough University

6. The method 2. Identify corruption “hot spots” 3. Identify corresponding anti-corruption mechanisms 4. Design indicators to match 5. Quantify indicators to make an index 1. Trace the steps in the delivery of a service Mini-lecture Integrity indicators, Macedonian case

7. Example Hot spot: Creating an impression of complexity of the procedure for obtaining a construction permit, to allow possibility of extorting a bribe. AC mechanism: All interested parties must be clearly and precisely informed of the course and duration of the procedure for obtaining a permit and the documents required. Indicator: Existence of a system for informing parties through written notices posted up or obtainable at the window from a clerk.

8. Stakeholder involvement = integral part of the method 3 categories of stakeholders: Local self-government representatives The institutions in charge of their work Users of municipality services Interviews used to define hot spots AC mechanisms defined with the institutions responsible for monitoring the work of local self-govs Team of local stakeholders implements the tool People’s perceptions were used to inform the design, but in this case, the instrument measures only factual data. Mini-lecture Integrity indicators, Macedonian case

9. Activity 2 Developing integrity indicators Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Over to you… A selection of corruption hot spots for a given sector is provided on the worksheet. Can you create matching anti-corruption mechanisms and indicators? Small groups 15 mins

10. Activity 2 Developing integrity indicators Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices How useful is this technique? Can you think of other ways of mapping corruption risks?

11. Activity 3 Why produce an index?? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Does your country have any sub/national indices relating to corruption? If not, would it be useful to produce one? What, in your opinion, would be most useful to rank? What are the advantages of producing an index? When might an index not be appropriate? Answer in small groups 20 minutes

12. Activity 3 Why produce an index?? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Raking for comparison: over time, space, across institutions Promoting a cycle of virtuous competition If based on actionable indicators, scores can be disaggregated to pinpoint weaknesses and bottlenecks Can highlight the worst offenders (e.g. Kenya Bribery Index 2008, police) and trigger public demand for accountability Caveat: methodology must be transparent, and legitimate in the eyes of those being assessed

13. Activity 4 How to quantify? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Some indicators are easy to quantify: Ex: What percentage of the population has experienced a bribe demand in the past 6 months? Others require a scale: a set of numerical values assigned to certain criteria for the purpose of quantifying qualitative indicators. Typical of indicators that assessment performance.

14. Activity 4 How to quantify? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Example : How responsive was X Ministry in disclosing requested information? Highly responsive (within 1 week)……………………..3 points Somewhat responsive (within 2 months)……………...2 points Somewhat unresponsive (more than 6 months)……....1 point Very unresponsive (1 year or no response)……………0 point So scaling introduces quality benchmarks.

15. Activity 4 How to quantify? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Example indicator 2: Existence of a system for informing parties through written notices posted up or obtainable at the window from a clerk. Information for the parties is visibly posted or easily obtainable………........................................2 points Information upon request of the party………...…...……………………………….1 point No system of informing the parties………...………….....…………………….0 point

16. Activity 4 How to quantify? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Slightly trickier… How do you assess simple yes/no questions? Example: In practice, are national level judges protected from political interference? These can also be scaled! Example: In practice, national level judges protected from political interference. Scale: 100 points, 50 points, 0 points

17. Activity 4 How to quantify? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices 100 points - National level judges operate independently of the political process, without incentive or pressure to render favourable judgments in politically sensitive cases. Judges never comment on political debates. Individual judgments are rarely praised or criticized by political figures. 50 points - National level judges are typically independent, yet are sometimes influenced in their judgments by negative or positive political incentives. This may include favourable or unfavourable treatment by the government or public criticism. Some judges may be demoted or relocated in retaliation for unfavourable decisions.

18. Activity 4 How to quantify? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices 0 points - National level judges are commonly influenced by politics and personal biases or incentives. This may include conflicting family relationships, professional partnerships, or other personal loyalties. Negative incentives may include demotion, pay cuts, relocation, threats or harassment. (Source: Global Integrity Scorecard) Scores can be supplemented with narrative explanations for added clarity.

19. Creating scales with quality/performance standards is an example of the types of important decisions that have to be made when designing indicators, and which are the basis for benchmarking. Example: What are the standards for judicial independence? (e.g. what are the standards for strong, moderate and weak performance?) What constitutes a desirable level of participation in public decisions? (e.g. in budgeting or urban planning) Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Activity 4 How to quantify?

20. Activity 5 Developing indicator scales Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Over to you… Using the worksheet provided, work with a partner or two to develop your own indicator scales. 20 minutes

21. Photo by: takeabreak/flickr Activity 5 Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Developing scales for indicators is a subjective aspect of the quantification process. Can you think of any other aspect of developing an index that might be subjective?

22. Activity 5 Why weight? Module 8 Developing integrity indicators and indices Constructing an index requires that individual indicator scores be aggregated into one “total score.” Is each indicator equally important in determining the concept/phenomenon being measured? indicators may reflect values an principles that are important to those carrying out the assessment indicators can be weighted to reflect their level of significance weighting is highly subjective and value-based, and therefore should be consultative and transparent