Presentation on theme: "GATEway Mapping Assessment Tools on Corruption and Integrity at Country Level."— Presentation transcript:
GATEway Mapping Assessment Tools on Corruption and Integrity at Country Level
What do we mean by Corruption Assessment Tools? A corruption assessment tool is defined as any research methodology whose primary aim is to identify the extent of corruption, corruption risks, and/or anti-corruption (integrity, transparency, accountability) in a given context. Tools range from out-of-the box methodologies and guidelines which are ready to use, to one-off assessments whose methodology is clearly explained and deemed replicable and useful to others.
Main Outputs Webportal including database, interactive users guide and training modules Analytical paper on gaps Innovation grants for tool development
Progress to date Over 500 tools collected 17 clusters identified 5 guidance notes ready for consultation or in progress Tool classification scheme refined Visit to UNDP Olso Governance Centre to develop synergies with GAPortal Advisory group established with members from civil society, academia and multilateral organisations Consultation with National Chapters underway with substantive feedback received from 12 chapters to date
Key milestones 2011 May Stakeholder mapping First advisory group meeting Website wireframe developed June Tool categorisation scheme finalised and core clusters identified Consultation on tool analysis and user needs July Marketing strategy developed Website and database development underway Aug Second advisory group meeting Knowledge sharing workshop Sept Website usability testing underway Oct Website launch Nov Third advisory group meeting Dec Draft users manual 2012 Draft training modules (January) 1st quarter Publish users manual Fourth advisory group meeting Draft analytical paper Publish training modules 2nd quarter Publish analytical paper Present project outputs at workshop/conference Call for applications for innovation grants 3rd quarter Select successful applicants 4th quarter Present new tools
Stage 2: Clustering and analysis of assessment tools Cluster I Cluster II Cluster III B) Cluster guidance notes Function: Analytical Purpose and context Different approaches Operational challenges Best practice Some cluster examples: Sectoral tools Budget monitoring Corruption risk analysis A) Individual tool database Function: Descriptive Areas of focus Scope Methodology Rather than focussing on individual tools, analysis is at the level of tool types (clusters).
B) Cluster guidance notes Different ways to approach to the challenge: By LEVEL – eg sector, institution, level of responsibility etc. By PROCESS – eg budgeting, compliance monitoring, political finance By METHOD – eg survey, risk assessment, political economy analysis etc. Clusters will exist at different levels and will overlap
Examples of possible clusters METHOD Corruption risk assessment Social accountability tools Political economy analysis Public (perception and experience) surveys Business and enterprise surveys Output indicators Experimental design LEVEL Multi-country corruption & governance indices Local government assessments (Basic) service sector tools Private sector tools Justice sector assessments PROCESS Compliance monitoring Budget monitoring Procurement Access to information Political finance/elections
Cluster analysis The analysis (guidance note) for each cluster of tools will look at: Description of the tool type Purpose and context of the tool type Different approaches to applying this type of tool Data sources Key issues and challenges (operational considerations e.g. resources required, accessing data etc.) Examples of best practice What is corruption risk assessment? Corruption risk assessment is a (diagnostic) tool which seeks to identify weaknesses within a system which may present opportunities for corruption to occur. It differs from many other corruption assessment tools in that it focuses on the potential for - rather than the perception, existence or extent of - corruption. At its core a risk assessment tends to involve some degree of evaluation of the likelihood of corruption occurring and/or the impact it would have should it occur. Purpose and context of risk assessment The purpose of a corruption risk assessment is usually to supplement evidence of actual or perceived corruption in a given context in order to inform anti-corruption strategies and policies or for advocacy purposes. It can also serve as a baseline for anti-corruption work to track changes in risks over time. Corruption risk assessment can be applied at all levels from government institutions, to donor support programmes, down to sectoral programmes, as well as in individual organisations or units. It is often undertaken as part of a larger corruption assessment exercise.   Approaches to corruption risk assessment As a general rule most corruption risk assessments take an institutional approach, ie they aim to identify weaknesses in (the enforcement of) rules and regulations in the institution, sector and/or process under analysis. Beyond this, however the conceptualisation of risk varies from tool to tool, for example: 1.Corruption risk is equated with the set of institutional vulnerabilities within a system or process which might favour or facilitate corrupt practices (e.g. TI-LAC Procurement/COE Moldova) 2.Measures of institutional vulnerability are combined with data on perceptions and/or experience of corruption as a proxy for corruption risk (TI-TISDA) 3.Risk is expressed as a factor of the likelihood of corruption multiplied by the impact of corruption (TI-FGI, WB Customs and Border Management Toolkit, AfDB Infrastructure tool) 4.Objective risks (weak institutions and regulations) are differentiated from subjective risks (tolerance to corruption, personal motivation, weighing up of costs/benefits, past experiences) (TI-Proetica) 5.Corruption risk is understood as a factor of the level of transparency X fairness in a process (Business Anti-Corruption Portal) 6.Corruption risk is understood as the difference between actual and ideal systems (TI-LAC Procurement) Thus the sophistication of risk assessments ranges from identification of corruption (or integrity) and/or institutional weaknesses/gaps as an indicator of risk of further corruption, to an analysis of the impact and estimation of the likelihood of corrupt practices. Moving from the identification of risks to actionable information, further stages in the assessment may include prioritization of risks, identification of tools to address the identified risks, and guidance on the development anti-corruption strategies (although strictly speaking the latter stages are beyond the scope of a core risk assessment) (see figure 2). In many cases, the first stage serves to identify broad risk areas (usually through secondary sources) which are then analysed in more detail in the second stage. In some cases, intermediate steps in the analysis are left out. In other cases the analysis stops at the risk identification stage, or even at the point of identifying institutional weaknesses. [Maybe something about which stages/types of risk assessment are most appropriate for which levels (e.g analysis of overall governance context and assessment of institutional vulnerabilities are useful for sector-wide risk analysis, whereas deeper analysis of actors and relationships are particularly important for programme/project level analysis) Data sources Most corruption risk assessments use a combination of secondary sources (legal-institutional analysis and desk research) and primary sources (household surveys and questionnaires, focus groups, key informant interviews, checklists). Secondary sources are often used in the preliminary stages to give a picture of the overall governance environment in a country, institution and sector, or to identify priority risk areas. Primary sources are used for deeper analysis of the more critical corruption risks (or perceived risks). In addition some form of expert analysis is usually required to assess the level of risk (e.g. likelihood and probability of corruption). Outputs The results of a risk assessment can be presented in a number of ways. In some cases, risks are visualised through a corruption risk map which highlights key stages, actors and/or relationships in the process under analysis. Another visual tool is the corruption risk matrix which is often used to prioritize risks (see figure 1) More often than not however, results are either presented in tabular form or as a checklist. Where the risk assessment is part of a broader risk management framework, these inform what preventative action needs to be taken to mitigate the most critical risks.   This write-up is based on analysis of 16 corruption risk assessment tools. In cases where the same tool has been applied more than once, the analysis is based on one example of its application (e.g Proetica, TI-TISDA). Further details on the methodology and particularities of each tool can be found in the attached excel sheet.
Discussion Read through the guidance note your group has been allocated and discuss: 1) Is the content of the guidance note useful? Would it help you decide which type of assessment tool you might need in a given context? 2) What other information would you like to know which is not included in the note?