Integrity Assessment Of Public Organizations, Korea
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like893 views
The document discusses South Korea's Integrity Assessment initiative, which aims to encourage public institutions to voluntarily assess and disclose their integrity levels to prevent corruption. It does this through conducting regular surveys of over 240,000 individuals to identify corruption risks, trends over time, and areas for improvement. The assessments have been effective, with integrity levels in the public sector continuing to improve since implementation began in 2002. In 2012, the Integrity Assessment model received international recognition by winning a UN Public Service Award.
Integrity Assessment Of Public Organizations, Korea
- 1. by ACRC (Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission, Republic of Korea)
- 2. 1. Concept and Background Lord Kelvin (British physicist) Concept of Integrity Assessment An innovative initiative to encourage public institutions to engage in voluntary efforts to prevent corruption by regularly assessing and disclosing the integrity levels at public institutions 1
- 3. 1. Concept and Background Background Initiative Integrity Assessment Implement preventive measures for corruption-causing factors Reactive approach based on crackdown and punishment Efficiency 2 Introduce scientific assessment model Limits of conventional corruption assessment models Accuracy Promote citizens’ rights to know and participation Growing public awareness about corruption issues Transparency Solutions Problems Values
- 4. 2. Objectives and Features Understand trends in corruption levels of public organizations Identify corruption-prone areas in the public sector and root causes of corruption Encourage public institutions to engage in voluntary anti-corruption efforts Provide basic data for devising government-wide anti-corruption strategies Objectives 3
- 5. 2. Objectives and Features ? Areas to be assessed Persons to be surveyed Survey questions Individual organizations and their specific tasks First-hand service users and internal staff of public organizations Personal perception of corruption & actual experience with corrupt practices (offering of money, gifts, entertainment or favors) Features 4
- 6. A++ Data sources Assessment results Phone or online surveys & statistics on the public officials punished for corrupt acts Disclosed to relevant organizations and the media 5 2. Objectives and Features Features
- 7. 3. History of development 6 1999-2001 2002 2007 2008 2012 2013 Developed, tested & improved the integrity assessment model Officially conducted the 1st assessment (71 organizations, 348 lines of work, about 30,000 people) Introduced internal integrity assessment methods Revamped the assessment model (to the current system) Conducted the 11th assessment (627 organizations, 2,507 lines of work, about 240,000 people) To conduct the 12th assessment (653 organizations, 2,628 lines of work, about 240,000 people)
- 8. 4. Assessment Model Structure Integrity Assessment Model (2013) (Deducted) How transparently and accountably public officials carry out duties without committing corruption Levels of corruption in managerial activities, institutional practices and organizational culture Levels of corruption in the processes of determining and executing policies Statistics on employees punished for their corruption or corruption cases reported in media External integrity Internal integrity Policy customer evaluation Cases of Corruption 7
- 9. 5. Effectiveness Provide accurate information on the current status of corruption Reliable data is collected by surveying some 240,000 people Provide an effective tool to encourage voluntary anti-corruption efforts Analysis of corruption-prone areas in each public organization Raise public awareness about corruption in the public sector Results are disclosed though the media to raise the issue of corruption 8
- 10. Low integrity, no promotion Gyeonggi provincial governments trying hard to enhance integrity scores Local governments to take drastic measures to come out on the bottom in the Integrity Index 5. Effectiveness 9
- 11. 6.43 Integrity levels have continued to improve in the public sector 7.71 8.38 8.68 8.77 8.89 8.20 8.51 8.44 8.43 4.1 3.5 1.5 0.9 Comprehensive Integrity (points) Offering entertainment (%) Offering money / gifts (%) Offering money / gifts / entertainment (%) 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 7.86 0.5 0.4 2012 6. Achievements Integrity Index and rate of offering money, gifts and entertainment to public officials 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 10 *Time series interrupted in 2012 due to modification of the model 7.86 0.29 0.25
- 12. in the category of Preventing & Combating Corruption at the UN Headquarters in New York on June 25, 2012. 11 7. International Recognition & Technical Assistance Winner of 2012 UN Public Service Awards
- 13. Contact Information Mr. Dong Hyun Kim Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Survey & Evaluation Division Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Republic of Korea Tel: 82-2-360-6548 Fax: 82-2-360-3547 E-mail: [email protected]