Monitoring and evaluating public integrity systems
As with any other public policy, performance measurement provides evidence for the design of more effective public integrity policies. It also supports implementation by helping policymakers to monitor compliance with integrity policies, detect potential bottlenecks and identify unaddressed integrity risks.
The majority of OECD and partner countries have in place approaches for monitoring and evaluating their public sector integrity policies, with the exception of Estonia, Latvia, Portugal and Switzerland. Evaluations may be conducted centrally by one entity, or individually by line ministries and other public sector organisations. The most common aspects under scrutiny by central governments in the executive branch include the existence and quality of codes of conduct and fraud risk mapping exercises and existence and compliance with conflict of interest policies and asset declaration policies.
Countries use a variety of means to collect performance information, including employee surveys (14 countries), interviews and focus groups (8 countries), public opinion polls (6 countries), and case studies (7 countries). Most commonly however, organisations’ internal administrative data is used, with 18 countries reporting this as a source of information. Administrative data is often used because it is more readily available. Indeed, it is frequently internal to organisations. However, it usually only reflects inputs and outputs from integrity initiatives (i.e. budget and staff data, trainings or meetings held, participants attending, declarations received, etc.).
While such information is certainly valuable, it also has its limitations in terms of providing insights related to desired policy outcomes (i.e. the quality of results, internalisation of integrity values, etc.). A well-balanced analytical framework for monitoring and evaluating integrity systems should complement administrative data with additional sources from external entities (citizens, firms, etc.) as well as with perception data. Mexico’s National Statistics Office (INEGI), for example, collects detailed perception data on citizens’ experiences with corruption in a standard sample of public services delivered by federal, state and municipal authorities. The office also regularly collects opinion surveys on perceived levels of corruption for various public institutions. Korea’s Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission developed the anti-corruption initiative assessment (AIA) and the integrity assessment (IA) that combine quantitative administrative data and perception data collected from surveys to monitor and benchmark organisations in their implementation of anti-corruption policies. Hungary’s supreme audit institution assesses public sector institutions through a periodic questionnaire that in turn provides inputs for developing corruption risk indices.
Data were collected through the OECD 2016 Survey on Public Sector Integrity from 31 OECD countries and 6 non OECD countries. Survey respondents were public officials responsible for integrity policies in their respective central/federal governments.
The term “public integrity system” is defined as a system including the laws, regulations, policies and practices, and also officials, bodies and units that specifically contribute to the integrity of the public sector.
Further reading
OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2009), “Integrity in Government: Towards Output and Outcome Measurement”, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2009), “Measuring Government Activity”, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Figure notes
Data on Argentina, Brazil and Peru were included on an ad-hoc basis.
7.4: In Canada, the existence of codes of conduct is often covered by evaluations, while evaluation of the quality of codes of conduct is unknown/varies widely. In Poland, the respective evaluation has to date been conducted once, in 2014. In Australia, Austria, Canada, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, Slovak Republic, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, elements of the integrity system are monitored and evaluated by individual entities or agencies with subject matter expertise. Scope and methods may vary.