Strategy

The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity calls on adherents to “develop a strategic approach for the public sector that is based on evidence and aimed at mitigating public integrity risks, in particular through:

a) Setting strategic objectives and priorities for the public integrity system based on a risk-based approach to violations of public integrity standards, and that takes into account factors that contribute to effective public integrity policies;

b) Developing benchmarks and indicators and gathering credible and relevant data on the level of implementation, performance and overall effectiveness of the public integrity system”.

Questions for self-assessment:

1. Does the government or organisation conduct a “problem analysis” to systematically assess integrity risks?

There is no problem analysis conducted to systematically assess integrity risks.
There is a basic problem analysis with limited data to identify risks, and limited risk analysis and mitigation. There is limited, if any, engagement of other actors in the problem analysis process.
Existing administrative data are used to identify risks and inform risk analysis and mitigation. The process is inclusive, with actors in government.
Individual integrity risks are systematically assessed for all relevant strategies using an established methodology that draws on a broad range of valid data. The process is an inclusive process across government and society.

2. In the design of the strategy, are strategic objectives prioritised, co-ordinated and consulted?

There are no or few strategic objectives for integrity at the national level.
Strategic objectives are systematically established and prioritised based on evidence from the problem analysis.
Strategic objectives are systematically established and prioritised based on evidence from the problem analysis, and with extended public consultation with government actors.
Strategic objectives are systematically established and prioritised based on evidence from the problem analysis and based on a system-wide review, and with extended public consultation with government actors and society.

3. Is the coverage of strategic objectives adequate to mitigate key integrity risks?

Strategic objectives do not mitigate key integrity risks at the national level.
Strategic objectives are established at the national level for several key integrity risk areas.
Strategic objectives are established at the national level for several key integrity risk areas and aligned with sub-national objectives.
All key integrity risk areas have strategic objectives relating to mitigating those risks that are aligned with sub-national objectives, including ones promoting a whole-of-society approach.

4. Are indicators established for all integrity objectives that enable learning and accountability?

No indicators exist or they are not aligned with the primary objectives and do not have baselines and targets.
Indicators are established for all primary strategic objectives, with baselines and targets.
Indicators are established for all primary and secondary strategic objectives, with baselines and targets accessible to the public, drawing on a broad range of valid data sources.
Indicators are established for all primary and secondary strategic objectives measuring outcomes and behavioural change, with baselines and targets accessible to the public, drawing on a broad range of valid data sources.

5. Do action plans provide a roadmap for implementation?

There are no action plans in place providing a roadmap for implementation.
Action plans are in place, assign clear responsibilities for implementation and link objectives with indicators and activities. They are rarely, if ever, developed in an inclusive manner and do not specify the monitoring, reporting and evaluation arrangements.
Action plans are in place, assign clear responsibilities for implementation, and link objectives with indicators and activities. They are developed in an inclusive manner, and specify the monitoring, reporting and evaluation arrangements.
Action plans are in place, assign clear responsibilities for implementation, and link objectives with indicators and activities. They are developed in an inclusive manner, specify the monitoring, reporting and evaluation arrangements, and provide clear information on the required financial resources. Action plans also reference and include administrative data sources from existing public registries.

6. Are institutional responsibilities assigned to ensure the strategic framework is adequately implemented, monitored, evaluated and communicated?

Institutional responsibilities are not established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation.
Institutional responsibilities are established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Monitoring reports track the level of goal attainment and implementation of activities. There is no evaluation or communication of strategies.
Institutional responsibilities are established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Monitoring reports are published, report against targets in the action plan for pre-defined indicators and activities, draw conclusions and make recommendations. Strategies are evaluated but there is no communication.
Institutional responsibilities are established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Monitoring reports are published, report against targets in the action plan for pre-defined indicators and activities, draw conclusions and make recommendations. Strategies are evaluated and civil society is invited to participate in the monitoring and evaluation activities. Communication materials are developed and implemented.

Loading...