Practitioners Guide: Capacity Assessment of Anti-Corruption Agencies

137 Pages·2011·0.89 MB·English

by  Tomas Fodor

CoverOK 10/18/11 3:32 PM Page 1
Practitioners’ Guide:
U N D P, 2 0 1 1
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 10:56 AM Page 1
Practitioners' Guide:
Capacity Assessment
of AntiCorruption Agencies
UNDP, October 2011
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 10:56 AM Page 2
2
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 10:56 AM Page 3
Preface
T
oday, the adverse impact of corruption agencies, as part of its contribution to
on sustainable human development is enhancing democratic institutions and
undisputed. Corruption undermines accountability systems. This effort also
the achievement of countries’ poverty supports national commitments to
reduction and development goals; in particular, implement UNCAC, which explicitly
it has a disproportionately negative impact on recognizes anticorruption agencies as an
S
E
the poor. essential element of any national ant I
C
corruption framework. N
E
Over the years, countries have focused G
A

increasingly on developing strategies to At a practical level, in order to strengthen the N
O
tackle corruption. Globally, the United Nations capacity of anticorruption agencies to more I
T
P
Convention against Corruption is a effectively discharge their mandates, it is
U
R
groundbreaking international instrument necessary to first assess the existing capacity. R
O
which commits State parties to working Accordingly, this Practitioners' Guide has C

together to address corruption nationally, and been developed to assist national anti I
T
N
transnationally. corruption officials, as well as UNDP Country A

Offices and other development partners, to F
O

Domestically, the establishment of anti carry out capacity assessment of anti T
N
corruption agencies has emerged as a core corruption agencies. Cognizant of the variety E
M
component in the reforms pursued by of cultural, legal and administrative S
S
governments. However, while often circumstances in which anticorruption E
S
S
established with great optimism, experience agencies operate, this Practitioners' Guide has A

has shown that the effectiveness of anti been designed flexibly. Part 2 of the Y
T
I
corruption agencies has varied greatly from Practitioners' Guide provides a range of C
A
country to country. Lessons learned show assessment modules and sample surveys P
A
C
that capable anticorruption agencies tend to which can be adapted to the specific local

:
be wellresourced, headed by strong context and institutional model. The results E
D
I
leadership with visible integrity and from such an adapted capacity assessment U
G
commitment, and situated amongst a provide the basis for developing and
’
S
network of state and nonstate actors who implementing a comprehensive capacity R
E
N
work together to implement anticorruption development plan, thereby linking analysis
O
interventions. On the other hand, weaker anti with action. TI
I
corruption agencies have often been T
C
A
undermined by weak political will, manifested The fight against corruption requires the
R
P
in limited resources and staff capacity. active involvement of different parts of
society. Strong political will and leadership at
3
UNDP is committed to supporting the the highest level needs to be complemented
capacity development of anticorruption by a wellcoordinated network of state
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 12:21 PM Page 4
institutions, complemented by the vigorous Francesco Checchi, Samuel De Jaegere, Dan
engagement of the media and civil society. Dionisie, Alan Doig, and Charmaine
Anticorruption agencies have a crucial role to Rodrigues. The authors drew upon earlier
play in this network of accountability work published by the UNDP Bratislava
institutions, and it is hoped that this Regional Centre, as well as an ediscussion on
Practitioners' Guide will provide a practical anticorruption agencies conducted by the
resource to assist those agencies to develop UNDP AsiaPacific Regional Centre in
and strengthen their capacity and thereby November 2009. The draft Practitioners' Guide
empower them to confidently and effectively benefited from valuable inputs from
promote cleaner, more transparent and stakeholders attending the Bratislava review
S
E accountable governance for all people. and validation workshop in July 2011. Finally,
I
C
we would like to express our thanks to Nigel
N
E
G We would like to acknowledge Tsegaye Coulson, Shervin Majlessi, Harald Mathisen,
A
Lemma, Phil Matsheza, and Anga Timilsina’s Constantine Palicarsky, Karam Singh, Pauline
N
O efforts in coordinating the development Tamesis, and Dasho Neten Zangmo for their
I
T
P process for this Practitioners' Guide. We are observations and contributions in finalizing
U
R especially grateful to the principal authors of this Practitioners' Guide.
R
O this Practitioners' Guide: Robert Bernardo,
C

I
T
N
A

F
O

T
N
E
M
S
S Geraldine FraserMoleketi Nils Boesen
E
S
S Director, Democratic Governance Group Director, Capacity Develompment Group
A
UNDP/BDP UNDP/BDP
Y
T
I
C
A
P
A
C

:
E
D
I
U
G

’
S
R
E
N
O
I
T
I
T
C
A
R
P
4
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 10:56 AM Page 5
Table of Contents
Preface.........................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................6

S
PART 1: AntiCorruption Agencies and Capacity Development...........................................................................7 E
I
C
N
E
G
1. Background.......................................................................................................................................................................................8 A

N
2. AntiCorruption Agencies.....................................................................................................................................................10 O
I
T
3. UNDP’s Capacity Development Approach.................................................................................................................14 P
U
R
4. Conducting a Capacity Assessment...............................................................................................................................18 R
O
C

I
T
N
A
PART 2: Capacity Assessment Methodology for AntiCorruption Agencies...............................................25
F
O

T
N
5. How to use the Capacity Assessment Methodology for AntiCorruption Agencies.......................26 E
M
S
6. Applying the Capacity Assessment Methodology to AntiCorruption Agencies..............................27 S
E
S
Module A: Core Issues.............................................................................................................................................................43 S
A

Module B: AntiCorruption Policy Formulation and Implementation.....................................................63 Y
T
I
Module C: Research on Corruption and Corruption Vulnerabilities..........................................................71 C
A
P
Module D: Legislative Reform............................................................................................................................................77 A
C

Module E: Civil Society Partnership Against Corruption...................................................................................79 E:
D
I
Module F: Promotion of Integrity....................................................................................................................................83 U
G

Module G: Managing specific corruption prevention regimes.....................................................................87 ’
S
R
Module H: International Cooperation...........................................................................................................................95 E
N
O
Module I: Complaints Handling........................................................................................................................................99 I
T
I
Module J: Detection..............................................................................................................................................................105 T
C
A
Module K: Conducting Investigations.......................................................................................................................111 R
P
Module L: Prosecution.........................................................................................................................................................121
5
Annex: Sample capacity benchmarking matrix.........................................................................................................125
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 10:56 AM Page 6
Introduction
Purpose of the Practitioners' Guide title of the agency. Thus, this tool can be used
to assess the capacity of an Independent
This Practitioners' Guide is designed to be used Commission Against Corruption with both
by senior officials working in anticorruption prevention and law enforcement functions, an
agencies ACAs, as well as UNDP Country anticorruption unit with a prevention function,
Offices and other anticorruption practitioners. an Audit Office with an investigation function
S
E It aims to provide users with a simple tool to or even a Department of Prosecution with an
I
C
N assess the existing capacities of a target ACA, enforcement function.
E
G keeping in mind the capacities that the ACA
A
actually needs in order to discharge its
N
How to use the Practitioners' Guide?
O
mandate. Developing the capacities of ACAs
I
T
P requires a careful assessment of all the factors
U Part 1 of the Practitioners' Guide offers
R contributing to their functioning.
R background information on:
O
C
 Normative frameworks for anticorruption;
 The results from the capacity assessment of
I
T  The diversity of national approaches and a
N ACAs provide the basis to develop and
A
range of different types of ACAs;
implement a comprehensive capacity
F
O  UNDP’s approach to capacity
development plan, thereby linking analysis with

T
development,including the stepbystep
N action. This Capacity Development Plan usually
E
M comprises an integrated set of sequenced process for carrying out a capacity
S
S assessment; and
actions designed to address the capacity
E
S  The core issues and challenges for ACAs
S development needs of a given ACA. The specific
A
that need to be considered during a
indicators and benchmarks established during
Y
T capacity assessment.
I the capacity assessment process can serve as a
C
A foundation for subsequent monitoring and
P
Part 2 of the Practitioners' Guide comprises a
A
evaluation of the implementation of the
C
number of is presented using a modular
: Capacity Development Plan of the ACA.
E
D approach, where key capacity issues are
I
U captured in individual “modules”, which allows
G
’ Scope of the Practitioners' Guide for flexibility to apply the tool in different
S
R context depending on specific functions that a
E
N In accordance with the United Nations given ACA wishes to review.
O
TI Convention Against Corruption UNCAC, the
I
T Practitioners' Guide covers the capacities to The Annexes contains a range of sample
C
A
undertake both i preventive functions Article stakeholder tools, questionnaires and
R
P
6 and ii law enforcement functions Article benchmarks. They are intended to be used and
36. The Practitioners' Guide has been designed modified as required by the users of this
6 to focus on functionsperformed by an agency, Practitioners' Guide to develop customised
rather than the institutional arrangement or the countryspecific questionnaires and surveys.
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 10:56 AM Page 7
Part 1:

S
E
I
C
Anti-Corruption N
E
G
A

N
O
Agencies and Capacity
I
T
P
U
R
R
Development O
C

I
T
N
A

F
O

T
N
E
M
S
S
E
S
S
A

Y
T
I
C
A
P
A
C

:
E
D
I
U
G

’
S
R
E
N
O
I
T
I
T
C
A
R
P
7
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 10:56 AM Page 8
1. Background
F
or many years, the establishment of spe corruption, members of the public as well as
cialized anticorruption agencies, institu development partners have increasingly
tions and bodies hereafter, this questioned the value of ACAs.
Practitioners' Guide will use the term
“AntiCorruption Agencies” or “ACAs” has widely While UNDP recognizes that while many ACAs
been considered to be one of the most impor still have considerable work to do in order to
S
E
I tant national initiatives necessary to effectively live up to the promise and expectations their
C
N tackle corruption. This belief was largely popu establishment brought, It nonetheless consid
E
G larized by the successful models of the Corrupt ers that they can, and should, play an important
A

N Practice Investigation Bureau of Singapore es role in a country’s national accountability
O
I tablished in 1952 and of Hong Kong’sInde framework and should be provided with appro
T
P
pendent Commission Against Corruption priate assistance to this end. This commitment
U
R
R established in 1974; both institutions were is reinforced by the endorsement of States par
O
C widely considered to be effective in reducing ties to the United Nations Convention against

I corruption in their countries. During the 1990s Corruption UNCAC that ACAs are a crucial ele
T
N
A and 2000s, specialized anticorruption agencies ment of any national antcorruption framework.

F were established in many countries. At the same Articles 5, 6 and 36 all recognize the need for
O

T time, a number of countries also explored op States parties to ensure the existence of ACAs
N
E tions for integrating anticorruption functions that have the mandate, independence, quality
M
S into existing institutions, such as Ombudsman staff and resources to discharge their mandates
S
E and Audit Offices. effectively see Table 1 on p.6 for more.
S
S
A

Y Despite the increasing prevalence of national The 2008 UNDPPractice Note on Mainstreaming
T
I
C ACAs, these agencies have often been criticized AntiCorruption in Development2explicitly identi
A
P for not living up to their promise of tackling fies support to ACAs as a major entry point for
A
C
corruption effectively. While many ACAs have UNDP’s effortsto support the development of

:
E been supported by multilateral and bilateral national capacities to fight corruption. The Prac
D
I
U donors over the years as part of the good tice Note draws on UNDP’s experiences in pro
G
governance agenda, empirical evidence viding technical support to ACAs around the
’
S
R appears to suggest that most ACAs have had world, which have shown that the capacity of
E
N limited impact.1Disappointed at their perceived ACAs is at the heart of their failure to meaning
O
TI lack of impact in reducing the incidence of fully address corruption at the national level.3
I
T
C
A
R
P
1 Meagher, P. (2005), “Anti-corruption agencies: Rhetoric versus reality”, The Journal of Policy Reform, Vol. 8, No.1, pp.69-103.;
Heilbrunn, J. (2004) Anti-Corruption Commissions Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption? Washington DC: World Bank
Institute; Doig, A., D. Watt, R. Williams (2005) Measuring ‘success’ in five African Anti-Corruption Commissions, the cases of Ghana,
8 Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda & Zambia. Bergen: U4. U4 Brief (2007), “Rethinking governance to fight corruption”, by Sue Unsworth,
www.u4.no/themes/private-sector; UNDP (2008) Anti-Corruption Practice Note.
2 See http://www.pogar.org/publications/other/undp/governance/mainstream-update-08e.pdf.
Practitioners:Layout 1 10/21/11 10:56 AM Page 9
Responding to this demonstrated need by preventive functions Article 6 and ii law
ACAs, UNDP has increased resources towards enforcement functions Article 36. Accordingly,
providing specific capacity development sup the Practitioners’ Guide has been designed to
port to ACAs. For instance, in 2010 UNDP di focus on functionsperformed by an agency,
rectly supported numerous anticorruption rather than the particular institutional
institutions in all of its regions in developing ca arrangement or name of the agency. A modular
pacity to monitor delivery of services by gov approach has been used, whereby key capacity
ernment institutions, to conduct UNCAC issues are captured in individual “modules”
selfassessments, to investigate cases of corrup which can then be applied depending on
tion and to increase the coordination mecha which functions are relevant to the specific

S
nism among government institutions, media agency being reviewed. E
I
C
and civil society in the fight against corruption.
N
E
It is important to keep in mind that a capacity G
A
To better calibrate UNDP assistance to ACAs, in assessment is only a first step in a longer
N
the last five years, in the Eastern European and process of developing and implementing a ca O
I
T
CIS region, the Asia Pacific region and the Arab pacity development plan. The assessment P
U
region, UNDP has undertaken a number of spe phase is critical to capacity development efforts R
R
cific capacity assessments of ACAs, as the first because it lays the foundations for the design O
C
step towards developing effective, targeted ca and implementation of informed, appropriate, 
I
T
pacity development programmes for those and effective capacity development responses. N
A
ACAs. Drawing on UNDP’s previous ACA capac It can also set the baseline for continuous moni
F
O
ity assessments, in 2008 the UNDP Bratislava toring and evaluation of progress, and thereby
T
Regional Centre developed a Methodology for lay a solid foundation for longterm planning, N
E
M
Assessing Capacities of AntiCorruption Agencies implementation and sustainable results from
S
S
to Perform Preventive Functions.4This Practition capacity development interventions. This Prac E
S
ers’ Guide expands that initial methodology to titioners’ Guide provides a starting point for S
A
include enforcement functions as well, drawing these efforts, and but it is merely the first step in
Y
T
on experiences and lessons learned from the a longerterm process. It is essential that ACAs, I
C
A
field, including capacity assessments from the governments that establish them and the
P
A
Bhutan, Mongolia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey, development partners that support them all C

Moldova and the FYR of Macedonia. stay focused and remain committed to the E:
D
main goal, namely, to sustainably develop effec I
U
In line with UNCAC, the Practitioners’ Guide tive national capacities to address corruption G

’
covers the capacities to undertake both i and thereby improve the lives of citizens. S
R
E
N
O
I
T
I
T
3 For example, a quick survey conducted by UNDP in 2009 of 12 ACAs from Africa shows that these agencies lack capacities in C
almost all key areas: capacities to implement national anti-corruption strategies; capacities to effectively investigate the A
corruption cases (e.g., case management, procedural standards for evidence management, coordination and advice during R
P
investigations, handling of witnesses, interviews, information collection, electronic surveillance and undercover operation);
seizure, freezing and confiscation (tracking/detecting of assets, use of forensic auditors, gathering financial data etc.);
prosecutorial capacities (prosecutorial strategies and tactics, preparing and handling of witnesses, use of experts and etc.); and
cooperation with national and international authorities and organizations. 9
4 Available at: http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/public1/files/ACPN/ACA%20%20Methodology/Method_
ACA%20Assessment%20_June%202011.pdf