U4 Helpdesk Query

U4 helpdesk reply

Corruption diagnostics and measurement tools have indeed been widely used (or at least attempted to be used) for both public awareness raising and various forms of advocacy and influencing purposes. Experiences do vary - creators of some measurement tools set the use of the tool for advocacy and policy change processes as a key objective of the tool from the outset and even set to measure the success of the tool not only on its research quality but primarily on the quality of change brought about; whereas, creators of others recognise the advocacy potential of a given measurement tool as more of an afterthought. In either cases, results vary as well - from going a step beyond public awareness and gently touching upon advocacy, to serving as solid advocacy tools and finally to going as far as initiating policy dialogue and sometimes even policy changes. The text below will provide some specific examples of what have been the experiences in a number of countries, focusing primarily on African countries, as requested, but also providing brief examples from other regions.

Content
I. Examples from African countries
II. Summarised Examples from other (non-African) countries
III. Summary of Lessons learned/Recommendations

I. Examples from African countries

KENYA

Diagnostics/Measurement Tool Used: Kenya Bribery Index (published in 2002 and 2003, expected to be published annually)

Objectives: Along with creating the data set, the tool had also specifically set as a key objective bolstering the demand for institutional change and reform by creating a credible benchmark which public organisations can use to gauge their performance against other public organisations; and which proponents of reform can use to evaluate their effectiveness and monitor public organisations.

In summary, the main objectives were:

• To provide knowledge and obtain data on the size and the nature of the
  bribes
• To generate public awareness and discussion of the issue
• To use the data and findings to advocate reforms

The Process of Dissemination of Findings: The publication of the Index was preceded by a three-day "teaser" campaign in which small ads announcing an upcoming bribery report from TI-Kenya were placed in all national newspaper dailies. Advance embargoed copies were provided to newspaper editors so that they could prepare analyses of the report.
The press embargo was respected and the report dominated the headlines the day after the report was officially launched at a well-attended press briefing on 18 January 2002 in Nairobi. The Nation Media Group has distributed 2,500 copies of the Index nation-wide through its network of vendors and bookshops. The Index is for sale at a cost of 50 Kenya Shillings (about 65 US cents). It can also be read online at TI-Kenya's page and was featured on the Chapter's radio programme "Face-Off" which can be heard online at www.faceoffonline.com

The report received widespread coverage in both the local and international press. Among others, it was picked up by CNN, BBC, LA Times, Time Magazine, South African Press Association, Reuters, Associated Press, and Chicago Public Broadcasting Service.

Predictably, the worst performing organisations were extremely unhappy with the Index and hostile responses were received from the police (the organization ranked lowest in the survey), the Prisons Department and the Chief Justice. TI-Kenya studiously avoided being drawn into public arguments regarding its motivation, but presented the findings and defended the methodology used in press conferences and letters to the press. TI-Kenya also wrote to all of the named organisations after the launch and plans to develop advocacy and technical assistance engagements with those who respond. So far, these include the Kenya Revenue Authority and local government authorities. TI-Kenya believes the Index has provided the chapter with a great opportunity to build new partnerships with the public sector.

The Results: The survey generated a tremendous response from the public and created new opportunities for advocacy, networking and coalition building with public organisations. New partnerships were also built with the private sector. After the Index was published there was a fresh demand for engagement with TI-Kenya by several of the organisations ranked in the Index. This took various forms, including confidential requests for disaggregated data on individual institutions as well as requests for assistance by the Kenya Ports Authority, Traffic Police, National Cereals and Produce Board, Kenya Dairy Board, Kenya Ports Authority, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Ministry for Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the Office of the President. TI-Kenya is about to complete a case study of the Kenya Ports Authority and its implementation of the Public Sector Integrity Programme. It will be published in January 2004 together with the 2003 Bribery Index.

In addition, in at least one ministry (Public Works) an official circular was published alerting staff to the 2001 Index's findings and requiring corrective action. The board of the Kenya Revenue Authority convened a special meeting to discuss the organisation's ranking and the Index generally.

Unauthorised police traffic road-blocks disappeared from the country's highways in the weeks after the Index came out (a temporary relief to Kenyan road-users).

The Kenya police and Kenya Prisons Department held separate news conferences condemning the Index as "unscientific" and challenging the validity of its findings. These denials were criticised widely by press editorials, and ultimately the police approached TI-Kenya for assistance in identifying the root causes of corruption within the police force. The Prisons Department also announced that it "has opened up and welcomes positive, realistic and constructive suggestions to help improve our penal institutions".

For further information on the tool and the impact it has had in terms of advocacy, please contact:
Mwalimu Mati, Deputy Executive Director or David Ndii, Research Adviser
Transparency International-Kenya
PO Box 198-00200, Nairobi, Kenya
Email: mmati@tikenya.org or kli@wananchi.com
Website: www.tikenya.org

MOROCCO

Diagnostics/Measurement Tool Used: National Household and Private Sector Survey on Corruption (published in January 2002, TI-S and TI Morocco)

Objectives: The aim of the research was to produce data that could shed light on the nature, causes, types and frequency of corruption in the country surveyed. These studies combined a quantitative and qualitative approach. The surveys were carried out by private institutes: LMS and CSA-TMO among 1000 individuals and 400 representatives of the formal and informal sector.

The Results:The publication in January 2002 of the national household and private sector survey on corruption had a great impact on the general public and received extensive media coverage. In terms of awareness-raising, TI Morocco still uses the data to conduct seminars and conferences for different target groups (universities, private sector, public sector). TI Morocco is disaggregating the data in order to prepare a number of sectoral reports. The potential of the tool for specific impact in terms of advocacy can be assessed and evaluated as part of the follow-up activities.

For further information on the tool and the impact it has had in terms of advocacy, please contact:
Transparency Maroc
Mr Bachir Rachdi, Secretary General
Phone: +212-22-542 699
Fax: +212-22-451 391
Email: transparency.maroc@marocnet.net.ma
Website: www.transparencymaroc.org

SENEGAL

Diagnostics/Measurement Tool Used: National Household and Private Sector Survey on Corruption (published in May 2002, TI-S and Forum Civil/TI Senegal)

Objectives: Part of the series of national surveys conducted in three Francophone African countries, the objectives of the survey were similar to those listed above under Morocco.

The Results: After the publication in May 2002 of the national household and private sector survey on corruption, Forum Civil received openly strong criticism from the President Wade who denied the findings of the survey, which generated debates. The media coverage of the survey was good and an important aide at the dissemination stage. Forum Civil used the results mainly in terms of awareness raising and advocacy.

For further information on the tool and the impact it has had in terms of advocacy, please contact:
Forum Civil
Phone: +221-842 4042
Fax: +221-842 4045
Email: forumcivil@sentoo.sn
Website: www.forumcivil.sn

MADAGASKAR

Diagnostics/Measurement Tool Used: Surveys on Corruption in Madagascar (published in June 2002, TI-S and TI-Initiative Madagaskar)

Objectives: The project set out to obtain a full and representative picture of social attitudes towards corruption, from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective. The survey made no attempt to verify the experiences of those interviewed. The objective of the qualitative part of the study was to complete the quantitative approach of the surveys in the private sector and households. It attempted to analyse Madagascar's "National Integrity System", in other words the laws, regulations, ethical practices and existing institutions, which form a system of prevention, recourse and sanction of acts of corruption.

The project also had the following aims:

1. To inform people of the facts and raise awareness about corruption in Madagascar.
2. To generate meaningful debate and constructive dialogue on the issue.
3. To assess the condition and effectiveness of legal, administrative and institutional provisions designed to prevent corruption and reinforce integrity in Madagascar.
4. To create a database that helps draw up priorities and measure the evolution of the phenomenon over time. The data will also allow TI-IM to assess progress and identify failures in vulnerable areas that have been most affected by corruption.
5. To apply pressure to institutions and provide them with data that will be useful in the development of a reform programme.

Dissemination of Findings: The publication of the survey results was postponed for several months because of a political crisis in Madagascar. However, the results were finally announced at a press conference on 28 June 2002. Around 60 people attended, including journalists, representatives of the President and the Prime Minister, a minister, Members of Parliament, ambassadors and funding agencies. There was significant media coverage of the survey around the country.

The Results: The publication of these surveys has raised public awareness about the work of TI-IM throughout the country. Consequently, the project has been a driving force in the development of TI-IM's future activities.
The project results encouraged debate and constructive dialogue about the issue of corruption. The project was widely covered in the media and three ministers (justice, police and the interior) made specific commitments to combat corruption.
TI-IM intends to repeat the exercise in a few years' time in order to examine how much has changed over time. An initial comparison will also be carried out between the results obtained in three different African countries where similar pilot surveys have been carried out.

For further information on the tool and the impact it has had in terms of advocacy, please contact:
Marie Wolkers at the International Secretariat or
Transparency International - Initiative Madagascar

II. Summarised Examples from other (non-African) countries

Below are brief descriptions of other diagnostics and measurement tools that have been used for advocacy purposes. The examples are summarized, for complete information on each of the country tools, please contact the U4 Helpdesk Team (you can email: ahakobyan@transparency.org) or the respective contact person listed below under each of the initiatives.

BULGARIA

Tool Used: Index for Transparency of Political Party Financing (2002 and 2003, TI Bulgaria)
Objectives: The objectives set for the tool included not only identifying the main legislative and enforcement gaps in political party financing, but also building proactive strategies for monitoring political party financing.
The Results: Among the practical results were: as part of the project, some 25 grassroots NGOs were trained and equipped for monitoring of political finance activities; a team of experts evaluated the existing Bulgarian legislation and proposed effective mechanisms for improving transparency in party financing; a non-partisan evaluation of the practices of major political parties was issued; the various policy forums fostered practical cooperation efforts in tackling these issues and served to improve the level of transparency in political life.

Contacts for further information:
Dessislava Yordanova
Transparency International-Bulgaria
3 Bistritza str., Sofia 1000, Bulgaria
Email: dessislava@transparency-bg.org
www.transparency-bg.org

BANGLADESH

Tool Used: Fact-finding survey on good governance in public institutions (published 2001, TI Bangladesh)
Objectives: The objectives set for the tool included exerting pressure on the government to undertake reform and make necessary changes.
The Results: TI Bangladesh undertook Fact-finding exercises (FEEs) on three of country's most important watchdogs, Bangladeshi Anti-Corruption Bureau, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Public Accounts Committee. According to TI-B the reports have been useful both in terms of identifying the issues but also in terms of giving specific recommendations for reforms. TI-B highlights the importance of follow-up mechanisms when using such tools to ensure continued monitoring of implementation of the recommendations issued and help measure the changes and effects that the FEEs have brought about.

Contacts for further information:
TI Bangladesh
Anwarul Amin, Research associate
Phone 880-2-988 4811
Email: research@ti-bangladesh.org
www.ti-bangladesh.org

JAPAN

Tool Used: Measuring Transparency in Municipal and Central Governments (published annually, Freedom of Information Citizen Centre)
Objectives: The objectives set for the tool included publishing credible benchmarks on key "access to information" indicators on a regular basis to influence public policy on the issue of transparency.
The Results: The project has been in existence for the past five years and, in accordance to the creators and implementers of the tool, it has been very effective in terms of reform efforts of local government agencies, including examples of specific impact on reforming some of their practices.

Contacts for further information:
Tatsuro Kuroda
Freedom of Information Citizen Centre
Hashizume BLD. 2F, 10-1 Sanei-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Tel: 81-3-5368-1520; Fax: 81-3-5368-1521
Email: info@jkcc.gr.jp
www.jkcc.gr.jp

In addition (other non-African Country examples)
Summary information on other country tools, such as Lithuania (Mapping Corruption), Nicaragua (Municipal Government Evaluation Instrument), Columbia (Integrity Observatory) and Mexico (National Survey of good governance) and their use (or potential) for advocacy purposes can be found in TI's Anti-Corruption Toolkit under Diagnostics along with contact details for each of the initiatives.

III. Summary of Lessons learned/Recommendations

Here are some lessons learned and recommendations drawn from the number of examples listed and other general experiences with surveys and measurement tools with relevance to their use for advocacy purposes.

• It is helpful to issue a working paper or a brief alongside the publication of the survey results. Such papers could serve as a useful tool in interpreting the data (including clarification of common misperceptions and misinterpretations of survey results) and in adding a qualitative angle and analysis, making the tool easier to use for advocacy purposes.
• With diagnostic tools aimed at assessing the performance of institutions, continued monitoring of the activities of the institution is advised, where possible. Also, repeated or systematic diagnostics would be helpful for measuring any changes over time and the pattern of such changes.
• One way of building the survey/diagnostic tool's outcome into more sustainable advocacy and reform efforts is to issue each poorly rated institution/public agency surveyed with recommendations and guidelines for specific anti-corruption initiatives to bring about positive change. Such recommendations are most effective when shaped in cooperation with the respective institution rather than prescribed as recipes.
• It is relatively common to receive hostile responses from the institutions/government agencies that have been rated as worst performing ones, who are likely to try to discredit the methodology, the tool and the organisation having carried out the study. It is best to avoid confrontation and instead continue publicly explaining the methodology and the outcome. While doing this, it is also important to candidly acknowledge any shortcomings and limitations the survey or the tool used might have and explain that. In general, a very well-prepared strategy for dealing with the response from the media and the surveyed institutions/sectors is essential, which will build credibility and lay the ground for more specific advocacy efforts and reform proposals.
• It is also best to encourage the poorly rated institutions to engage in a constructive dialogue as early on as possible. The experience shows that this tactics seem to have worked in most countries and the institutions, after an initial wave of discontent, have proven willing to cooperate and take advice and consultations on reform efforts.