FRAMEWORK FOR MAINSTREAMING CORRUPTION PREVENTION IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS Prepared by: The Directorate of Preventive Services NOVEMBER 2007
FRAMEWORK FOR MAINSTREAMING CORRUPTION PREVENTION IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS 1. Introduction It is widely acknowledged that Corruption remains the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development in developing countries. Corruption reduces investment, increases costs, lowers productivity, undermines confidence in public institutions, raises interest rates, limits the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, undermines public financial management, and leads to inferior educational and health outcomes. It can also increase poverty by skewing government expenditure in favor of the rich and well-connected, weakening customs and tax administration, making the tax system more regressive, promoting tax evasion, and rendering the assets of the poor less attractive as collateral for securing loans. In the same vein, many developing countries governments have been dodged with poor performance and poor service delivery to their citizenry. This is largely attributed to corruption and corrupt practices that have dominated their systems of governance, management and service delivery. It is in recognition of these twin challenges that the Kenya Government put in place Performance Contracting (PC) as a measure to improve performance, reduce reliance on Exchequer funding especially among Public Enterprises, and to increase transparency in operations and resource utilization. It is also expected to increase accountability for results, base reward on measurable performance, and enhance the correlation between planning and implementation. The objectives of PC are clearly geared towards addressing institutional governance and eliminating corruption in public institutions. 2. Pre-Conditions for Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption Initiatives in the Public Service The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act of 2003, the Public Officers Ethics Act of 2003 and the Public Service Integrity Programme provide the foundation and environment for developing, implementing and sustaining a sound and effective integrity system across the public sector and eradicating corruption. They provide a framework for public institutions to put in place policies, systems and plans as necessary conditions for the fight against corruption and corrupt practices. 2
Corruption eradication is a performance indicator in the PC and entails the following: Putting an anti corruption policy in place Operationalising corruption prevention/integrity committees Developing corruption prevention plans Developing a Code of Conduct Integrity Training 2.1 Development of Institutional Anti-Corruption Policy All public institutions are required to formulate and implement an Anti- Corruption Prevention Policy to address issues of corruption and inform the strategies to be put in place. Such a policy should generally address the following: Statement of recognition of corruption risk in the organization and acknowledgment that corruption can occur. Statement confirming that the responsibility of addressing corruption rests with management, staff and stakeholders. Structures put in place to prevent, detect, investigate and punish corrupt officers A summary of possible corrupt practices in an institution to guide public servants A breakdown of corruption risk areas and corrupt practices in the institution Composition of corruption prevention committee members, its mandate and operations How to report corruption internally and externally Confidentiality of information and protection of informers and whistle blowers. (See the attached guide of an anti corruption policy. The guide can be expanded to include other aspects not covered so as to reflect the unique and peculiar characteristics of each institution) 2.2 Operationalizing Corruption Prevention/Integrity Committees Public institutions are required to form and operationalize Corruption Prevention Committees/Integrity Committees in accordance with the provided guidelines under the Public Service Integrity Programme. The committee s role is to coordinate anti corruption strategies in the organization, specifically: 3
Setting priorities in the prevention of corruption within the relevant organizations Planning and coordinating corruption prevention strategies Integrating all corruption prevention initiatives in their organizations. Receiving and reviewing reports on corruption prevention initiatives and recommend appropriate action. Receiving and taking action on corruption reports made by staff and other stakeholders. Evidence of concrete measures taken must be made available and any referrals to other agencies well documented. Spearheading anti-corruption campaigns within their jurisdiction. Monitoring and evaluating the impact of corruption prevention initiatives Preparing and submitting quarterly progress reports. The committees should hold regular meetings at least every three months and maintain accurate records of minutes for purposes of evaluation. 2.3 Development of the Corruption Prevention Plan (CPP) The CPP should provide the mechanism for implementing the Institutional Anti-Corruption Policy. To this end, each institution is required to develop and implement a Corruption Prevention Plan (CPP). The CPP must incorporate clearly set SMART objectives and targets to be met, activities and sub activities to be implemented, desired outputs/outcomes to be achieved, clear and objectively verifiable indicators for monitoring progress and evaluating results, clear responsibilities for implementation and resource requirements. One of the key activities to be undertaken under the CPP is carrying out a Corruption Risk Assessment and management to identify loopholes in the systems, policies, procedures and practices that facilitate corrupt practices and recommending ways of sealing them. This involves institutions looking at their own systems and operations with a view to understand the motives, opportunities, discretionary powers and monopolistic tendencies that encourage corruption to occur. This is done through detection and assessment of the organization to determine corruption risk exposures within each functional area and assess the impact of such exposures. The next steps involve developing appropriate mechanisms to ameliorate such risks. The steps that must be followed in carrying out Corruption Risk Assessment include: 4
Identifying major functional areas in the organization Identifying the risks in each functional area and assess the extent of these risks Identifying the significance of each risk and assess the possibility of these risks occurring Identifying responses to risk areas Developing risk management strategies Identifying responsible persons and timeframes to implement the plan Monitoring The institutions are expected to implement the corruption prevention plans and prepare quarterly progress reports clearly indicating the positive effects of the strategies adopted over time. 2. 4 Development of a Code of Conduct Pursuant to the enactment of the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003, all public institutions are expected to develop specific Codes of Conduct and Ethics for their employees to ensure that staff is committed in the discharge of their duties. The Codes should be binding to Board Members, Management and Staff. In evaluating this requirement, the Act should be a key point of reference. (See the attached guide of a Code of Conduct and Ethics. The guide can be expanded to include other aspects not covered so as to reflect the unique and peculiar characteristics of each institution. ) 2.5 Integrity Training Each public institution should train Integrity Assurance Officers (IAOs) to offer technical guidance to the management on the implementation of Anti Corruption programmes and carry out sensitization workshops. The IAO training will be done in consultation with the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission and the Ministry of State for Public Service and other stakeholders in line with the Public Service Integrity Programme. 5