Selection process for target institutions

Prompted by Sri Lanka’s question, the participants shared varying approaches to selecting institutions that are subject to assessment each year. In Montenegro, the ASK relies on prior analysis based on the integrity plans to identify sectors where assessments would have the greatest impact. Conversely, Algeria’s HATPLC adopts an opt-in approach, encouraging institutions to express their interest in implementing the IPI NAZAHA tool voluntarily, without imposing any formal obligation. Mr. Hyunsoo Baek, Deputy Director of Anti-Corruption Survey and Evaluation Division at ACRC, introduced Korea’s risk-informed strategy to select target institutions, which considers each institution’s function, size, and risk of potential corruption exposure.

Assessment indicators and criteria

On the determination of assessment indicators and criteria, the Q&A session highlighted the need for regular updates, while taking into account the specificity and relevance for target institutions. For instance, ACRC decides to update and introduce an advanced set of indicators for the succeeding year if most of the target institutions reach a certain level of scores. Notably, Montenegro updated its indicators relying on the in-depth analysis of regulations on gender equality and prevention of discrimination to reflect a more inclusive definition of integrity.

Assessment process

In response to the question raised by Montenegro on assessing the large number of public institutions, ACRC provided insights and acknowledged the challenges associated therein. Mr. Baek emphasized the importance of adopting phased approaches to address this issue effectively and provided a clear example, outlining a timeline that divides the evaluation of the three assessment areas—’Perceived Integrity’, ‘Integrity Efforts’, and ‘Corruption Status Assessment’—spread throughout the year.

Methodology: Quantitative and qualitative assessment

The participants also discussed how assessments are conducted, with particular focus on the complexities of qualitative indicators.

In the Republic of Korea, quantitative assessments are handled internally, while qualitative assessments entail both internal and external assessment by staff members and public service users respectively. The evaluation of the qualitative assessments is delegated to a committee of external evaluators comprising 12 to 13 impartial experts. In this context, Mr. Baek from ACRC reiterated the importance of relevant training and guidance to be provided to the external evaluators to mitigate the risks of their personal biases.

Montenegro uses a similar model; internal assessments are carried out by a dedicated ASK unit, while external consultants contribute to qualitative evaluation through UNDP support. Both countries emphasized that qualitative evaluations must be finetuned to reflect contextual factors specific to target institutions.

Assessment results, incentives, and penalties

On the topic of publishing results and performance-based incentive systems, the Q&A session revealed a range of practices. Ensuring a transparent result is encouraged by all partner countries, with the Republic of Korea requiring institutions to publish the scores on their official websites for a given period, and Montenegro using public disclosures of the results as leverage to raise awareness and encourage institutions’ participation. ACRC also offers additional rewards for high-performing institutions, such as overseas trip opportunities and internal incentives, while also providing consultation support to those institutions with lower scores. Meanwhile, Algeria takes a more moderated stance; HATPLC avoids imposing penalties, emphasizing instead the voluntary nature of its assessment process and highlighting good practices of selected institutions as a form of positive reinforcement. Across all responses, there was a strong consensus on the importance of incentives to encourage institutions’ active engagement within respective IEA frameworks.

The road ahead

During the discussion, Mayuri Udawala, Additional Director General of CIABOC, expressed her appreciation towards USPC, UNDP Sri Lanka, and all partners of Algeria, Montenegro, and Uzbekistan for their collaborative spirit and valuable support, which have been instrumental for Sri Lanka’s preparation for the initial roll-out of the IEA. She emphasized the formal integration of the IEA framework in Sri Lanka’s National Action Plan and Strategic Plan, a step that reflects the country’s commitment to embedding integrity as a core principle within the national governance structure.

In closing, Youngchan Kim, Governance and Gender Team Lead of USPC, summarized key observations from the workshop. He highlighted that ACRC’s IEA model is not a one-size-fits-all solution and emphasized the importance of tailoring the model to each country’s unique context. He noted that the IEA is a tool, not the ultimate goal, with the real purpose being to foster a culture of integrity in public institutions that is sustained voluntarily. He also stressed that the IEA requires continuous improvement over time, urging anti-corruption agencies to stay committed to its long-term success. “Today’s workshop,” he remarked, “created the network of ‘integrity champions’ who could support each other for this important journey.”

The workshop reaffirmed the value of the SSTC process for mutual learning and collective progress in the fight against corruption. As highlighted by Ms. Juepner in her opening remarks, the SSTC occupies a central position in USPC’s strategic efforts to leverage successful development experiences beyond the Republic of Korea. By showcasing each country’s experiences in adapting the IEA through this workshop, the event opened prospects for deeper collaboration and knowledge exchange among anti-corruption institutions across regions.

Building on this momentum, USPC and its partners aim to strengthen networks among anti-corruption agencies, foster regional partnerships, and support the institutionalization of integrity systems grounded in local ownership and global best practices.

*UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC) shares Korea’s tested-and-proven policy tools with other countries through SDG Partnerships. SDG Partnerships provide a combination of support, including partnership development with Korean institutions, seed funding, technical assistance, and policy advisory services. It utilizes UNDP’s global network of country offices and the policy expertise and know-how of partner organizations.