Benchmarking matrix
General organizational level capacities (examples)
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| Strategy of the ACA | ||||
| (Goals of the agency set internally in relation to the national AC action plan) | Targets are non-existent or few; targets are vague, or confusing, or either too easy or impossible to achieve, and may change from year to year; targets largely unknown or ignored by staff. | Realistic targets exist in some key areas, and are mostly aligned with the national action plan but are short-term, lack implementation plans. Staff don’t always know and adopt targets |
Quantified, well designed targets exist in most areas and are linked to the national action plan. The targets are long term (multi-year). Targets are known and adopted by most staff, which use them to broadly guide their work. | Limited set of quantified, well designed performance targets are present in all areas; targets are tightly linked to the national action plan, have annual milestones, and are long-term in nature; staff consistently adopt targets and works diligently to achieve them. |
| Projects / activities (services) relevance and alignment with the broader strategy of the ACA | Projects and services are vaguely defined and lack clear alignment with the ACA mission and goals; activities are few and largely unrelated to each other. | Most projects, activities and services are well defined and can be solidly linked with mission and goals; service offerings may be somewhat scattered and not fully integrated into a clear strategy. | Core projects, activities and services well defined and aligned with mission and goals; service offerings fit together well as part of clear strategy. | All projects, activities and services well defined and fully aligned with mission and goals; service offerings are clearly linked to one another and to overall strategy; synergies across programs are captured. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| Performance Management | ||||
| Organization’s Performance Measurement | Very limited measurement and tracking of performance; all or most evaluation based on anecdotal evidence; organization collects only some performance data on activities in an ad-hoc fashion. | Performance partially measured and progress partially tracked; organization regularly collects solid data on activities and outputs. | Performance measured and progress tracked in multiple ways, several times a year, by monitoring a multiplicity of performance indicators. | Well-developed comprehensive, integrated system used for measuring organization’s performance and progress on continual basis; small number of clear, measurable, and meaningful performance indicators. |
| Individual work plans | No individual annual work plan, work mostly done on demand and following the indications of supervisor. | A brief discussion every year on the objectives to be reached during the year with supervisor, but no formal work plan. | A work plan is formally established, with goals for the year linked to performance evaluation. However, the work plan remains mostly a formality than something really relevant for day to day work. | A work plan is formally established, with goals for the year, linked to performance evaluation. The work plan is linked to the broader objectives of the ACA and it is a useful tool used on a regular basis by staff and supervisor. |
| Decision making | ||||
| Decision making framework (how decisions are taken in the ACA) | Decisions are made largely on an ad-hoc basis by one person and/or whoever is accessible; highly informal. | Appropriate decision makers known; decision making process fairly well established and process is generally followed, but often breaks down and becomes informal. | Clear, largely formal lines/ systems for decision making, however decisions are not always appropriately implemented or followed; dissemination of decisions generally good but could be improved. | Clear, formal lines/ systems and documented, replicable processes for decision making that involve as broad participation as practical and appropriate along with dissemination/ interpretation of decision. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| Human Resources | ||||
| Human resources planning | Organization tackles HR needs only when too large to ignore; lack of HR planning activities and expertise, no experience in HR planning. | Some ability and attempts to develop HR plan either internally or via external assistance; HR plan not linked to targets and goals of the ACA. | Ability and drive to develop and refine concrete, realistic HR plan; some internal expertise in HR planning or access to relevant external assistance; HR planning carried out often but not regularly. | Organization is able to develop and refine concrete, realistic, and detailed HR plan; HR planning exercise carried out regularly and linked to the targets and goals of the ACA. |
| Staff recruitment, development, and retention | No present career paths in place with a view to ensure staff development; limited training, coaching and feedback; no regular performance assessments; no systems/processes to identify new talent. | No active development tools/ programs; feedback and coaching occur sporadically; individual performance evaluated occasionally; limited focus on ensuring high-quality staffing; sporadic initiatives to identify new talent. | Limited use of active development tools/programs; frequent formal and informal coaching and feedback; performance regularly evaluated and discussed; regular concerted initiatives to identify new talent. | Management actively interested in general staff development; well-thought out and targeted development plans for key positions; frequent, relevant training, job rotation, coaching/ feedback, and consistent performance appraisal institutionalized; proven interest to ensure high quality job occupancy; continuous, proactive initiatives to identify new talent. |
| Management team and staff – dependence on Director (Chief Executive) | Very strong dependence on Director; organization would cease to function properly without his/her presence. | High dependence on Director; organization would continue to function without his/her presence, but likely in a very different form. | Limited dependence on Director; organization would continue in similar way without his/her presence, but operations would likely suffer significantly during transition period; no member of team could potentially take on Director role. | Reliance but not dependence on Director; smooth transition to new leader could be expected; operations likely to continue without major problems; team can fill in during transition time; several members of management team could potentially take on Director role. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY FORMULATIONA AND IMPLEMENTATION | ||||
| Structures for coordination with stakeholders - Organizational Level | There are no focal points or dedicated unit for the coordination with stakeholders. Cooperation happens ad-hoc and the staff that have some time free are given this task. | There are no focal points or dedicated unit for the coordination with stakeholders. Informal internal division of labour is in place that allows smooth cooperation and keeping track of the information. | There is a dedicated focal point or unit for inter-agency cooperation, but the focal point / unit performs several other tasks and in not equipped with a good system for keeping track of the information relative to coordination with other agencies. | There is a dedicated focal point or unit for dealing with cooperation, the focal point / unit performs predominantly this task and has good capacity to gather and analyse information necessary for the development of the strategy. |
| Staff’s technical capacities in specific areas (e.g. Parliament and legislative processes) Individual Level |
No staff has received formal training or has long term substantial experience in this area. No learning systems in place. | No staff has received formal training or has long term substantial experience in this area. Some training is provided in the framework of larger training events, but without follow up. | Some staff members have received formal training and have substantial experience in this area, but learning is mostly ad-hoc. | There are staff members with formal training or with experience in this area. Effective learning systems are in place. |
| General cooperation with other Agencies for the collection of data on the implementation of the AC strategy Enabling Environment | Cooperation with most of the other State Agencies is infrequent, based on ad-hoc procedures (meetings and consultations organized on a need basis). There are no focal points within the majority of the agencies that work with the ACA. | Cooperation with most of the other State Agencies is regular but can be improved. There are no institutionalized procedures for cooperation. There are no permanent focal points and referents in the agencies that work with the ACA. |
Cooperation with most of the other Agencies is regular, it allows the Agency to carry out its task, but it has to be very proactive in order to collect the information. There are institutionalized procedures for cooperation with some agencies but not with all of them. There are no permanent focal points and referents in some of the agencies that work with the ACA. | Cooperation with most of the other State Agencies is very good, the other agencies have a proactive role in providing the required information to the ACA. The role of the ACA is institutionalized and recognized by the other agencies. There are institutionalized procedures for cooperation and focal points or main referents in most of the agencies. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION | ||||
| Staff training Organizational Level |
There are no regular trainings; no training programs, no training tools for developing competence and strengthening the capacity of the staff of the ACA to perform data collection and analysis. | Some training on conducting research and analysis is provided to the staff of the ACA. These activities are mostly designed and promoted by international organizations. | Several trainings each year on conducting research and analysis are provided to the staff of the ACA; these trainings are designed mostly by international agencies but the ACA tries to link them with its main targets. | ACA has a well-developed training strategy related to its targets. Training programs, tools exist and trainers are identified. Research and analyses are carried out in- house on a regular basis. |
| Collection and processing of data Individual Level |
Staff of the ACA is not prepared to perform collection and analysis of data. Most of the work on data collection, analysis or reports is produced by NGOs. | Few staff of the ACA are prepared to perform collection and analysis of data. Some of the analysis work is outsourced. ACA uses some reports produced by NGOs and other agencies. | A certain number of staff members are well prepared to perform collection and analysis of data. Reports produced by NGOs and other agencies are used as well. The activity is somehow useful for monitoring the implementation of the action plan but could be improved. | The internal capacity to collect and analyse data is very good. Reports are useful for monitoring and evaluation of the activities of the AC program. Relevant work of NGOs and other agencies in this area is collected and analysed. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| RESEARCH ON CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION VULNERABILITIES | ||||
| Fraud and corruption risk policies, involvement of the ACA Enabling Environment |
There is no formal requirement for public institutions to undertake risk assessments, ACA is not involved in developing corruption risk policies of other national institutions. | Public institutions are required to conduct risk assessments and the ACA is expected to assist them. However, there is no effective enforcement. The ACA has no leverage to push other institutions to undertake risk assessments and follow-up to the findings, and plays a limited role, e.g. providing technical assistance if and when requested. |
Key public institutions are required to conduct risk assessment and there is an enforcement mechanism. ACA is expected to play a key role in implementation and monitoring, but coordination mechanisms and inter- institutional leverage are weak, which leads to inconsistent implementation. | Specific fraud and corruption risk policy is at a place in the public institutions and is effectively applied. The ACA has sufficient authority and proactively supports other institutions in implementing the policies. The ACA is recognized as the main actor and centre of expertise in this area. |
| The ACA’s risk review and assessment process is thoroughly documented Organizational Level | There are no written records for the ACA’s risk review and assessment process. | Procedures and internal documents/ manuals/ methodologies/ guidelines exist, but are not effectively applied in practice. | There are detailed procedures and internal documents / manuals / guidelines for conducting risk review and assessment. Some practical application can be documented. | The ACA’s risk review and assessment are thoroughly documented and consistently applied in practice. Based on application experience, the guidelines and methodologies are regularly reviewed and refined. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| CIVIL SOCIETY PARTNERSHIP AGAINST CORRUPTION | ||||
| Organization of promotional and educational campaigns for increasing of the level of public awareness of corruption problem Enabling Environment |
Significant resource, political or regulatory constraints prevent public institutions (including ACA) from organizing significant public awareness campaigns. | Educational activities and public awareness campaigns exist, but are mostly developed by other organizations. The role of the ACA is very limited. | The ACA develops some small scale educational projects and public campaigns, but it does not have its own strategy and often depends on donor funding. | The ACA is recognized as the main agency for educational and public awareness activities on anti-corruption, and has a strategy in this area with a dedicated budget. When other organizations initiate such activities, they are coordinated with the ACA. |
| Participation of civil society and other representatives of the local community (e.g., academics) in the activities of the ACA Organizational Level | The ACA does not have procedures allowing civil society participation to its activities or projects. | The ACA sometimes organizes seminars or round-tables and invites participation, but the involvement of the citizens and local communities in the work of the ACA is very limited. | Some of ACA’s projects or activities have been developed upon request from, or in partnership with NGOs. The ACA has a procedure for consultation with the civil society, but it is loosely implemented. | Representatives of the civil society and local community sit on the Board of the ACA. Procedures for consultation with the NGOs exist and are applied consistently. Some of the activities of the ACA have been promoted by private citizens, who are also empowered to monitor the activities of the ACA. |
| Public relations and marketing Organizational Level / Individual level |
The ACA makes no or limited use of PR/marketing; general lack of PR/marketing skills and expertise (either internal or accessible external expertise) | The ACA takes opportunities to engage in PR/marketing as they arise; ACA has some PR/ marketing skills and experience among its staff or via external assistance. | The ACA considers PR/ marketing to be useful and actively seeks opportunities to engage in these activities; the ACA has good internal expertise and experience in PR/marketing or access to relevant external assistance. | The ACA is fully aware of the necessity of PR/marketing and is engaged actively in these activities. The ACA has a broad pool of PR/marketing expertise and experience and makes efficient use of external assistance. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| PROMOTION OF INTEGRITY | ||||
| Organizing trainings, seminars, workshops and other forms of training for public officials Organizational Level | The ACA staff (almost) never deliver (or participate in the delivery) of trainings to other state agencies. Trainings are delivered by external consultants or by few senior managers with some training experience. | The ACA staff sometimes deliver trainings, however there is little internal capacity for that. The ACA relies mostly on external experts. Trainings are organized mostly ad-hoc, when there are funds available or in line with international organizations’ programmes. | ACA hosts or organizes trainings quite regularly, but the activities are mostly stand- alone and not part of a long term capacity development strategy. Some of the activities are delivered by own staff. | ACA has long term training programs for other agencies. It has developed a good in- house capacity to deliver trainings. |
| Project formulation / development of project proposals Organizational Level |
The ACA does not have the capacity to develop project ideas, plan a budget and implement. Projects in reality are developed by the international organizations and consultants. | The ACA participates in discussions over project ideas and provides some input for the development and implementation of the projects, but most of the work is done by the international community or consultants. | There are specific project ideas that were designed and developed by the ACA to a stage that has ensured they will become a full project proposal with external assistance. Implementation is also partially carried out by the staff of the ACA. | Full scale projects are formulated in-house, including budget plans; the ACA has participated in discussions on project ideas and has formulated project ideas to international donors/consultants, meaningfully participating in all stages of project development. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| MANAGING SPECIFIC CORRUPTION PREVENTION REGIMES | ||||
| Conflict of Interests Legislation Drafting Enabling Environment | Legal and policy framework for CoI management is lacking, poor or incomplete. The ACA has provided no opinions on legislation drafting with regard to CoI management. | The ACA has provided some opinions on legislation drafting with regard to CoI Management, but there is no structured process, activities are mainly ad-hoc. Regulatory impact assessment, consultative process and stakeholders involvement are limited and on ad-hoc basis. | The ACA is providing opinions on legislation drafting with regard to CoI management in the framework of a structured process. | The ACA is regularly providing opinions on legal development with regard to CoI management in the framework of a structured process; regulation impact assessment is done systematically; consultative process and broad-based stakeholders involvement. |
| Conflict of Interests Management Section/ Department Organizational Level | No department exists within the ACA, no capacity to report and manage CoI, or the Department is not staffed. | There is a CoI Management department or unit, which is not fully operational. The staff is not fully trained and competent. | Structured CoI Management Department exists within the ACA. The Department is adequately staffed and has a well-structured Strategy for reporting and managing CoI. | Fully structured and functional CoI Management Department within the ACA. The CoI management functions of the Department are tightly linked to the strategic national strategic documents. Staff is well trained and experienced in the field. |
| Conflict of Interests management process Organizational Level | The ACA does not have a policy and administrative procedures for reviewing cases of CoI, including additional employment, inside information issues, gifts management, personal pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. | The ACA has a policy document and related administrative procedures for CoI management, but they are not consistently applied. | The ACA has a full-fledged, working policy and defined administrative procedures on CoI management, which are implemented in practice. | The policy and written administrative procedure for CoI management are clearly defined in the work of the ACA and are applied effectively and consistently into practice. Lessons from experience in application are captured and used to improve legal, methodological and procedural frameworks for CoI. |
| 1. Limited or no capacity | 2. Basic level of capacity | 3. Moderate level of capacity | 4. High level of capacity | |
| MANAGING SPECIFIC CORRUPTION PREVENTION REGIMES | ||||
| Asset disclosure Legislation Enabling Environment |
No legislation in the field is in place. There is no mechanism for verification of assets and income declarations. | There is legislation describing the assets disclosure regime, but it is not up to the international standards and not applied into practice. | There is a proper legislation describing the assets disclosure regimes and mechanism for enforcement and verification exists. Mechanism for enforcement and verification exist in law but are not applied. |
There is a proper legislation, describing the assets disclosure regimes and ensuring the transparency and enabling the mechanism for enforcement and verification to perform their functions effectively. The law is applied in practice with results that can be documented. Application is not complete or fully consistent due to various limitations. |
| Existence of internal unit in charge with Assets declarations collection and processing. Organizational Level |
There is no department /unit in charge with asset declarations collection and processing, or unit is not staffed. | There is a unit; but no specific procedures/ manuals/ guidelines exist to guide its work; staff does not receive proper training. | There is a unit performing such functions. Internal procedures/ manuals/ guidelines exist and applied to some extent. Some training is provided to staff, but mostly ad-hoc. | There is a unit performing such functions; specific procedures/ manuals/ guidelines exist and operate in practice; training is provided on a systematic basis to cover capacity gaps; good HR practices are in place. |
| Understanding of the national and international standards regarding assets disclosure regimes Individual Level | The staff of the ACA is not trained in the area and has limited understanding of the national and international standards in the assets disclosure area. | There is limited training provided in order to raise the qualification of staff in this area. There are no formal qualification requirements. | There is an understanding of the national and international standards in the field of assets disclosure. Formal qualification is required for the staff. | There is an understanding of the national and international standards in the field of assets disclosure. There are formal qualification requirements for the staff. A re-training and international experience exchange system is in place. |