Anti-corruption is a very sensitive field of intervention. Hence, understanding the political context and getting the buy-in from a wide range of stakeholders is important. There must be an official request from the government for a capacity assessment, which demonstrates the demand-responsive nature of the exercise. Stakeholder engagement is a crucial part of a capacity assessment, particularly in generating ownership and consensus over: (i) the objectives of the capacity assessment and the core anti-corruption issues that need to be addressed from the perspective of the stakeholders; (ii) the priority capacity gaps and needs that would emerge from the capacity assessment; and (iii) the capacity development strategies that would need to be introduced and implemented to address the identified capacity needs.
The capacity assessment process should therefore start with an open dialogue with the in-country stakeholders who are promoting the assessment, in order to clarify: (i) Who wants the assessment (i.e., the primary client/s and owner/s of the assessment); (ii) The long-term and short-term development objectives, as well as expectations with regard to use of the exercise (“why is the capacity assessment necessary?”); and (iii) The initial scope (“which organization/s to involve and what issues to respond to?”). Following the dialogue, clear Terms of Reference (TOR) should be prepared, which should clearly identify the objectives and initial scope of the exercise, indicate how the client plans to use the capacity assessment results, and identify the capacity assessment team members and their respective roles and responsibilities. A draft work plan, including a timeline for the capacity assessment should also be included.
In some cases, the official request may come after the initial dialogue where UNDP or a development partner may be requested to present the CD approach and the capacity assessment tool. The scope of the capacity assessment may change, depending on the core issues that are identified and upon further analysis (e.g., stakeholder analysis, institutional analysis) which may identify other potentially strategic organizations or entry points for the capacity assessment.
The composition of the capacity assessment team will depend on the initial scope and objectives of the exercise. Ideally, the assessment team should include a combination of expertise, specifically: (a) familiarity with the national/local context; (b) knowledge of international best practices in strengthening anti-corruption agencies; (c) experience with UNDP’s capacity assessment methodology; and (d) representatives from the involved agencies.
An assessment facilitator (or team leader) should be assigned to manage the adaptation of the capacity assessment tools (for example, the sample questionnaires in Lesson 2) to the context at hand; the implementation of the assessment, including quantitative and qualitative data collection; and the interpretation of assessment results which will lead to the formulation of capacity development response strategies. Team members must likewise possess good process facilitation skills. The representation of the client agency(ies) in the team is critical, as their presence not only reinforces the agency’s ownership of the process, but also provides a direct link to the officials and staff members of the organization, and facilitate dialogues and data collection
While the TOR may identify the initial entry points for the capacity assessment, a stakeholder analysis will provide a good understanding of the interests, importance and influence of the identified organizations, their relationship (if any) with other relevant anti-corruption agencies, and the overall institutional arrangements for anti-corruption in the country (see Lesson 2, Module A for a sample stakeholder survey). The stakeholder analysis should include a consideration of the role of private and non-government organizations in various aspects of anti-corruption prevention and law enforcement. In some cases, the results of a stakeholder analysis may also shift or expand the focus and/or entry points of the capacity assessment, given the issues identified through the stakeholder analysis and the potential strategic roles of identified stakeholders in supporting or sustaining anti-corruption efforts. Various tools and approaches exist for analysing stakeholders and managing their involvement – like the matrix in Figure 3. The team may opt to use any stakeholder analysis and management tool that they may be familiar with, as long as they provide a participatory process that allows the agencies to clearly identify key anti-corruption stakeholders based on their respective functions, relative influence/power/authority, and interests.
Understanding the local context will require some pre-assessment research and a review of relevant documents and reports, including relevant anti-corruption legislation, policies, regulatory frameworks, and institutional arrangements and coordination mechanisms that may have been set up by the government to combat corruption. For specific organizations, collecting the following information will be helpful in understanding their anti-corruption mandate and existing organizational structures and systems: (i) the mandate and relevant anti-corruption functions of the organization and its various departments/units, as stipulated in its enabling law/decree; (ii) organizational structure and staffing profile; and (iii) budgetary allocation and breakdown (for the last three years if possible). These preliminary considerations should allow the identification of the main enabling environment issues and system-related capacity challenges that need to be addressed by the capacity assessment
There are a number of tools that can be applied during a capacity assessment. The assessment team will have to decide which tools can be applied to ensure that they: (1) prioritise participatory processes that will generate information (from the perspective of the stakeholders themselves) on the core anti-corruption issues or challenges that the agency(ies) is facing; (2) generate sufficient understanding of the capacity gaps and linkages across the three capacity levels (i.e. enabling environment, organization, and individual; and 3) provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to offer local solutions to addressing the identified anti-corruption issues and capacity gaps. There are three common methodologies applied during a capacity assessment: i) Focus Group discussions; ii) Key informant interviews; iii) Capacity self-assessment
