Methodology for measuring the Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability (RTA) at local level

1
Methodology for measuring the Index of
Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability
(RTA) at local level

• Fatmir Musa
• Project Manager
• UNDP Project Fighting Corruption to Improve
  Governance

2
Characteristics of methodology

• The methodology is developed with specifics which
  should be accepted from different interested
  bodies/institutions. In order to be acceptable
  the methodology was designed to be
• Clear (understandable for the interested
  bodies/institutions interested to implement it)
• Simple for implementation (aiming to be user
  friendly for implementation from different
  subjects)
• Impartial (objective reflection of the situation
  avoiding biasness or inclusion of personal
  opinion)

3
Relation of the methodology with other
anti-corruption instruments

• From methodological point of view, the
  methodology is a combination of
• Indicator Based Governance Assessment (assessment
  of the risk of appearance of corruption based on
  CONTACT UNDP tool) and
• Corruption Risk Assessment (assessment of
  resistance to corruption) (based on National
  Integrity System Transparency International tool)
• Quantified in this methodology and upgraded with
  methodological value quantification of the
  received data in the level to get a indicator
  with concrete numbers for the level of
• Vulnerability to corruption and
• Capacity of resistance to corruption from local
  self-government

4
Methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at
local level

• The methodology covers three areas
• Public procurements
• Urban Planning
• Financial management and property

5
Description of the methodology for measuring the
Index of RTA at local level

• The methodology, in principle is assessment of
  capability (capacities) of institutions to resist
  to the permanent pressure of corruption, through
  defining anti-corruption mechanisms and
  quantification of their potential.
• According the above, the Index of RTA does not
  measure the level of corruption, it measures the
  level of susceptibility or resistance to
  corruption at local level.

6
Description of the methodology for measuring the
Index of RTA at local level

• The approach in designing the methodology is as
  follows
• Defining corruption hot-spots
• Defining anti-corruption mechanisms versus
  corruption hot-spots
• Defining indicators for the anti-corruption
  mechanisms
• Quantification of the indicators
• Setting up the Index of RTA

7
Description of the methodology for measuring the
Index of RTA at local level

• For illustration and easier understanding of the
  methodology, here is an example from the area of
  public procurements
• Hot spot in the competences of the municipalities
  is publicity in announcing procurements
• Anti-corruption mechanism is public announcement
  of the procurement in media, the official gazette
  and web-sites of Bureaus for public procurements
• Defining of indicators which implies to the
  publicity of the procurement are
• Percentage of the number of the procurement which
  are announced publicly from the total number of
  procurements done through tenders
• Percentage of the value of publicly announced
  procurements in the total values of the
  procurements done through tenders

8
Description of the methodology for measuring the
Index of RTA at local level

• Quantification of the indicators in the concrete
  case in percentages would be
• Number of publicly announced procurements towards
  total number of procurements conducted through
  public tenders
• from 0 t? 20 - 1 point
• from 20 t? 40 - 2 points
• from 40 t? 60 - 3 points
• from 60 t? 80 - 4 points
• from 80 to 100 - 5 points
• The value of publicly announced procurements
  towards total value of procurements conducted
  through public tenders
• from 0 t? 20 - 1 point
• from 20 t? 40 - 2 points
• from 40 t? 60 - 3 points
• from 60 t? 80 - 4 points
• from 80 to 100 - 5 points

9
Description of the methodology for measuring the
Index of RTA at local level

• The final values of the RTA Index is from 1 to 5
  which indicates the level of responsibility,
  transparency and accountability according the
  following table
• RTA Index 5 for the average arithmetic values
  between 4,5 and 5 (full responsibility,
  transparency and accountability)
• RTA Index 4 for the average arithmetic values
  between 3,5 and 4,5 (high responsibility,
  transparency and accountability)
• RTA Index 3 for the average arithmetic values
  between 2,5 and 3,5 (medium responsibility,
  transparency and accountability)
• RTA Index 2 for the average arithmetic values
  between 1,5 and 2,5 (low responsibility,
  transparency and accountability)
• RTA Index 1 for the average arithmetic values
  between 1 and 1,5 (absence of responsibility,
  transparency and accountability)

10
Description of the methodology for measuring the
Index of RTA at local level

• The methodology is designed in a way to allow
  creation of separate RTA Index
• - Separate RTA Index for specific area
• Overall RTA Index for whole areas
• Both level of RTA Index are produced using the
  same formula

11
Description of the methodology for measuring the
Index of RTA at local level

• SNP MNP x 100 PP where
• SNP is scored number of points (sum of all points
  won in the process of quantification of
  indicators)
• MNP is maximum possible number of points (sum of
  all maximum values of the quantification of
  indicators)
• PP is percentage points (shows the percentage of
  points won against the maximum number of points
  that could have been won)

12
Description of the methodology for measuring the
Index of RTA at local level

• After the PP are calculated, they should be
  converted into RTA Index according the following
  formula
• PP x 0.05 RTA IP where
• PP is percentage point
• RTA IP is RTA index points
• Value of 0.05 is portion of every percentage
  point in the maximum value of RTA Index of 5
  (51000.05)

13
Usage of the methodology for measuring the Index
of RTA at local level

• The methodology is designed in a way to be
  implemented by various subjects
• Different anti-corruption institutions/bodies
• Associations of local self-government units
• Municipal authorities as a self-evaluation
  mechanism
• Mixed team of stakeholders (NGO, public
  officials, business community, media etc.)
• Specifically trained professional agencies etc.

14

• Thank you for your attention!