Indicators

Here you can find all six sets of agreed OECD indicators. Data is now available for quality of strategic framework. Data collection is ongoing for accountability of public policy making, and data collection is scheduled for strength of external oversight and control; the effectiveness of internal control and risk management in 2022 for all OECD member countries.
Quality of Strategic Framework

Quality of Strategic Framework

An evidence-and risk-based strategic approach is essential for mitigating public integrity risks. The strategic framework should have adequate coverage, and consist of strategies that are developed based on data and evidence, in an inclusive manner, adequately implemented and evaluated, and financially sustainable. The indicator does not assess the relevance and impact of individual strategies, but the strategic framework for the public integrity system.

New data available

Accountability of Public Policy Making

Accountability of Public Policy Making

Transparent and inclusive processes for public policy decision making are essential for averting capture by narrow interest groups. Key prerequisites are an open government that involves civil society in the development and implementation of policies, transparent parliamentary processes, and basic controls for managing conflict-of-interest situations, promoting transparency in lobbying activities, and monitoring the financing of political parties and election campaigns. This set of indicators do not measure the sub-principle on existence of civil society “watchdog” organisations, as that is done by other international organisations and NGOs. Data collection is ongoing for this set of indicators, with a scheduled release in March 2022. The indicators measure the state of play for the norms established in Principle 13 of the OECD Council Recommendation on Public Integrity and the policy advice provided in the Public Integrity Handbook.

Scheduled release March 2022

Effectiveness of Internal Control and Risk Management Mechanisms for Safeguarding Public Integrity

Effectiveness of Internal Control and Risk Management Mechanisms for Safeguarding Public Integrity

Internal control and risk management mechanisms are essential for safeguarding public integrity in the public sector. Policies and regulations are needed to establish direction and minimum standards, and some coordination and monitoring functions are needed at the central government level to ensure coherence and provide oversight. Ultimately, outcomes depend on practices in budget organisations. The indicators focus measure the state of play for the norms established in Principle 10 of the OECD Council Recommendation on Public Integrity. They focus on what matters most for the public integrity system and do not cover all areas relevant for the general effectiveness of public sector organisations or the internal control and risk management framework. Reporting arrangements are assessed, but specific whistle-blower procedures are examined in the indicators for Principles 4 and 8. Data collection is scheduled for 2022.

Data collection sheduled for 2022

Strength of External Oversight and Control

Strength of External Oversight and Control

External oversight and control bodies are key actors for safeguarding integrity and hold public sector organisations to account. Their actions can promote organisational learning but must also, when necessary, sanction misconduct. Adequate legal safeguards for the independence of these bodies is a precondition for effective oversight. The responsiveness of these bodies is another core feature, including the functionality of complaints handling systems and open and risk-based interaction with state and non-state actors. Desired outcomes include a high level of implementation of the recommendations by oversight bodies, efficient court procedures, a low rate of revolving doors for regulators, and generally positive public perception.NThe indicators measure the state of play for the norms establish in Priniciple 12 of the OECD Council Recommendation on Public Integrity. They focus on what matters most for the public integrity system and do not cover all areas relevant for the general effectiveness of oversight bodies, such as their remit, internal quality assurance, and human resource management. Data collection is scheduled for 2022.

Data collection sheduled for 2022

Meritocracy of the Public Sector

Meritocracy of the Public Sector

Professional public servants recruited, promoted and dismissed on the basis of merit and acting in accordance with public- service values is key to efficient delivery of public services and a bulwark against favouritism, undue political influence and misconduct. Indicators below assess whether regulatory safeguards exist, the fairness and openness of HRM systems, the use of tools to reduce integrity risks and the effectiveness of oversight and recourse mechanisms. A range of quantitative indicators provide complementary measures of key outcomes of these dimensions. The indicators measure the state of play for the norms set in Principle 7 of the OECD Council Recommendation on Public Integrity. They do not focus on integrity leadership as this is at the centre of Principle 6 of the Public Integrity Recommendation. Similarly, the provision of training, guidance and advice for public officials to apply public integrity standards in general is covered in more detail by Principle 8 of the Public Integrity Recommendation. The scope for all the indicators is ministries and central government agencies. This is a joint indicator for the Recommendations of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability and on Public Integrity. Data collection is scheduled for 2023 for this set of indicators.

Data collection sheduled for 2023

Fairness, Timeliness and Openness of Enforcement Mechanisms

Fairness, Timeliness and Openness of Enforcement Mechanisms

The fairness, openness and timeliness of enforcement mechanisms is essential for the effectiveness of and trust in the overall public integrity system. Preconditions for effective enforcement include legal standards for objective and independent disciplinary and judicial proceedings, necessary guidance and training, and collaborative mechanisms between enforcement bodies. Data exchange and interoperability between registers, and the openness of this data, is also assessed. A range of quantitative indicators based on administrative data from disciplinary bodies and the judicial administration provide information on the efficiency, quality and timeliness of administrative proceedings. The perceived independence of the judiciary is also measured. The indicators measure the state of play for the norms established in Principle 11 of the OECD Council Recommendation on Public Integrity. They focus on disciplinary bodies and the collaboration with other actors. The internal administration and functioning of courts, police and prosecutorial authorities is outside the scope of the indicator. Efficiency indicators focus on administrative courts and disciplinary bodies, not criminal or civil proceedings. Data collection is scheduled for 2023.

Data collection sheduled for 2023