Integrity Leadership for Africa Course (ILAC)
Post on 22-Feb-2016
31 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Leadership for Africa Course (ILAC)
Strathmore University, Nairobi, 29 April – 4 May 2013
London / Amman / Bishkek / Jakarta / East Jerusalem / Nairobi / Ramallah / Yerevan
Community Integrity Building
© Integrity Action 2013
The Principal-Agent Model
Concept 1.
© Integrity Action 2013
Principal2
The P-A-C Model
Client Agent
Principal1
1-n 1-n
© Integrity Action 2013
Mapping Corruption
P1G P1S P2 An CC CS Comp.
P1G
P1S
P2
A1
CC
CS
Comp.
© Integrity Action 2013
P1G P1S P2 An CC CS Comp.
P1G
P1S
P2
A1
CC
CS
Comp.
Mapping Corruption
© Integrity Action 2013
P1G P1S P2 An CC CS Comp.
P1G
P1S
P2
A1
CC
CS
Comp.
Mapping Corruption
© Integrity Action 2013
P1G P1S P2 An CC CS Comp.
P1G
P1S
P2
A1
CC
CS
Comp.
Mapping Corruption
© Integrity Action 2013
What’s the key to correcting imbalances in the P-A-C relationship?
© Integrity Action 2013
Information Asymmetry
Concept 2.
© Integrity Action 2013
What choices does an “Agent”have when faced with a major ethical workplace dilemma?
© Integrity Action 2013
Exit, Voice and Loyalty
Concept 3.
… Organise
© Integrity Action 2013
How can we ensure that citizen engagement and collective action leads to meaningful change?
© Integrity Action 2013
Closing the Loop
Concept 4.
© Integrity Action 2013
Community Integrity Building
Concept 5.
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Kibuyuni Water point.
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Kibuyuni Water point.
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Shimbana Hills Health Centre
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Shimbana Hills Health Centre: Patient Kitchen Under Construction
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Pemba Dispensary
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Pemba Dispensary: Alistair Ndoro, chairman of the project management committee
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Lunga Lunga water point
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Lunga Lunga water point
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Kaluweni Nursery School
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Kaluweni Nursery School
© Integrity Action 2013An Nazaha النزاهة Kaluweni Nursery School
© Integrity Action 2013
The CIB Approach
© Integrity Action 2013
ACCOUNTABILITY
© Integrity Action 2013
ACCOUNTABILITY
COMPETENCE
© Integrity Action 2013
ACCOUNTABILITY
COMPETENCE
ETHICS
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
M&E Online DatabaseInternational Peer
Learning
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
© Integrity Action 2013
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
3. EVIDENCE
BASE
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
Community monitoring: DevelopmentCheckFocus groupsCommunity score cardsResearch
3. EVIDENCE
BASE
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
DevelopmentCheck
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
Community monitoring: DevelopmentCheckFocus groupsCommunity score cardsResearch
3. EVIDENCE
BASE
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
4. CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
Community monitoring: DevelopmentCheckFocus groupsCommunity score cardsResearch
3. EVIDENCE
BASE
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
4. CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT
Integrity Helpdesk
JWGs identify solutions to integrity problems
Public Service Integrity Chartersfrom JWG
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
Public voice: Community radio, social media, SMS, public hearings
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
Community monitoring: DevelopmentCheckFocus groupsCommunity score cardsResearch
3. EVIDENCE
BASE
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
4. CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT
Integrity Helpdesk
JWGs identify solutions to integrity problems
5. CLO
SING
THE LOOP
Public Service Integrity Chartersfrom JWG
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
Public voice: Community radio, social media, SMS, public hearings
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
Community monitoring: DevelopmentCheckFocus groupsCommunity score cardsResearch
3. EVIDENCE
BASE
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
4. CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT
Integrity Helpdesk
JWGs identify solutions to integrity problems
5. CLO
SING
THE LOOP
JWGs implement solutions to integrity problems
Public Service Integrity Chartersfrom JWG
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
Public voice: Community radio, social media, SMS, public hearings
Results Communicated: both problems resolved and good practices identified (through public sharing, film, reports)
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
Community monitoring: DevelopmentCheckFocus groupsCommunity score cardsResearch
3. EVIDENCE
BASE
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
4. CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT
Integrity Helpdesk
JWGs identify solutions to integrity problems
5. CLO
SING
THE LOOP
JWGs implement solutions to integrity problems
Public Service Integrity Chartersfrom JWG
CLOSE THE LOOP!!
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
Public voice: Community radio, social media, SMS, public hearings
Results Communicated: both problems resolved and good practices identified (through public sharing, film, reports)
© Integrity Action 2013
Integrity Education: Joint training of teachers, university professors, community monitors, public officials
Joint Working Groups (JWG) formed
Integrity Tools: training manuals, schools DVD, ACE analysis, animations, teacher training
1. CONTEXT
SENSITIVITY
Scoping study: stakeholder mapping, local priorities, needs, potential spoilers
Community monitoring: DevelopmentCheckFocus groupsCommunity score cardsResearch
3. EVIDENCE
BASE
2. JO
INT
LEAR
NING
4. CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT
Public voice: Community radio, social media, SMS, public hearings
Integrity Helpdesk
JWGs identify solutions to integrity problems
5. CLO
SING
THE LOOP
JWGs implement solutions to integrity problems
Public Service Integrity Chartersfrom JWG
M&E Online DatabaseInternational Peer
Learning
ACCOUNTABILITYCOMPETENCEETHICS
Results Communicated: both problems resolved and good practices identified (through public sharing, film, reports)
© Integrity Action 2013
I = a C( A E ) c-
© Integrity Action 2013
What happened to corruption?
© Integrity Action 2013
What CIB is Not
© Integrity Action 2013
1. Anti-Corruption2. Pure Accountability,
Monitoring3. Naming and Shaming4. A confrontational approach5. An ICT driven solution6. Classic participation,
consultation
© Integrity Action 2013
What CIB is
© Integrity Action 2013
1. Responsive to local needs and priorities
2. Bottom-up and Top-Down3. Constructive4. Evidence Based5. Heavily Reliant on Volunteerism
and Public Service6. Cost-Effective
© Integrity Action 2013
The Fix-Rate
Concept 6.
© Integrity Action 2013
Infrastructure: 82%
Based on work in 6 countries
350+ projects and services
Public Services: 28%
The Findings
© Integrity Action 2013
The Findings
© Integrity Action 2013
Specific integrity-related problems resolved to the satisfaction of the core stakeholders.
Definitions: What is a Fix?
© Integrity Action 2013
The ratio of successful fixes as a percentage of identified problems, solution proposed or complaints made.
Definitions: The Fix-Rate
© Integrity Action 2013
Fix-Rates:
The Fix-Rate: The Vision
Up? or Down?
© Integrity Action 2013
Fix-Rates:
The Fix-Rate: The Vision
Always up!Problem Rate: Down!
© Integrity Action 2013
Open contracts and water provision in Kenya.
Case Study
© Integrity Action 2013
At what Level?1. Project-level fixes2. Sub-project fixes3. Upstream: Budgets, policy level
The Fix-Rate: Distinctions
Who Achieves the Fix?1. Community Monitor with Contractor2. CM, JWG, with NGO3. CM, JWG with Local Government4. CM,JWG, with Provincial, National
Government
© Integrity Action 2013
Sustainability1. Is the fix sustainable?2. Is it being scaled up? 3. How cost-effective is the intervention?4. Are the skills used to fix other problems? 5. Is the fix-rate going up?6. Is it self-funding?
The Fix-Rate: Externalities
© Integrity Action 2013
The Fix-Rate: Externalities (2)
Closing the Loop1. Is there an intelligent response? 2. Does the system fight back? How
are we dealing with spoilers?
© Integrity Action 2013
1. Gives us a baseline to assess impact and effectiveness – and fraud/waste
2. Enables us to compare cost-effectiveness of our approach with other methods and interventions
3. The return on investment for CIB is high: at least 300%.
The Fix-Rate: Conclusion
© Integrity Action 2013
1. Principal-Agent-Client2. Information Asymmetry3. Exit, Voice, Loyalty – Collective
Action4. Closing the Loop5. Community Integrity Building6. Fix-Rate
Review: Key Concepts
© Integrity Action 2013
Thank you.
top related