Integrity PDF

A Practical Guide to
Integrity Assessment
A Practical Guide to Integrity Assessment
1. Concept of Integrity
“Integrity” is an abstract concept and can level of “integrity” is defined as “the degree
be defined differently by different people. to which a public official carries out his/
“Integrity” of public organizations in the her duties transparently and fairly without
Integrity Assessment is defined from the committing an act of corruption.”
perspective of public service users. The
Definition of “act of corruption”

(Article 2 of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil
Rights Commission)
The "act of corruption" means any act falling under any of the following items:
① The act of any public official’s abusing his/her position or authority or violating Acts and
subordinate statutes in connection with his/her duties to seek gains for himself/herself or any
third party;
② The act of inflicting damage on the property of any public institution in violation of Acts and
subordinate statutes, in the process of executing the budget of the relevant public institution,
acquiring, managing, or disposing of the property of the relevant public institution, or entering
into and executing a contract to which the relevant public institution is a party; and
③ The act of coercing, urging, proposing and inducing any act referred to in items ① and ②.
16
2. Components of Integrity Assessment
The Comprehensive Integrity Index is For Policy Customer Evaluation, policy custo-
calculated by reflecting the scores of mers including experts, duty-related parties,
External Integrity, Internal Integrity, Policy local residents, and school parents evaluate
Customer Evaluation, Occurrences of the integrity level of the overall operation
Corruption, and acts undermining the and policy decision-making process of the
credibility of the assessments. It is a target organization.
composite indicator of the level of integrity
and occurrences of corruption in the And for Occurrences of Corruption, scores
public sector that are evaluated from the are given in relation to corruption cases that
perspective of citizens, employees of public occurred at the target organization.
organizations, and policy customers.
Meanwhile, acts which can undermine the
As of 2015, the Integrity Assessment is reliability and fairness of the assessment
divided into the assessments of External including manipulation of the survey
Integrity, Internal Integrity, Policy Customer sample and the list of respondents lead to
Evaluation, and Occurrences of Corruption. deduction of scores from the total score.
The assessment of External Integrity, which A separate assessment model is applied for
is carried out on the people who used organizations with unique characteristics in
public service for citizens and organizations, terms of its operation and functions such as
diagnoses the level of integrity based on public universities, local councils, and public
the experience and perception from the medical institutions.
perspective of public service users.
The assessment of Internal Integrity, which

is carried out on the employees, or internal
customers of the public organizations
concerned, gauges the level of integrity
in internal affairs such as personnel
management and budget execution.
17
Figure 2-1 Components of “Comprehensive Integrity”
Comprehensive Integrity
Acts Lowering
External Internal Policy Customer Occurrences of
Assessment
Integrity Integrity Evaluation Corruption
Reliability
Corrupt Public
Survey of public Official Disciplinary Deduction
Survey of public Survey of experts Index Case Index
organization through surveys
service users & stakeholders
employees Corruption Case and inspections
Index
Definition and components of External Integrity
Like the definition of the level of “integrity” Corruption that were detected by an external
mentioned earlier, the definition of External investigation.
Integrity is defined from the perspective of
service users. Administrative service users The Corruption Index means the level
evaluate External Integrity, which refers to of corruption such as receipt of money,
the degree to which public officials carry out entertainment or convenience, and provision
their duties transparently and responsibly of advantages or benefits experienced or
without committing acts of corruption, perceived by citizens and public officials. The
such as the acceptance of gratuities or Corruption Risk Index is the level of possibility
entertainment, in the course of providing or risk of corruption perceived by citizens and
administrative services to citizens or other public officials in terms of openness of work
public organizations. procedures, acceptability of standard work
procedures, and accountability.
External Integrity is divided into the
Corruption Index and the Corruption Starting from 2014, the score for Occurrences
Risk Index. The External Integrity Index is of Corruption that were detected by an
calculated by adding the scores of Corruption external investigation is deducted from the
Index and Corruption Risk Index, and score of External Integrity to increase the
deducting the score for Occurrences of validity of the assessment results.
18
Figure 2-2 Breakdown of External Integrity
Direct and indirect experience and perception of

Corruption corruption including the offering of money, gifts,
Index (0.638) entertainment or convenience, and improper
pursuit of private interest (13 items)
Survey
Corruption
External Transparency and accountability in the performance
Risk Index
Integrity (0.362)
of duties (4 items)
― Deduction of points
Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index (employees
Occurrences of government agencies)
of corruption Corruption Case Index (political appointees of Statistics
government agencies and executives/staff of
public service-related organizations)
Definition and components of Internal Integrity
Internal Integrity is defined as the level of perception toward culture and behaviors
integrity of public organizations evaluated related to corruption.
by their employees as internal customers. It
is composed of the Integrity Culture Index The Work Integrity Index means how trans-
and the Work Integrity Index. The Internal parently and fairly public officials deal
Integrity Index is calculated by adding the with internal affairs such as personnel
scores of the Integrity Culture Index and management, budget execution and
the Work Integrity Index, and deducting the superiors' order without pursuing personal
score for Occurrences of Corruption that gains of themselves or third parties.
were detected by an internal audit.
In other words, Internal Integrity measures
The Integrity Culture Index shows the level employees' experience and perception
of prevalence of corrupt practices and about corruption involving major internal
tolerance for corruption, and effectiveness works such as the offer of gratuities or
of anti-corruption measures. It examines the entertainment in relation to personnel
existence or effectiveness of internal anti- management, improper execution of
corruption mechanisms and systems such as budget, or unfair orders given by superiors.
whistle-blowing programs, and employees’
19
Starting from 2014, the score for Occur- of Internal Integrity to increase the validity
rences of Corruption that were detected by of the assessment results.
an internal audit is deducted from the score
Figure 2-3 Breakdown of Internal Integrity
Integrity
Culture Index Prevalence of corrupt practices & effectiveness of
(0.433) anti-corruption systems (9 items)
Survey
Internal Work Integrity Transparency & fairness in personnel management,

Integrity Index (0.567) budget execution and order by superiors (24 items)
Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index (employees
Occurrences of government agencies)
Corruption Case Index (political appointees of Statistics
of corruption
government agencies and executives/staff of
public service-related organizations)
Definition and components of Policy Customer Evaluation
Policy Customer Evaluation is defined as and waste of budget as well as the level
"assessment of integrity level of policies and of transparency of policy decision-making
overall operation at the organizational level process and work procedures.
from the perspective of policy customers
such as experts, duty-related parties, local The Control of Corruption Index indicates
residents and school parents." It consists establishment and operation of effective
of the Perception of Corruption Index, anti-corruption mechanism and measures
the Control of Corruption Index and the such as strict punishment and corruption
Experience of Corruption Index. prevention efforts.
The Perception of Corruption Index is the The Experience of Corruption Index shows
level of perception about the receipt of direct/indirect experience of offering
money, entertainment and convenience, money, entertainment or convenience.
20
Figure 2-4 Breakdown of Policy Customer Evaluation
Perception of Perception of favor for former public officials,

Corruption waste of budget, transparency/fairness in decision-
Index making and overall work process, etc.
Control of
Policy Customer Perception of strict punishment, efforts to prevent
Corruption corruption, etc.
Evaluation
Index
"Assessment of integrity
level of policies and
overall operation at the
organizational level by
Experience
experts, duty-related Experience and perception of offering of money,
parties, local residents & of Corruption
gifts and entertainment, etc.
school parents” Index
Definition and components of Occurrences of Corruption
“Occurrences of Corruption” is defined as The Corruption Case Index is calculated based

“actual occurrence of corruption cases.” It on the corruption cases disclosed through audit
consists of the Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary results and media reports by evaluating the
Index and the Corruption Case Index. amount of money related with corruption, level
of prevalence of corrupt acts, negative impact
The Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index is of the case, etc.
calculated based on the data on public officials
disciplined for corrupt acts by evaluating the The score of Occurrences of Corruption
position of corrupt officials and amount of deducted from the Comprehensive Integrity
money involved. score equals the occurrences of corruption
detected by both external investigations and
internal audits.
21
Figure 2-5 Breakdown of Occurrences of Corruption
Corrupt
Scoring the position of public officials disciplined
Public Official
for corruption and amount of money involved
Disciplinary (employees of government agencies)
Index
Occurrences of
Corruption
Scoring the amount of money, prevalence of
" Corrupt acts committed Corruption corrupt acts and negative impact (political
by public officials " Case Index appointees of government agencies and executives/
staff of public service-related organizations)
Definition and components of Acts Lowering Assessment Reliability
“Acts lowering assessment reliability” refers On-site inspections are conducted to detect
to improper acts conducted by a public any acts to manage the survey sample such as
organization subject to the Integrity Assessment prior contacts with prospective respondents
for the purpose of affecting the assessment or violation of the criteria for conducting the
results. Such acts can be detected through Integrity Assessment autonomously.
surveys and inspections, and will result in having
scores deducted from Comprehensive Integrity. Also, an examination of the list of respondents
can reveal any random changes in contact
Survey questionnaires include a question information of respondents or listing of
aimed at identifying the public organizations unqualified persons as respondents.
which requested respondents to give favorable
answers in the Integrity Survey.
22
Figure 2-6 Integrity Assessment model (2015)
Direct and indirect experience and perception

Corruption of corruption including the offering of money,
Index (0.638) gifts, entertainment or convenience, and
External improper pursuit of private interest (13 items)
Integrity
(0.601) Corruption
Transparency and accountability in the
Risk Index
performance of duties (4 items)
(0.362)
Integrity
Prevalence of corrupt practices & effectiveness
Culture Index
Internal of anti-corruption systems (9 items)
Compre (0.433)
-hensive Integrity
Integrity (0.250) Transparency & fairness in personnel
Work Integrity
management, budget execution and order by
Index (0.567)
superiors (24 items)
Survey
Perception of favor for former public officials,
Perception of
waste of budget, transparency/fairness in
Corruption
decision-making and overall work process, etc.
(0.427)
(9 items)
Policy
Customer Control of
Perception of strict punishment, efforts to
Evaluation Corruption
prevent corruption, etc. (3 items)
(0.149) (0.294)
Experience
Experience and perception of offering of
of Corruption
money, gifts and entertainment, etc. (1 item)
(0.279)
Occurrences Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index (employees of government agencies)
of Corruption Case Index (political appointees of government agencies and
Corruption executives/staff of public service-related organizations)
Statistics
Acts Lowering Manipulation/inaccuracy of the list of respondents, request for favorable
Assessment responses, improper acts detected through on-site inspection and
Reliability disclosure, etc.
- Verification
of list of respondents, survey & on-site inspection
* “External Integrity” and “Internal Integrity” in the Integrity Assessment Model indicate the results of each survey.
*In the case of the organizations that are not subject to Policy Customer Evaluation, the weighted values of “External
Integrity” and “Internal Integrity” are 0.735 and 0.265, respectively.
23
3. External Integrity Assessment
The assessment of External Integrity is However, in the Integrity Assessment, each

not carried out on all works of public work is given the same weight in assessing
organizations. It concerns representative External Integrity. The reason is that it is
works which public organizations conduct hard to say that there is a direct correlation
for citizens and other organizations, works between the possibility of corruption and
about which public officials in a superior the proportion of a population. To accurately
position can make a decision which may produce the External Integrity score, weight
benefit themselves or other parties, as should be determined by the possibility
well as corruption-prone works such as of corruption of each work, but in reality
contracting. there is no way to determine the possibility
of corruption of each work in advance.
This is intended to make an accurate diag- Therefore, the same weight is given to each
nosis of corruption-prone areas, and based work.
on the diagnosis, to obtain data useful for
improving legal and institutional frameworks
Factors of External Integrity:
and setting up preventive anti-corruption Corruption Index & Corruption Risk Index
strategies. In this regard, the selection of
target works for External Integrity is very
important. External Integrity assesses acts of corruption
(Corruption Index) and corruption risks
How much weight is each target work related to transparency and accountability
given in External Integrity? Generally, there (Corruption Risk Index).
are two methods: the first method is to
determine the weight in proportion to the The Corruption Index assesses violations
size of the population, i.e. to give more of integrity-related legal duties such as the
weight to the works that have a larger acceptance of money, gift, entertainment,
population, while the second method is to or convenience, the offering of favors,
give the same weight to all works regardless influence peddling, improper solicitations
of population sizes. Normally, weight is and improper pursuit of private interest.
given according to the population size in a
poll.
24
The Corruption Risk Index assesses trans- “external corruption” from the weighted
parency and accountability of public sum of the Corruption Index and the
service. The index evaluates the openness Corruption Risk Index. Corruption which
and availability of standard procedures for involves external parties such as an act of
handling duties, efforts to complete duties, receiving money, gifts, or entertainment
and abuse of power. from external duty-related parties, or
leaking office secrets is classified as “external
The External Integrity score is calculated corruption” and translated into the External
by deducting the score for occurrences of Integrity score.
25
�Table 2-1� Weighted components of External Integrity
Areas Items of measurement Scoring methodology

Favor for a small number of people Individual respondent
(0.248) scoring
Impact of personal connection and
Individual respondent
Perception of relationship on performance of
scoring
Corruption duty (0.244)
(0.351) Individual respondent
Improper influence peddling (0.271)
scoring
Seeking improper personal gain Individual respondent
(0.237) scoring
Frequency of offering money or Aggregate organization
gifts (0.198) scoring
Value of money or gifts offered Aggregate organization
(0.188) scoring
Corruption Rate of offering money or gifts Aggregate organization
Index (0.085) scoring
(0.638) Direct Frequency of offering Aggregate organization
Experience entertainment (0.154) scoring
of Corruption Value of entertainment offered Aggregate organization
(0.511) (0.144) scoring
Rate of offering entertainment Aggregate organization
(0.069) scoring
Frequency of offering convenience Aggregate organization
(0.103) scoring
Aggregate organization
Rate of offering convenience (0.059)
scoring
Indirect
Indirect experience of providing
Experience Aggregate organization
money, valuables, entertainment or
of Corruption scoring
convenience (1.000)
(0.138)
Openness of work standards and Individual respondent
Transparency procedures (0.555) scoring
(0.552) Acceptability of work standards and Individual respondent
Corruption
procedures (0.445) scoring
Risk Index
(0.362) Efforts to complete duties (0.502)
Accountability scoring
(0.448) Individual respondent
Abuse of power (0.498)
scoring
* Weights in parentheses used in 2015
26
4. Internal Integrity Assessment
Corruption inside the public sector can corruption control system, and their general
be individual wrongdoing, but on many relevance to corruption. The Work Integrity
occasions it is structural corruption caused Index gauges the level of corruption in
by organizational and cultural factors. corruption-prone internal works in a public
Since structural corruption occurring over organization. The Integrity Culture Index
the course of handling internal matters is consists of items on organizational culture
attributed to organizational, institutional and corruption control system to make a
and cultural factors, it is hard to detect and multi-dimensional diagnosis on corruption-
members of the organization tend not to causing factors and environment within
recognize it as an act of corruption. an organization. The Work Integrity Index
is produced by measuring corruption
To deal with such internal, structural experience and perceptions related to
corruption caused by weaknesses in personnel management, budget execution
institutions and culture, continuous efforts and superiors' order that may involve
are needed to diagnose and remedy corruption in the performance of duties.
problems in institutions and culture. The
assessment of Internal Integrity embraces The Internal Integrity score is calculated
institutional and cultural aspects so as to by deducting the score for occurrences of
approach structural problems. “internal corruption” from the weighted
sum of the Integrity Culture Index and
Factors of Internal Integrity: the Work Integrity Index. Corruption
Integrity Culture Index & Work Integrity Index which occurs internally such as an act of
offering money, gifts, or entertainment
in regard to personnel management
Internal Integrity is composed of two within an organization or an employee’s
factors: Integrity Culture Index and Work embezzlement of public funds is classified
Integrity Index. The Integrity Culture as “internal corruption” and translated into
Index measures cultural characteristics the Internal Integrity score.
within an organization and the status of
27
�Table 2-2� Weighted components of Internal Integrity

Transparency in work process (0.165)
scoring
Seeking improper personal gain (0.162)
scoring
Organi- Individual respondent
Prevalence of corrupt practices (0.203)
zational scoring
Culture Impact of personal connection and Individual respondent
Integrity (0.631) relationship on performance of duty (0.138) scoring
Culture Individual respondent
Index scoring
(0.433) Private use and disclosure of duty-related Individual respondent
information (0.158) scoring
Effectiveness of protection for corruption Individual respondent
Anti- reporters (0.322) scoring
corruption Strictness of criteria for disciplinary action or Individual respondent
System level of punishment (0.381) scoring
(0.369) Efficiency of internal corruption control Individual respondent
system (0.297) scoring
Frequency of offering money Aggregate
or gifts (0.239) organization scoring
Value of money or gifts offered Aggregate
(0.222) organization scoring
Rate of offering money or gifts Aggregate
Direct (0.097) organization scoring
Experience Frequency of offering
Aggregate
(0.515) entertainment or convenience
organization scoring
(0.188)
Work Value of entertainment or Aggregate
Personnel
convenience offered (0.172) organization scoring
Integrity Manage
Rate of offering entertainment Aggregate
Index -ment
or convenience (0.082) organization scoring
(0.567) (0.413)
Indirect experience of
Indirect
providing money, valuables, Aggregate
Experience
entertainment or convenience organization scoring
(0.173)
(1.000)
Offering of money, valuables,
entertainment, and
scoring
Perception convenience (0.500)
(0.312) Impact of offering of money,
valuables, entertainment or
scoring
convenience (0.500)
28
Frequency of illegal or
improper spending of business
scoring
promotion expenses (0.148)
Amount of illegal or improper
spending of business
scoring
Rate of illegal or improper
spending of business
scoring
Frequency of illegal or
improper spending of
scoring
operating/travel costs (0.130)
Amount of illegal or improper
Experience Aggregate organization
Execution spending of operating/travel
(0.606) scoring
of Budget costs (0.114)
(0.347) Rate of illegal or improper
spending of operating /travel
scoring
costs (0.066)
Work Frequency of illegal or
Integrity improper spending of project
scoring
Index costs (0.151)
(0.567) Amount of illegal or improper
spending of project costs
scoring
(0.134)
Rate of illegal or improper
spending of project costs
scoring
(0.066)
Perception Illegal or improper execution Individual respondent
(0.394) of budget (1.000) scoring
Frequency of improper orders Aggregate organization
Experience given by superiors (0.718) scoring
(0.600) Experience of improper orders Aggregate organization
Fairness given by superiors (0.282) scoring
in orders
Sparing oneself and avoiding Individual respondent
given by
responsibilities (0.235) scoring
superiors
(0.240) Perception Improper orders given by Individual respondent
(0.400) superiors (0.413) scoring
Disadvantage in disobeying Individual respondent
orders (0.352) scoring
29
5. Policy Customer Evaluation
Surveys of citizens and public officials

Factors of Policy Customer Evaluation:
who experienced the works of public
Perception of Corruption, Control of Corruption
organizations, and employees of public & Experience of Corruption
organizations alone cannot assess the works
that do not involve external parties or policy
decision-making process. Policy Customer Policy Customer Evaluation comprises three
Evaluation has been introduced to assess factors: a) perception of corruption which
not only works for citizens or other public covers various types of corruption such as
organizations but also overall works and waste of budget, unjust influence peddling
policy decision-making process of public by retired public officials, and disclosure or
organizations by expanding the scope of personal use of office secrets; b) corruption
respondents to experts, stakeholders, control which evaluates willingness to
local residents, school parents, etc. Policy eradicate corruption within an organization
Customer Evaluation consists of components along with system to prevent corruption;
that can assess the overall integrity levels of and c) direct and indirect experience of
public organizations from the perspective of corruption.
outsiders.
30
�Table 2-3� Weighted components of Policy Customer Evaluation

Waste of budget (0.119)
scoring
scoring
Seeking improper personal gain (0.105)
scoring
Favor for a small number of people (0.112)
scoring
Perception
of Impact of personal connection and relationship on Individual respondent
Corruption performance of duty (0.118) scoring
(0.427)
Disclosure of policies and information (0.102)
scoring
Abuse of power (0.102)
scoring
Illegal influence peddling by retired public officials Individual respondent

(0.092) scoring
Private use and disclosure of duty-related Individual respondent

information (0.112) scoring
Strictness of criteria for disciplinary action or level Individual respondent

of punishment (0.374) scoring
Control of
Effectiveness of protection for corruption reporters Individual respondent
Corruption
(0.306) scoring
(0.294)
Efforts to prevent corruption and enhance integrity Individual respondent
(0.320) scoring
Experience
of Direct/indirect experience of offering money, Aggregate organization
Corruption valuables, entertainment or convenience (1.000) scoring
(0.279)
31
6. Occurrences of Corruption
There are limitations in the survey-based “Occurrences of Corruption” consists of

integrity assessment because the assessment two components: Corrupt Public Official
result can be inconsistent with the actual Disciplinary Index and Corruption Case Index.
statistics of corruption cases. The Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index is
derived from statistics on public officials who
For External Integrity, the survey is conducted were disciplined for corruption, while the
on public service users by selecting target Corruption Case Index is based on corruption
works, which are closely related with main cases which were disclosed by media
tasks and functions of the target organization coverage or other sources.
as well as with the services directly provided
to citizens. However, there have been some The acts of public officials disciplined for
cases where there is discrepancy between an corruption in central and local administrative
organization's integrity level and the actual agencies, offices of education, and state or
occurrence of corruption cases. For example, public universities are subject to the Corrupt
corruption cases happened in the work Public Official Disciplinary Index.
areas which are not subject to the Integrity
Assessment while the integrity level of the As for the Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary
organization is high. Index, scores are given based on the statistics
on disciplinary action or internal punishment
Another problem is that the survey has imposed on employees for corrupt acts
limitations in identifying any collusion under the ACRC Act. Disciplinary action or
between public officials and respondents. internal punishment includes compulsory
retirement and all forms of disciplinary actions
Therefore, a gap can be found between the (reprimand, reduction of salary, dismissal,
result of the Integrity Assessment based demotion, and suspension from office) stated
on surveys and the public perception of in the State Public Officials Act.
an organization's integrity level. To narrow
the gap, statistics of corruption, which can The score for the Corrupt Public Official
be regarded as an objective indicator, are Disciplinary Index will be calculated if the
reflected in the Integrity Assessment result. final decision for disciplinary action is made
during the assessment period. In the case of
32
major corruption cases, however, the score The Score for the Corruption Case Index is
will be deducted if an official is prosecuted for calculated under the following procedures:
corruption and disciplinary action is pending 1) collecting information about the cases
between the assessment period and the of corruption reported by the media and
announcement of the assessment results. disclosed through other channels such as
audits by the Board of Audit and Inspection
Meanwhile, corruption cases detected by an or supervisory organizations, and establishing
internal audit are not reflected in deducting a database, 2) deciding which cases can be
points in order not to discourage public reflected in the index by considering the
organizations' voluntary efforts to detect and opinions of the organization concerned, and
punish corruption. The Corrupt Public Official 3) producing the final score based on the
Disciplinary Index score is calculated by analysis of the experts panel.
applying weights to the position of the corrupt
official and the amount of money involved Types of corruption cases collected range
in corruption, and then by considering the from receiving money and entertainment,
number of staff of the organization. embezzlement of public funds, to abuse of
power, and cases which were concluded
The Corruption Case Index applies to public as corruption over the course of audit,
service-related organizations because it is investigation, and litigation are also collected.
difficult to get the statistics on corruption
cases and internal punishment within those As for the Corruption Case Index, cases
organizations. Unlike government agencies, detected during the internal audit mechanism
public service-related organizations have are excluded for calculating scores in order
different guidelines and criteria for disciplinary not to undermine the organization's voluntary
action against corrupt employees, and this is efforts to prevent and punish corruption.
why the Corruption Case Index is used instead
of the Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary The Corruption Case Index for each organi-
Index. In addition, political appointees at zation is calculated based on the assessment
government agencies are not subject to by experts panel on each index item such as
disciplinary action or internal punishment amount of money related with corruption,
within the agency. Therefore, the Corrupt position of corrupt officials, level of prevalence
Public Official Disciplinary Index cannot be of corrupt practices, number of parties
applied to those political appointees, so the involved in the case, and negative impact of
Corruption Case Index is utilized for them. the case.
33
�Table 2-4� Weighted components of Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index
Areas Items of measurement

Position High-level (0.445)
of Corrupt
Mid-level (0.330)
Official
(0.423) Low-level (0.255)
Less than KRW 1 million (0.066)

Amount of
Not less than KRW 1 million and less than KRW 5 million (0.146)
Money
Involved in Not less than KRW 5 million and less than KRW 30 million (0.212)
Corruption
Not less than KRW 30 million and less than KRW 100 million (0.261)
(0.577)
100 million or over (0.315)
�Table 2-5� Weighted components of Corruption Case Index
Areas
Amount of money involved and type of corruption (0.295)
Level of prevalence and systematization of corruption (0.375)
Negative impact (0.330)
34
7. Act Lowering Assessment Reliability
“Acts lowering assessment reliability” refers Acts lowering assessment reliability

to the acts conducted by the organizations can be detected through an on-site
subject to the Integrity Assessment to affect inspection by examining the lists of
the assessment results in an improper way. respondents submitted by target agencies
Such acts can be detected through surveys and by detecting the acts of influencing
and inspections. respondents. The lists of respondents
are examined to detect any omission of
Surveys can be used to detect target respondents, arbitrary modification of the
agencies’ acts of inducing respondents to lists and listing of unqualified respondents.
provide favorable answers. For example, The acts of influencing respondents include
respondents are asked during External making prior contacts with respondents
and Internal Integrity surveys if they were before the Assessment and encouraging
requested or instructed to answer favorably them to give favorable answers through
to surveys conducted by the ACRC. The training or prior notification.
number of the respondents who answered
“yes” to the above question is used to Meanwhile, conducting a self-assessment
determine the degree to which target similar to the Integrity Assessment during
agencies induced favorable answers. The the Integrity Assessment period is also
ACRC confirms such acts, translates them regarded as an act lowering assessment
into scores, and deducts such scores from reliability as it may have a carryover effect.
Comprehensive Integrity. Therefore, an agency that intends to
conduct its own Integrity Assessment should
consult with the ACRC in advance.
35
�Table 2-6� Types of acts lowering assessment reliability
Types of acts lowering assessment reliability
• Omitting some respondents from the list, or omitting the

Omitting respondents respondents who are likely to give unfavorable answers
from the list or
manipulating the list • Manipulating the lists of respondents, making erroneous
entries, or asking proxies to act as respondents
• Encouraging respondents to give favorable answers

by contacting them before the Assessment
• Recommending answers in favor of the target agency

through e-mail, notification, training, and meeting
• Conducting a self-assessment similar to the Integrity

Assessment during the Integrity Assessment period
Influencing respondents
• Using Internal Integrity as a criterion for evaluating
performance or giving incentives
*Organizations are allowed to use the Integrity Index as one of the
performance indicators of the audit and inspection department
or to use the External Integrity Index as one of the performance
indicators of the departments whose duties are subject to the
Integrity Assessment.
Omitting information • Not submitting data on officials disciplined for corruption

or submitting false
information
related to Occurrences
of Corruption • Submitting false information related to the Corruption Case
Index
36
Ⅳ
Chapter
Calculation of
Integrity Scores
1. Scoring Methodology
2. Scoring for Two Types of Survey Questions
3. Standardization of Scores for Experience of Corruption
4. Deduction of Scores
57
1. Scoring Methodology
The score for each component of the added up to get the index score. The score
Comprehensive Integrity Index is scaled for each index score is then multiplied by
from 0 to 10 points with 10 indicating the its weight and the products are added up,
highest level of integrity. Likewise, when it producing the External Integrity, Internal
comes to the Corruption Index, which is one Integrity and Policy Customer Evaluation
of the components of the Comprehensive scores.
Integrity Index, the score closer to 10 means
a higher level of integrity, or a lower level of Then, the scores for External Integrity,
corruption. Internal Integrity, and Policy Customer
Evaluation are weighted and added together.
The methodology used to produce Integrity Finally, the scores for the occurrences of
scores is as follows: corruption within and outside the organi-
zation and acts lowering assessment
First, the score for each survey item is multi- reliability are deducted from the sum to get
plied by its weight and the products are the score for Comprehensive Integrity.
58
Calculation of integrity scores
1. Calculation on a scale of 0 to 10
Scores for Comprehensive Integrity and all the component indices are calculated on a scale of 0
to 10.
2. Weighted sum of scores

Scores for sub-categories are added up to get scores for the components of each index,
which are added up to get scores for indices. Scores are weighted before being added.
The Comprehensive Integrity score is the weighted sum of scores of indices.
3. Calculation of scores by “individual respondent scoring” and “aggregate organization scoring”
4. Scores for sub-category “direct experience of corruption” calculated by “aggregate

organization scoring” are standardized before being added to get the score for the upper
category.
5. Scores for “aggregate organization scoring” are calculated by using UCP to which gamma-
distribution is applied.
6. Calculation of scores for deduction

Scores for “motives for corruption” are deducted for the calculation of External and Internal
Integrity; scores for “corruption committed by colleagues” included in the Internal Integrity
Survey are deducted for the calculation of External Integrity; and scores for "occurrences of
corruption" and "acts lowering assessment reliability" are deducted for the calculation of
Comprehensive Integrity.
59
2. Scoring for Two Types of Survey Questions
To produce the Integrity scores, the scores disagree”). All survey items of External
for each survey item need to be calculated Integrity except for those related to
first. Different score calculation methods are experience of corruption, and all items of
used for individual respondent scoring and Internal Integrity except for those related
aggregate organization scoring. The score to experience of corruption in personnel
for each survey item is calculated as follows: management, budget execution and
superiors' order fall under this category.
(1) Individual respondent scoring
● Calculation of the scores for individual
● Survey questions for individual respondent respondents
scoring
Let us suppose we are calculating the score
Survey questions of “individual respondent for survey question A. First, the scores for
scoring,” for which scores are calculated individual respondents are produced by
for individual respondents, present answer converting the scores for each answer from
choices on a 7-point scale (“strongly a 7-point scale to a 10-point scale. For a
agree,” “agree,” “slightly agree,” “neutral,” positive question, if the answer is “strongly
“slightly disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree” (1 point on a 7-point scale) then
�Table 4-1� Formula to convert 7-point scale into 10-point and scores assigned to each scale
(7-point score - 1)
10-point score = × 10
6
Answer Scale 10-point score

Strongly disagree 1 0 or 10
Disagree 2 1.67 or 8.33
Slightly disagree 3 3.33 or 6.67
Neutral 4 5
Slightly agree 5 6.67 or 3.33
Agree 6 8.33 or 1.67
Strongly agree 7 10 or 0
60
the score is 0, and 10 for “strongly agree” (7 scores are assigned to each scale according
points). In the case of a negative question, to whether the survey question is positive
the score is calculated the other way or negative.
around.
As for Internal Integrity and Policy Customer
The formula to turn 7-point scores into Evaluation, scores of individual respondents
10-point ones and points assigned to each are averaged to calculate scores for each
scale are given in Table 4-1. Two different question.
Two types of survey questions
If you take a look at a survey questionnaire for the Integrity Assessment, you will notice that there
are 2 kinds of survey questions. The first type of question asks you to answer by choosing one out
of 7 choices (7-point scale): “strongly agree,” “agree,” “slightly agree,” “neutral,” “slightly disagree,”
“disagree,” and “strongly disagree,” for example. The other one is about the respondent’s
experience/frequency/amount of corruption or gratuities. The scoring method for the former is
referred to as “individual respondent scoring,“ while the scoring method for the latter is called
”aggregate organization scoring.“
Individual respondent scoring

It is called “individual respondent scoring” because scores are produced for individual
respondents. For each question, respondents are requested to choose one from 7 answer choices
(7-point scale) (“strongly agree,” “agree,” “slightly agree,” “neutral,” “slightly disagree,” “disagree,”
and “strongly disagree”).
Score calculation: A 7-point scale is converted into a 10-point scale, and the score is assigned to
each respondent. Individual scores of each respondent are added together to produce the total
score for each survey item.
Aggregate organization scoring

It is called “aggregate organization scoring” because the score is produced for the entire
organization subject to the Integrity Assessment although the questions are answered by
individual respondents. Respondents answer survey questions on their experience/frequency/
amount of corruption or gratuities.
Score calculation: Individual respondents’ experience/frequency/amount of corruption or

gratuities are added together for each organization, and then put into a set formula to come up
with scores for each organization. Scores for individual respondents are not produced.
61
● Calculation of the scores for each work by averaging individual respondents’ scores
(applicable to External Integrity only)
Survey item A’s score for each work is and divide the sum by 50 (the number of
produced after the calculation of scores respondents) to get the score for “work
for each respondent. Scores for each work a” of survey item A. If there are 100
are generated by averaging the scores respondents for “work b,” add up the score
of individual respondents for each work of 100 individual respondents and divide
concerned. If there are 50 respondents for the total by 100. Then, the score for “work b”
“work a,” for example, you can add up the of survey item A is generated.
scores for all 50 individual respondents
Sum of scores of respondents for “work a”

Score of “work a” in survey item A =
Number of respondents for “work a”
● Calculation of the scores for each survey item by averaging the scores for each work
(applicable to External Integrity only)
If scores for work a, work b, work c in survey aging scores for each work, that is, by adding
item A have been produced, then the score up scores for work a, work b, and work c,
for survey item A can be calculated. The and then dividing the aggregate number by
score for survey item A is generated by aver- 3 (the number of work).
Score of work a + score of work b + score of work c

Score of survey item A =
Number of works
(2) Aggregate organization scoring
Survey questions of “aggregate organization entertainment or convenience, and amount

scoring” are those that ask questions about of gratuities, entertainment or convenience
respondents’ “experience” of corruption— offered.
frequency and rate of offering gratuities,
62
[Table 4-2� Survey questions for aggregate organization scoring
Direct experience of corruption Indirect experience of corruption

• Frequency/amount/rate of offering
• Indirect experience of offering
gratuities; frequency/amount/rate of
External gratuities, entertainment or
offering entertainment; and frequency
Integrity convenience in the Corruption
/rate of offering convenience in the
Index
Corruption Index
• Frequency/amount/rate of offering
gratuities, entertainment or convenience
• Indirect experience of offering
in relation to personnel management;
Internal gratuities, entertainment or
• Questions related to experience in
Integrity convenience in relation to
budget execution
personnel management
• Questions related to experience in
fairness in orders given by superiors
Policy
• Direct/Indirect experience of offering gratuities, entertainment or convenience in
Customer
Experience of Corruption
Evaluation
(a) Calculation of scores for questions on corruption experience of each respondent.

direct experience of corruption The total amount of corruption experience
can be produced likewise. In the case of
● Calculation of the total frequency and total External Integrity, for example, if “respondent
amount of corruption experience for each A” said that he or she offered gratuities to
organization public officials 8 to 10 times, respondent A’s
frequency score is 9. The frequency scores
First, we need to calculate the total frequency for respondent B, C, and D can be produced
and total amount of corruption experience in this way, and by adding them all, we
(gratuities/entertainment/convenience can come up with the total frequency of
offers, illegal and unfair budget execution, gratuities offered for an organization.
unfair orders given by superiors, etc.) for each
organization. The frequency or amount of corruption
experience can be scored as follows for the
The total frequency of corruption experience year 2015. The values may vary each year
of an organization can be produced by according to changes in the questionnaires.
adding up the scores for the frequency of
63
Total amount (or frequency) of organization A’s corruption experience = the sum of scores
for the amount (or frequency) of each respondent’s corruption experience
● Calculation of the frequency/amount of corruption experience for External Integrity
① Frequency of gratuities/entertainment/convenience offered
1 time = 1 2 times = 2 3 times = 3 4-5times = 4.5

6-7 times = 6.5 11-15 times = 13 more than 16 times = 16
② Amount of gratuities/entertainment offered
50,000 won or less = 5 60,000-150,000 won = 10.5

160,000-300,000 won = 23 310,000-500,000 won = 40.5
510,000-1 million won = 75.5 1.01-2 million won = 150.5
2.01-3 million won = 250.5 3.01-5 million won = 400.5
5.01-10 million won = 750.5 10.01 million won or more = 1,001
● Calculation of the frequency/amount of corruption experience for Internal Integrity
① Frequency of gratuities/entertainment/convenience offered in relation to personnel

management
1 time = 1 2 times = 2 3 times = 3
4-5times = 4.5 6-10 times = 8 more than 11 times = 11
② F requency of illegal/undue execution of budget, and frequency of orders hindering fair

performance of duties
1 time yearly = 1 2-3 times yearly = 2.5 1-2 times quarterly = 6
1 time monthly = 12 2 times monthly = 24 3 or more times monthly = 36
③ Amount of gratuities/entertainment offered in relation to personnel management

500,000 won or less = 50 510,000-1 million won = 75.5 1.01-2 million won = 150.5
2.001-3 million won = 250.5 3.01-5 million won = 40.5 5.01 million won or more = 501
64
④ Amount of business promotion/operating/travel expenses illegally or unduly executed
500,000 won or less = 50 510,000-1 million won = 75.5 1.01-3 million won = 200.5
3.01-5 million won = 400.5 5.01-10 million won = 750.5 10.01 million won or more = 1001
⑤ Amount of project costs illegally or unduly executed
10 million won or less = 1000 10.01-50 million won = 3000.5 50.01-100 million won = 7500.5
100.01-500 million won = 30000.5 500.01-1 billion won = 75000.5 1.00001 billion won or more = 100001
● Calculation of the average frequency or amount of corruption experience for each

organization
After calculating the total frequency and the total amount of corruption experience for an
organization, we can get the average frequency and amount for an organization. The average
frequency/amount is produced by dividing the total frequency/amount by the total number of
respondents.
In this case, "respondents" do not mean those who answered that they have experienced
corruption but all the respondents who answered the questions, regardless of their experience
of corruption. For example, if organizations A’s total frequency of gratuities offered is 10 and
the total number of respondents is 100, then organization A’s average frequency of gratuities
offered is 0.1. That means one respondent offered gratuities 0.1 time on average.
Organization A’s total frequency (or amount)
Organization A’s average frequency of corruption experience
(or amount) of corruption experience =
Total number of respondents
● Calculation of the rate of corruption experience for each organization
The rate of corruption experience for an organization can be calculated by counting the
number of respondents who answered that they had offered money, gifts, entertainment or
convenience to a public official of the organization concerned, and then dividing the number
by the total number of respondents for the organization.
Number of respondents who experienced corruption

Organization A’s rate of corruption experience = 100×
65
● Calculation of scores for each survey question
Aggregate organization scores for survey questions on direct experience of corruption are
calculated by applying the following formulas to the average frequency/amount and the rate
of corruption experience:
Formula to get the scores for direct experience of corruption in External Integrity
Average frequency of offers

Frequency of gratuities/entertainment/ for an organization
= 10 x ( 1 - )
convenience offered for an organization
UCP₁
* UCP₁= value equivalent to 95% of cumulative gamma distribution of average frequency of offers for all
organizations
Average amount of offers

Amount of gratuities/entertainment offered for for an organization
= 10 x ( 1 - )
an organization
UCP₂
* UCP₂= value equivalent to 95% of cumulative gamma distribution of average amount of offers for all
organizations
Average rate of offers
Rate of offering gratuities/entertainment offered for an organization
= 10 x ( 1 - )
for an organization
UCP₃
* UCP₃= value equivalent to 95% of cumulative gamma distribution of average rate of offers for all organizations
Formula to get the scores for direct experience of corruption in Internal Integrity
Frequency of offering gratuities/entertainment/convenience Average frequency of offers

in relation to personnel management; frequency of illegal/ (experience) per respondent
= 10 x ( 1 - )
unfair budget execution; frequency of improper orders given
by superiors UCP₁
* UCP₁= value equivalent to 95% of cumulative gamma distribution of average frequency of offers for all
organizations
Average amount of offers
Amount of gratuities/entertainment/convenience offered (experience) per respondent
in relation to personnel management; amount of budget = 10 x ( 1 )
executed illegally or unfairly UCP₂
* UCP₂ = value equivalent to 95% of cumulative gamma distribution of average amount of offers for all
organizations
66
Formula to get the scores for direct experience of corruption in Internal Integrity
Average rate of offers

Rate of offering gratuities/entertainment/convenience in (experience) per respondent
relation to personnel management; rate of illegal/unfair = 10 x ( 1 - )
budget execution; rate of improper orders given by superiors UCP₃
* UCP₃ = value equivalent to 95% of cumulative gamma distribution of rate amount of offers for all
organizations
(b) Calculation of scores for questions on indirect experience of corruption
● Calculation of the rate of indirect experience of corruption for each organization
We can get the rate of indirect experience of corruption for an organization by dividing the
number of the respondents who answered that they had indirectly experienced corruption
by the number of total respondents for the External Integrity Survey of the organization
concerned.
No. of respondents with indirect experience of corruption

Rate of indirect experience of corruption = 100 ×
● Calculation of scores for each survey question
Aggregate organization scores for survey questions on indirect experience of corruption are
calculated by applying the following formula to the rate of indirect experience of corruption:
Formula to get the score for the rate of indirect experience of corruption for an organization
Rate of indirect experience of corruption

Score for indirect experience of corruption = 10 x ( 1 - )
UCP₁
* UCP₁ = Value corresponding to 95% of accumulated gamma distribution of rate of indirect experience of
corruption for all organizations
67
Questions on UCP
● UCP (Upper Cut-off Point)

“Corruption ceiling,” after which everything is regarded as 0.
● How to calculate UCP

When the values for the frequency or amount of corruption of all public organizations are
arranged in ascending order, the shape formed is a cumulative gamma distribution. The value at
95% in the distribution curve is UCP. To put it simply, UCP is so extreme a value or “outlier” in the
distribution of values for the frequency or amount of corruption that everything exceeding that
value is regarded as 0.
● Why is the score for frequency and amount 0 when one person offered bribes?
Since the value for UCP is determined by taking into account a distribution of corruption
experience of all public organizations, the UCP value gets smaller when there is no occurrence
of corruption in other organizations. When the corruption ceiling is low, a few incidences of
corruption makes the score 0.
68
3. Standardization of Scores for Experience of Corruption
Necessity of standardization Improvement of score calculation throu-

gh standardization
Integrity scores and rankings can be
disproportionately influenced by the Standardization is used in cases where there
scores of "experience of corruption." The is a big standard deviation among variables
components related to "experience of in order to ease disproportionateness and
corruption" account for a considerable part deviation and to enable relative comparison
of the Integrity Assessment Model, because of variables. The above-mentioned problem
even a single case of corruption should not occurs, because the scores for "experience
occur. of corruption" with a big deviation (0-
10) and the scores for "perception of
Since 2002, respondents who "experienced corruption" with a small deviation (7-9) are
corruption" in the surveys have been simply added as they stand.
decreasing overall. Such a trend has
resulted in greatly widening the gap in In order to minimize the occurrence of
the assessment results between those this problem, the scores of "experience of
organizations in which a few corruption corruption," which have a large deviation,
cases occurred and other organizations are standardized so that the standard
which recorded no case of corruption. In deviation may be applied identically, while
other words, relatively rare instances of all the other components are calculated
corruption influence the assessment results according to the existing method.
disproportionately. In order to address this
problem, the ACRC recently introduced Standardization is widely used, including
standardization to reduce the excessive in schools to compare scores between
gap in the components of "experience of different subjects with different levels of
corruption." difficulty. The mean of the population and
the standard deviation are used for each
variable (or subject) to make an identical
standard deviation of “1.”
69
X-μ
Standardized score of Organization X =Mean of the population (μ) + Z (= )
σ
X : Raw score of experience for Organization X
μ : Mean of the population
σ : Standard deviation of the population
In short, standardization decreases the stan- the integrity level of an organization, while
dard deviation to “1” for the components increasing the proportion of "perception
of "experience of corruption" that have a of corruption" with a relatively small score
high score deviation. This process helps to deviation in the results of the Integrity
prevent the components of "experience Assessment.
of corruption" from unduly influencing
Example of standardization of scores for "experience of corruption"
Standard
Organization A B C D E Mean
deviation
Raw score 0.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 6.00 3.81
Standardized score 4.42 5.74 6.26 6.53 7.05 6.00 1.00
● Standardized score of "experience of corruption" for Organization A = 6.00+(0.00-6.00)/3.81=4.42

● Standardized score of "experience of corruption" for Organization E = 6.00+(10.00-6.00)/3.81=7.05
→ The raw score of “0” for Organization A is calculated as a standardized score of “4.42.”
While the mean value remains the same, the deviation among organizations is reduced.
70
4. Deduction of Scores
In calculating Comprehensive Integrity, the "corruption" as stated in the ACRC Act,

components of “Occurrences of Corruption” including receiving of money, gifts, and/or
and “Acts Lowering Assessment Reliability” entertainment, embezzlement, diversion
lead to a deduction of scores. External of public funds, abuse of authority, and
Integrity scores are deducted according to divulgence of office secrets.
occurrences of external corruption, and
"motives for corruption" based on the The corruption cases used to score "Occur-
External Integrity Survey, and "corruption rences of Corruption" are those exposed
committed by colleagues" based on by external organizations (the ACRC,
the Internal Integrity Survey. Internal the Board of Audit and Inspection, the
Integrity scores are deducted according Prosecution Service, the Police, the Office
to occurrences of internal corruption and for Government Policy Coordination,
"motives for corruption" based on the higher supervisory institutions, etc.). The
Internal Integrity Survey. corruption cases detected internally are
excluded in order to prevent the case where
The score for “Occurrences of Corruption” public organizations are unwilling to expose
which is deducted from Comprehensive and/or punish internal corruption for fear of
Integrity is a sum of scores from occurrences getting low integrity scores.
of external and internal corruption. When
calculating Comprehensive Integrity, the (a) Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index
overall deduction is applied to the results of
surveys on External and Internal Integrity. The ACRC collects data on corruption com-
Therefore, scores from a single corruption mitted by public officials against which
case are not deducted duplicately disciplinary actions were confirmed and
from External or Internal Integrity and major corruption cases about which
Comprehensive Integrity. inspection and/or prosecution was
completed in the last twelve months (July
(1) Scoring of Occurrences of Corruption 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015 for 2015 Integrity
Assessment). This period is the same as
The types of corruption covered by "Occur- for collecting the lists of respondents from
rences of Corruption" include all forms of public organizations.
71
The types of disciplinary actions covered by (b) Corruption Case Index

the Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index
include caution, warning and admonition Corruption cases used for the Corruption
as well as compulsory retirement and all Case Index are those that were disclosed
forms of disciplinary actions (reprimand, through inspection by the Board of Audit
reduction of salary, dismissal, demotion, and Inspection or higher supervisory
and suspension from office) stated in the authorities as well as media reports in the
State Public Officials Act. last twelve months. The ACRC uses only
the cases in which suspicion of corruption
The Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index has been confirmed during inspection,
is calculated by applying the weighed value investigation (prosecution), and/or trial
per position of the corrupt public official after verification and vindication by the
who received disciplinary measures and organizations involved.
per amount of corruption proceeds, and
by reflecting in the calculation the total The Corruption Case Index is calculated
number of staff in the organization. by an Expert Assessment Committee,
consisting of anti-corruption experts from
Weight values differ according to the academia, media, and legal circles.
position divided into three categories (high-
rank, mid-rank, and low-rank) and the The Corruption Case Index comprises three
amount of corruption proceeds divided into components: “amount of money involved
five categories (under KRW 1 mil, KRW 1 mil and type of corruption” that includes
and over - under KRW 5 mil, KRW 5 mil and the type of corruption, the amount of
over - under KRW 30 mil, KRW 30 mil and corruption proceeds and the position of
over - under KRW 100 mil, and KRW 100 mil those who are involved in corruption; “level
and over). of prevalence and systematization” that
reflects the number of corruption cases
The Corrupt Public Disciplinary Index is and those involved, as well as the level of
converted to a final score by reflecting the collusive links; and “negative impact” that
total number of staff in the organization, indicates the level of negative influences on
and the score is then deducted from the organization and society overall.
Comprehensive Integrity.
72
An organization in which a corruption case Case Index is converted to a score according
occurred is given a score for each of the to the deduction formula, and the score
three components on a semantic differential is then deducted from Comprehensive
scale of 11—from 0 (little corruption) to 10 Integrity.
(very serious corruption). The Corruption
Formula to get the Corrupt Public Disciplinary Index (2015)
Xк
X*к (Score converted to 10-point scale for “position” of Org. K) = 10 x ( 1 - )
UCPᵪ
* UCP = 9
5% of cumulative gamma probability distribution calculated based on distribution of scores
for the position in the organization
(0.445)Xк₁ + (0.330)Xк₂ + (0.225)Xк₃

Xк (Raw score for “position” of Org. K) = )
³ Nк
* Xк₁ Xк₂ Xк₃ : Frequency of disclosure & punishment for high-rank, mid-rank, and low-rank positions
* Nк : The total number of staff in Org K
Yк
Y*к (Score converted to 10-point scale for “corruption proceeds” of Org. K) = 10 x ( 1 - )
UCPᵧ
* UCP = 95% of cumulative gamma probability distribution calculated based on distribution of scores
for the amount of corruption proceeds in the organization
Yк (Raw score for “corruption (0.066)Yк₁ + (0.146)Yк₂ + (0.212)Yк₃ + (0.261)Yк₄ + (0.315)Yк₅

= )
proceeds “ of Org. K) ³ Nк
* Yк₁ Yк₂ Yк₃ Yк₄ Yк₅ : Frequency of disclosure & punishment for the amount of corruption proceeds
* Nк : The total number of staff in Org K
* The score for the amount of corruption proceeds will be “0” if the total amount for an organization exceeds
UCP.
Wк (Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index of Org. K) = (0.423)X*к + (0.577)Y*к
* X*к Y*к : UCP-converted score for position and amount of corruption proceeds (Out of 10)
73
Formula to deduct the Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index (2015)
Deducted score for public officials 10 - ( Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index)
= 0.70 x
disciplined for corruption 10
* Scores deducted from External and Internal Integrity are calculated by multiplying the ratio of external
and internal cases and the score deducted from Comprehensive Integrity.
Formula to get the Corruption Case Index (2015)
• Xк (Amount of money involved & type of corruption for Org K) = ∑PXк ÷ hn

* PXк : Score for “amount of money involved & type of corruption” of Org k given by experts
* hn : Number of experts who conducted assessment
• Yк (Level of prevalence & systematization of corruption for Org K) = ∑PYк ÷ hn

* PXк : Score for “level of prevalence & systematization of corruption” of Org k given by experts
• Zк (Negative impact for Org K) = ∑PZк ÷ hn

* PZк : Score for “negative impact” of Org k given by experts
• Wк (Corruption Case Index of Org K) = (0.295)X*к + (0.375)Y*к + (0.330)Z*к
Formula to deduct the Corruption Case Index (2015)
10 - (Corruption Case Index)

Deducted score for corruption cases = 0.70 x
10
* Scores deducted from External and Internal Integrity are calculated by multiplying the ratio of external
and internal cases and the score deducted from Comprehensive Integrity.
* Maximum deduction is 0.70 for public service-related organizations and 0.15 for political appointees
in administrative organizations.
74
(2) Restriction on the Acts Lowering As- of respondents identifies any omission or
sessment Reliability fabrication of the lists, or management of
the sample, scores are deducted from the
Any acts that may lower the reliability of Comprehensive Integrity score. The scope
the Integrity Assessment result in deducting of abnormality on the lists of respondents
scores for Comprehensive Integrity. Such that results in a score deduction includes
acts can be detected through surveys and arbitrary change of the contact information
inspections conducted by the ACRC. in the list of respondents, inclusion
of unqualified persons, omission of
Deduction based on surveys respondents, etc. Management of the
sample refers to inducement of favorable
Both External and Internal Integrity Surveys responses by contacting the prospective
contain a question about whether the respondents in advance or communicating
respondent was asked to give favorable with internal employees through education
responses about the public organization and meetings.
subject to the assessment. The number of
requests for such responses and the number Any action incurring damage to the reliability
of survey samples are considered to deduct of the Integrity Assessment will result in
scores. penalties, such as corrective action, caution,
deduction in the Integrity score, invalidation
Deduction based on inspections of the survey, and official announcement
of such action, by considering the type
In the case that an on-site inspection of of action and the possibility of restoring
public organizations or inspection of the lists assessment results.
Formula to deduct scores based on surveys
The number of requests for favorable responses

Deducted score for requests in External + Internal Integrity Surveys
for favorable responses = Constant ×
External + Internal Survey Samples
75
(3) Scoring of "motives for corruption" Scores are deducted from the External and
and "corruption committed by Internal Integrity scores according to the
colleagues" number of respondents who chose “Because
of a request from a public official (employee)
Deduction for "motives for corruption" in charge” as an answer to the question
about motives for corruption in the External
One important factor in judging the relative and Internal Integrity Surveys, and the
seriousness of corruption, along with the number of survey samples.
frequency and scale, is the circumstances,
such as the motives for an act of corruption Deduction of the External Integrity score based
or the causes of an occurrence of corruption. on responses on “corruption com-mitted by
In other words, the circumstances or colleagues” in the Internal Integrity Survey
causes that led to corruption must be
considered in the assessment. Questions It can be difficult to assess experience of
regarding motives for giving money, gifts, corruption based only on the External
entertainment, and/or convenience have Integrity Survey if respondents are reluctant
been used for score deduction since 2012. to answer questions about their experience
with corruption because of their relationship
As an answer to the question in the survey with the public officials in charge. In order to
about causes and motives for occurrences overcome such a problem, questions were
of corruption, one can choose from choices, added to the questionnaire for the Internal
including “Because of a request from a Integrity Assessment in 2014.
public official (employee) in charge,” “To
speed up work process,” “To obtain relevant During the Internal Integrity survey,
information” and “To cover up or reduce employees of public organizations are
punishment.” Among them, “Because of a asked about whether their colleagues
request from a public official (employee) in received money, gifts, entertainment, and/
charge,” which is more serious than other or convenience in the past 12 months from
causes, results in score deduction. citizens or other organizations. Scores are
deducted from the External Integrity scores
according to the number of responses on
corruption committed by colleagues.
76
Formula to deduct External & Internal Integrity scores for "motives for corruption"
The number of responses on "motives

Deducted score for "motives
for corruption" in External (Internal) Integrity Survey
for corruption" from External
= Constant ×
(Internal) Integrity score
External (Internal) Survey Samples
Formula to deduct the External Integrity score for "corruption committed by colleagues"
The number of responses on corruption committed

Deducted score for corruption
by colleagues in Internal Integrity Survey
committed by colleagues
= Constant ×
from External Integrity score
Internal Survey Samples
77
Appendix
1. Templates for Respondent Lists

2. Survey Questionnaires
3. Results of 2015 Integrity Assessment
4. Frequently Asked Questions
83
<Appendix 1> Templates for Respondent Lists
A. Template for a respondent list for External Integrity Assessment
● List of the persons contacted for <name of the work/service>
Office/ Work Amount Disadvan- Service User Agent

Public Division Handling
No. Bureau/ name in (Unit: KRW tageous
organization /Unit date Phone/ Phone/
Directorate detail 1,000) disposition Organization Name Organization Name
E-mail E-mail
1
2
<How to fill out the form>
1. Name of work in detail: W

hen the target work can be classified as a specific area and a
type of work, write down the area and the type of work in detail.
* For example, in the case of the area of “contract and supervision,” specify the type of work as purchase,
consignment or construction.
2.Work handling date: W rite down the handling date such as the contract date, report date,
registration date, approval date, etc.
3. Amount: W
rite down the amount of the contract, subsidy, etc. in KRW 1,000.
* Applicable only when the work involves government spending such as contract and supervision, subsidy and
management for local government organizations and private organizations, etc.
4. Disadvantageous disposition: M ark V if the respondent received disadvantageous

dispositions in relation to the target work such as crack-down and detection of violation,
imposition of penalty surcharge, failure to get a permit/approval or financial support, etc.
5. Organization: Applicable only when the respondent is an organization or a business
6. Service user's name: Write down the name of the respondent or employee in charge in an
organization or a business.
84
7. Agent: When there is an agent (patent lawyer, lawyer, labor attorney, tax accountant, or
builder) who carries out the work such as an application for a permit or approval on behalf
of someone else, write down his/her name along with the respondent’s name.
8. Format: Use Microsoft Excel.
B. Template for a respondent list for Internal Integrity Assessment
● List of the employees in <name of the public organization>

Division/ No. of years in Private Mobile
No. Job category Position Name Gender
Unit the organization e-mail phone
1
2
1. Job category : General, professional, functional, contract, etc.
2. Format : Use Microsoft Excel.

* Attach a table of the staff quota and information about organizational structure.
C. Template for a respondent list for Policy Customer Evaluation
● List of experts for <name of the public organization>

No. Type of expert Organization Name Phone E-mail
1
2
1. Type of expert
• Journalist: correspondents to the public organization concerned
• Executive assistant to a National Assembly member: Executive assistants to a member of
a permanent committee of the National Assembly
85
•R etired public official: former public officials who retired from the public organization
concerned less than two years ago (excluding those who were dismissed for corruption)
• Academia: professors, researchers, etc.
● List of related organizations for <name of the public organization>
No. Type of organization Organization Name of the head Phone E-mail

1
2
1. Type of organization
• Public organization: subordinate organizations of the public organization concerned
• Interest group: interest groups such as those closely related to the work of the public
organization concerned, associations of retired employees, etc.
•C ivil society: civil society organizations closely related to the work of the public
organization concerned
86
<Appendix 2> Survey Questionnaires
2015 Survey on the External Integrity of Public Organizations
Hello. I am ○○○ (name of interviewer), employed at ________. We are conducting a survey on

the integrity level of public organization □□ at the request of the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights
Commission. Your response will be used to develop anti-corruption policies while your personal
information and response will remain strictly confidential in accordance with the Statistics Act. We
would appreciate it if you could take a moment of your time to answer the following questions.
● Name of public organization assessed: _______________________________________

● Presence of agent: 1. Public service user 2. Agent
● Name of public service assessed: ___________________________________________
● Experience in administrative disposition: 1. Yes 2. No
SQ1. Have you had the work of ▪▪ processed Corruption Risk Index
by a public official (employee) at public
organization ▫▫ between July 2014 and ● Transparency
June 2015?
Q1. Do you believe the standards or proce-
1. Yes 2. No → Stop the interview dures for work ▪▪ are disclosed in a tran-
sparent manner?
Please answer the following questions based Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
on your experience of having the work of ▪▪ disagree disagree agree agree
processed by public organization ▫▫ between ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦

July 2014 and June 2015.
Please listen to the following questions carefully

and choose the answer that best applies to you. Q2. Do you believe the standards or proce-
dures for work ▪▪ are reasonably prac-
ticable?
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
87
● Accountability Strongly
Agree
Slightly
Neutral
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Q3. Do you believe that the person in charge

of ▪▪ work made active efforts to Q7. Do you believe that the public officials
process the work by meeting the (employees) involved in ▪▪ work make
deadline, giving detailed explanations, improper solicitation to or exercise
etc.? influence over external duty-related
parties?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ Agree Neutral Disagree
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Q4. Do you believe that the public officials

(employees) involved in ▪▪ work are Q8. Do you believe that the public officials
abusing their authority in processing (employees) involved in ▪▪ work
the work? perform their duties in an improper
manner to pursue personal interest?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ Agree Neutral Disagree
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Corruption Index
● Direct Experience of Corruption
● Perception of Corruption
Please answer the following questions if you have
provided money, valuables, entertainment and/or
Q5. Do you believe that public officials (em- conveniences to a public official (employee) of □□ or
ployees) involved in ▪▪ work have given his/her spouse in the past 12 months. Your response
will be used only for statistical purposes and remain
favors to particular persons? strictly confidential under the Statistics Act. Your frank
response will serve to enhance integrity in the public
agree
Agree
agree
Neutral
disagree
Disagree
disagree sector.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Q9. Have you provided money, gift certi-

Q6. Do you believe that having a relationship ficates, certificates, admission tickets,
with public officials (employees) based on works of art, gifts, etc. to a public official
regionalism, school relations, kinship and (employee) of □□ or his/her spouse?
religion affects the handling of ▪▪ work?
88
1. Yes → Answer Q. 9-1) and 9-2), 1. Yes → Answer Q. 10-1) and 10-2),
and go to Q. 10) and go to Q. 11)
2. No → Go to Q. 10) 2. No → Go to Q. 11)
Q9-1. (If you have provided any of the Q10-1. (If you have provided any of the
above benefits) Then, how many above benefits) Then, how many
times in total did you provide times in total did you provide
money, gift certificates, etc. in the honorarium, consulting fees,
past 12 months? contributions, etc. in the past 12
months?
1. Once 2. Twice
3. Thrice 4. 4 - 5 times
1. Once 2. Twice
5. 6 - 7 times 6. 8 - 10 times
7. 11 - 15 times 8. Over 15 times
5. 6 - 7 times 6. 8 - 10 times
7. 11 - 15 times 8. Over 15 times
Q9-2. (If you have provided any of the
above benefits) Then, what is the
Q10-2. (If you have provided any of the
total amount of the money, gift
above benefits) Then, what is the
certifi-cates, etc. you provided in the
total amount of the honorarium,
past 12 months?
consulting fees, contributions,
1. Under KRW 50,000 etc. you provided in the past 12
2. KRW 60,000~150,000 months?
3. KRW 160,000~300,000
4. KRW 310,000~500,000 1. Under KRW 50,000
5. KRW 510,000~1 million 2. KRW 60,000~150,000
6. KRW 1.01~2 million 3. KRW 160,000~300,000
7. KRW 2.01~3 million 4. KRW 310,000~500,000
8. KRW 3.01~5 million 5. KRW 510,000~1 million
9. KRW 5.01~10 million 6. KRW 1.01~2 million
10. Over KRW 10.01 million 7. KRW 2.01~3 million
8. KRW 3.01~5 million
Q10. Have you provided excessive or im- 9. KRW 5.01~10 million
proper honorarium, consulting fees, 10. Over KRW 10.01 million
contributions, etc. to a public official
(employee) of □□ or his/her spouse?
89
Q11. H ave you provided meals, drinks, 8. KRW 3.01~5 million

entertainment, etc. worth over KRW 9. KRW 5.01~10 million
30,000 per person to a public official 10. Over KRW 10.01 million
(employee) of □□ or his/her spouse?
Q12. H ave yo u p ro v i d e d go l f t r i ps ,
1. Yes → Answer Q. 11-1) and 11-2), domestic/overseas travels, etc. to a
and go to Q. 12) public official (employee) of □□ or his/
2. No → Go to Q. 12) her spouse?
Q11-1. (If you have provided any of the 1. Yes → Answer Q. 12-1) and 12-2),
above benefits) How many times in and go to Q. 13)
total did you provide meals, drinks, 2. No → Go to Q. 13)
entertainment, etc. worth over KRW
30,000 per person in the past 12 Q12-1. ( If you have provided any of the
months? above benefits) How many times
in total did you provide golf trips,
1. Once 2. Twice domestic/overseas travels, etc. in
3. Thrice 4. 4 - 5 times the past 12 months?
5. 6 - 7 times 6. 8 - 10 times
7. 11 - 15 times 8. Over 15 times 1. Once 2. Twice
Q11-2. ( If you have provided any of the 5. 6 - 7 times 6. 8 - 10 times
above benefits) How much in total 7. 11 - 15 times 8. Over 15 times
did you spend in providing meals,
drinks, entertainment, etc. worth Q12-2. (If you have provided any of the
over KRW 30,000 per person in the above benefits) Then, what is the
past 12 months? total amount of the golf trips,
domestic/overseas travels, etc. you
1. Under KRW 50,000 provided in the past 12 months?
2. KRW 60,000~150,000
3. KRW 160,000~300,000 1. Under KRW 50,000
4. KRW 310,000~500,000 2. KRW 60,000~150,000
5. KRW 510,000~1 million 3. KRW 160,000~300,000
6. KRW 1.01~2 million 4. KRW 310,000~500,000
7. KRW 2.01~3 million 5. KRW 510,000~1 million
90
6. KRW 1.01~2 million 1. Yes → Answer Q. 14-1) and go to Q. 15-1)
7. KRW 2.01~3 million 2. No → Go to Q. 15-1)
8. KRW 3.01~5 million
9. KRW 5.01~10 million Q14-1. ( If you have provided any of the
10. Over KRW 10.01 million above benefits) How many times in
total did you help the relatives of
Q13. Have you provided accommodation, a public official (employee) of □□
transportation, sponsorship for an find employment or give the public
event, improper support for work, etc. official (employee) any favors in
to a public official (employee) of □□ or financial or real estate transactions,
his/her spouse? etc. in the past 12 months?
1. Yes → Answer Q. 13-1) and go to Q. 14) 1. Once 2. Twice

2. No → Go to Q. 14) 3. Thrice 4. 4 - 5 times
5. 6 - 7 times 6. 8 - 10 times
Q13-1. (If you have provided any of the 7. 11 - 15 times 8. Over 15 times
above benefits) How many times in
total did you provide meals, drinks, Q15-1. (If you answered "yes" to any of
entertainment, etc. worth over KRW the questions from Q. 9 to Q. 14)
30,000 per person in the past 12 When did you provide the above
months? benefit(s)? Please indicate all that
apply.
1. Once 2. Twice
3. Thrice 4. 4 - 5 times 1. Before the processing of work
5. 6 - 7 times 6. 8 - 10 times 2. During the processing of work
7. 11 - 15 times 8. Over 15 times 3. After the processing of work
4. Frequently
Q14. Have you helped the relatives of a 5. O n special occasions such as
public official (employee) of □□ find holidays or events held by the
employment or given the public public organization
official (employee) any favors in 6. D uring transfer of the public official
financial or real estate transactions, (employee) in charge of the work
etc.? 7. Other
(please specify: _________________)
91
Q15-2. (If you answered "yes" to any of the Additional Questions

questions from Q. 9 to Q. 14) What
was the reason for providing the Q17. If there are any institutions that need
above benefit(s)? Please indicate all improvement to prevent corruption
that apply. among public officials and employees
in relation to ▪▪ work, please specify
1. It was requested by the public one area.
official (employee) in charge
2. To speed up the work process _______________________________
3. To collect relevant information _______________________________
4. To alleviate or cancel the penalty
5. As an appreciation for service
6. As a customary practice or courtesy Q18. H ave you been asked by a public
7. Other official (employee) of □□ to give good
(please specify: _________________) reviews if you participate in this year's
Integrity Survey conducted by the Anti-
Corruption & Civil Rights Commission?
● Indirect Experience of Corruption
1. Yes → Go to Q. 18-1)
Q16. Have you seen or heard of your friend, 2. No → Go to Q. 19)
colleague, employee in the same line
of industry, or acquaintance providing
money, valuables, entertainment Q18-1. ( If “Yes”) How were you asked, and
or conveniences to a public official what was the content of the request?
(employee) involved in ▪▪ work or his/ Please specify in detail.
her spouse in the past 12 months?
Please exclude the information that ______________________________
you have obtained through the media. ______________________________
1. Yes 2. No
92
Improper Solicitation
Questions for Data Classification
Q19. Do you believe internal or external

sta ke h o l d e rs f re q u e nt l y m a ke DQ1. T his brings an end to the survey. Finally,
solicitations for the favorable handling let me ask one question for classification
of ▪▪ work of organization □□? of the data. Which age group do you fall
Strongly
Agree
Slightly
Neutral
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly under?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
1. 20s 2. 30s 3. 40s 4. 50s
5. 60 or over
Q20. D o you believe public officials
( e m p l o ye e s ) i n c h a rg e h a n d l e DQ2. G
ender of the respondent:
their work in an improper manner
according to the solicitations made by 1. Male 2. Female
internal or external stakeholders? * To be recorded by the interviewer by listening
to the voice of the respondent.
Agree Neutral Disagree
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
▪ Thank you for participating in this survey. ▪
93
2015 Survey on the Internal Integrity of Public Organizations
We at ______ are conducting a survey on the integrity level of public organizations at the request
of the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission. This is a survey on the “internal integrity” of the
organization of your employment perceived from your perspective. Your personal information and
response will remain strictly confidential in accordance with the Statistics Act. Your honest opinions
and answers will contribute to improving the integrity of your organization, which will help your
organization develop a better working environment and culture and gain more public confidence.
We would appreciate it if you could take a moment of your time to answer the following questions.
● The following question is for data classi- Q2. Do you believe that the members of
fication purposes. your organization perform their duties
in an improper manner to pursue
SQ1. F or how many years in total have you personal interest?
been working at _______ (name of Strongly
Agree
Slightly
Neutral
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly
organization)? ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
1. 10 years or less 2. 11 to 20 years

3. 21 to 30 years 4. 31 or more years Q3. Do you believe that relationships based
on regionalism, school relations, kinship
Please read each of the following questions carefully and religion affect the members of your
and choose the answer that best applies to you.
organization in performing their duties?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Integrity Culture Index
● Organizational Culture Q4. D o you believe that the members

of your organization make improper
Q1. Do you believe that the members of solicitation to or exercise influence
your organization handle their tasks over external parties in relation to their
transparently? duties?
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
disagree disagree agree agree agree agree disagree disagree
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
94
Q5. D o you believe that the members Strongly
Disagree
Slightly
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Strongly
of your organization use internal ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
information for private purposes or give

it to a third party?
Strongly
Agree
Slightly
Neutral
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly Q8. Do you believe that those involved in
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
corruption are strictly punished in your
organization?
Q6. D o you believe that the members ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
of your organization accept money,
valuables, entertainment and/or
conveniences from other employees or Q9. Do you believe that the internal corr-
duty-related parties? uption control system is operated
efficiently in your organization?
- Money and other valuables: Money, gift
Disagree
certificates, admission tickets, works of art, disagree disagree
Neutral
agree
Agree
agree
gifts, excessive/improper contributions, ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
honorarium, consulting fees, etc.

- Entertainment: Meals/drinks worth over
KRW 30,000, golf trips, domestic/overseas
travels, etc.
- Conveniences:
Work Integrity Index
Accommodation, transportation, sponsorship
for an event, improper support for work,
arrangement for employment of the ● Personnel Management
relatives of the official in charge, favors for
financial or real estate transactions, etc. Q10. How often do you believe money,
valuables, entertainment, conve-
niences and/or favors are provided
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
in relation to personnel affairs such
as recruitment, promotion, transfer,
● Anti-Corruption System and performance evaluation in your
organization?
Q7. D o you believe that the reporters
Very often Often Slightly Neutral Rarely Hardly Never
of corruption and public interest ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
w h i st l e b l o w e rs a re e f fe c t i ve l y
protected in your organization?
95
Q11. To what extent do you believe 1. KRW 500,000 or less

providing money, valuables, enter- 2. KRW 510,000 to 1 million
tainment and/or conveniences affects 3. KRW 1.01 million to 2 million
the result of personnel affairs in your 4. KRW 2.01 million to 3 million
organization? 5. KRW 3.01 million to 5 million
Very often greatly Slightly Neutral Rarely Hardly Never 6. KRW 5.01 million or more
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Q13. Did you provide other employee or

Q12. Did you provide other employee or his/her spouse with entertainment or
his/her spouse with money or other conveniences in relation to personnel
valuables in relation to personnel affairs, such as promotion or transfer,
affairs, such as promotion or transfer, in the previous 12 months?
in the previous 12 months?
1. Yes → Answer Q. 13-1) and Q. 13-2),
1. Yes → Answer Q. 12-1) and Q. 12-2), and go to Q. 14)
and go to Q. 13) 2. No → Go to Q. 14)
2. No → Go to Q. 13)
Q13-1. ( If you have provided any of
Q12-1. (If you have provided any of the the above benefits) Then, how
above benefits) Then, how many many times in total did you offer
times in total did you offer money entertainment in relation to person-
or other valuables in relation to nel affairs, such as promotion or
personnel affairs, such as promotion transfer, within the past 12 months?
or transfer, within the past 12
months? 1. Once 2. Twice 3. Thrice
4. 4 to 5 times 5. 6 to 10 times
1. Once 2. Twice 3. Thrice 6. 11 or more times
4. 4 to 5 times 5. 6 to 10 times
6. 11 or more times Q13-2. (If you have provided any of the
above benefits) Then, how much
Q12-2. (If you have provided any of the money or other valuables in total did
above benefits) Then, how much you provide in relation to personnel
money or other valuables in total did affairs in the past 12 months?
you provide in relation to personnel
affairs in the past 12 months?
96
1. KRW 500,000 or less ● Execution of Budget
2. KRW 510,000 to 1 million
3. KRW 1.01 million to 2 million Q16. How often do you believe unlawful
4. KRW 2.01 million to 3 million or unjustifiable execution of budget is
5. KRW 3.01 million to 5 million occurring at your organization?
6. KRW 5.01 million or more Very often Often Slightly Neutral Rarely Hardly Never
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Q14. (If you answered "yes" to Q. 12 or Q.

13) What was the reason for providing Q17. Were there any cases of unlawful or
money, valuables, entertainment unjustifiable execution of budget for
and/or conveniences in relation to business promotion at your organi-
personnel affairs? Please indicate all zation in the past 12 months?
that apply.
• Payment for dining with colleagues, private
gathering, etc.
1. It was requested by those related to • Gift of money for celebration/condolence
personnel affairs such as superiors or for unspecified persons, consolation for
personnel committee members those in sickness, farewell, etc.
2. To collect relevant information • Encouragement money or contributions for
3. As an appreciation for the processing outside events
• Holiday gifts, gifts to congratulate promotion
of personnel affairs
• Buying gift certificates and exchanging them
4. To prevent disadvantages in terms of for cash
personnel affairs • Overpayment and acceptance of the excess
5. It is a customary practice in cash
6. Other
(please specify: __________________) 1. Yes → Answer Q. 17-1) and Q. 17-2),
and go to Q. 18)
Q15. D id your colleague provide other 2. No → Go to Q. 18)
employee or his/her spouse with
money, valuables, entertainment Q17-1. ( Only for those who observed
and/or conveniences in relation to unlawful or unjustifiable execution
personnel affairs such as recruitment, of budget) How many times in total
promotion, transfer, and performance have there been cases of unlawful
evaluation in the past 12 months? or unjustifiable execution of budget
for business promotion at your
1. Yes 2. No organization in the past 12 months?
97
1. Once a year 1. Yes → Answer Q. 18-1) and Q. 18-2),

2. 2-3 times a year and go to Q. 19)
3. 1-2 times per quarter 2. No →Go to Q. 19)
4. Once a month
5. Twice a month Q18-1. (Only for those who observed unl-
6. More often than twice a month awful or unjustifiable execution of
budget) How many times in total
Q17-2. ( Only for those who observed have there been cases of unlawful
unlawful or unjustifiable execution or unjustifiable execution of
of budget) How much of the budget operational costs, travel expenses,
for business promotion in total allowances, etc. at your organization
was executed in an unlawful or in the past 12 months?
unjustifiable manner at your organi-
zation in the past 12 months? 1. Once a year
2. 2-3 times a year
1. KRW 500,000 or less 3. 1-2 times per quarter
2. KRW 510,000 to 1 million 4. Once a month
3. KRW 1.01 to 3 million 5. Twice a month
4. KRW 3.01 to 5 million 6. More often than twice a month
5. KRW 5.01 to 10 million
6. KRW 10.01 million or more Q18-2. ( Only for those who observed
unlawful or unjustifiable
Q18. Were there any cases of unlawful or execution of budget) How much
unjustifiable execution of budget for of the operational costs, travel
operational costs, travel expenses, expenses, allowances, etc. in
allowances, etc. at your organization in total was executed in an unlawful
the past 12 months? or unjustifiable manner at your
organization in the past 12 months?
• Overpayment and acceptance of the excess
in cash
• Receipt of excessive travel expenses by
1. KRW 500,000 or less
falsely increasing travel dates, etc. 2. KRW 510,000 to 1 million
• Receipt of overtime payment by doing 3. KRW 1.01 to 3 million
private activities in the office or having the 4. KRW 3.01 to 5 million
overtime register signed by a colleague 5. KRW 5.01 to 10 million
6. KRW 10.01 million or more
98
Q19. Were there any cases of unlawful or expenses in total was executed in
unjustifiable execution of budget for an unlawful or unjustifiable manner
project expenses at your organization at your organization in the past 12
in the past 12 months? months?
• Receipt of personnel expenses by falsely

1. KRW 500,000 or less
registering relatives as workers or assistants
• Inflation of the invoice amount and personal 2. KRW 510,000 to 1 million
use of part of project costs 3. KRW 1.01 to 3 million
• Separation of orders to make a private 4. KRW 3.01 to 5 million
contract 5. KRW 5.01 to 10 million
• Use of unspent budget for unspecified
6. KRW 10.01 million or more
purposes
Q20. (If you answered "yes" to any of the

1. Yes → Answer Q. 19-1 and Q. 19- 2), questions from Q. 17 to Q. 19) What
and go to Q. 20) do you believe are the reasons for the
2. No → Go to Q. 20) unlawful or unjustifiable execution of
budget occurring at your organization?
Q19-1. ( Only for those who observed Please indicate all that apply.
unlawful or unjustifiable execution
of budget) How many times in total 1. Insufficient operational, travel and
have there been cases of unlawful promotional expenses, etc.
or unjustifiable execution of project 2. It had been a customary practice for
expenses at your organization in the a long time
past 12 months? 3. It was instructed by superiors
4. Due to external pressure, lobbying,
1. Once a year solicitation, etc.
2. 2-3 times a year 5. Lack of ethics among individuals
3. 1-2 times per quarter 6. Other
4. Once a month (please specify: _________________)
5. Twice a month
6. More often than twice a month ● Fairness in Orders Given by Superiors
Q19-2. ( Only for those who observed Q21. H

ow often do you believe the senior
unlawful or unjustifiable execution staff of your organization does
of budget) How much of the project not actively perform their given
99
duties or avoids or imputes their work instructions from the senior

responsibilities? staff within the past 12 months?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ 1. Once a year
2. 2-3 times a year
Q22. H
ow often do you believe the senior 3. 1-2 times per quarter
staff of your organization gives un- 4. Once a month
justifiable work instructions? 5. Twice a month
6. More often than twice a month
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
● Corruption Committed by Colleagues
Q23. How often do you believe disadvan- Q25. Did your colleague accept money,
tageous treatment has been given as valuables, entertainment and/or
a result of non-compliance with the conveniences from external duty-
unjustifiable work instructions of the related parties in the past 12 months?
senior staff at your organization? Please exclude the information that
you have obtained through the results
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ of audit or media reports.
1. Yes 2. No
Q24. Have you been given unjustifiable
work instructions by the senior Q26. H ave you been asked or ordered
staff while performing your duty by your organization to give good
within the past 12 months? (Please reviews if you participate in this year's
respond based on your own personal Integrity Survey conducted by the Anti-
experience.) Corruption & Civil Rights Commission?
1. Yes → Answer Q. 24-1) and go to Q. 25) 1. Yes → Go to Q. 26-1)

2. No → Go to Q. 25) 2. No → Go to Q. 27)
Q24-1. ( O n l y f o r t h o s e w h o h a v e Q26-1. (If Yes) How were you asked and

been given unjustifiable work what did they request? Please refer
instructions) How many occasions to the following, and specify in detail.
in total were you given unjustifiable ______________________________
100
Q30. H ave you, your colleagues or exe-
For instance, instructions or recommendations
made via the intranet, e-mail, phone or text cutives of your organization provided
message, or during an training session or money, valuables, entertainment or
meeting, etc. conveniences to a public official of
xx, the supervising agency of your
The following questions deal with the willingness of organization, or his/her spouse in the
the head (chief executive) of your organization to past 12 months?
improve the integrity of your organization, and the
effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts.
1. Yes 2. No
Q27. When considering the overall situation,
to what extent do you believe the
head of your organization is making Improper Solicitation
efforts to improve the integrity of your
organization The last two questions are regarding improper
Very
solicitations in the public sector. They are not reflected
Never Hardly Rarely Neutral Slightly Greatly in the Integrity Score of your own organization.
greatly
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Q31. Do you believe the members of your

organization receive solicitations from
Q28. To what extent do you believe the internal or external stakeholders
senior staff of your organization is frequently?
playing a leading role to improve the Strongly
Agree
Slightly
Neutral
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly
integrity of your organization? ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Very
Never Hardly Rarely Neutral Slightly Greatly
greatly
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Q32. Do you believe the members of your
organization handle their work in
Q29. Do you believe that the integrity level an improper manner according to
of your organization has improved the solicitations made by internal or
over the past year? external stakeholders?
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
disagree disagree agree agree agree agree disagree disagree
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
The following question is regarding the assessment

of integrity of the agency that supervises your
organization. This is not related to the assessment of ▪ Thank you for participating in this survey. ▪
integrity of your own organization.
101
2015 Policy Customer Survey on the Integrity of Public Organizations
Hello. I am ○○○ (name of interviewer), employed at ________. We are conducting a survey on

the integrity levels of public organizations at the request of the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights
Commission. This survey is "Policy Customer Evaluation," in which the integrity level of the public
organization concerned is assessed by experts and members of related organizations who have
knowledge about the functions of the public organization and its policy-making process. Your
personal information and response will remain strictly confidential in accordance with the Statistics
Act. We would appreciate it if you could take a moment of your time to answer the following
questions.
SQ1. C
lassification 1 (Automatically checked 1. Employee at a public organization
based on the database) 2. Member of an interest group
3. Member of a civic organization
1. Expert → Go to SQ2-1
2. Stakeholder → Go to SQ2-2 SQ3-1. ( Excluding those who chose Answer
7 of SQ2-1) Do you work in the line of
SQ2-1. E xpert (Automatically checked business or are you in charge of work
based on the database) related to public organization ○○?
1. Academic expert or advisor 1. Yes 2. No → Stop the interview

2. Reporter accredited to the organi-
zation concerned SQ3-2. ( Only those who chose Answer 7
3. National Assembly (legislative aide of SQ2-1) Did you work at public
or examiner) organization ○○ in the past?
4. Metropolitan/provincial council
(councilor, aide, expert member) 1. Yes 2. No → Stop the interview
5. Civil auditor
6. Auditor of a supervisory agency (Excluding those who chose Answer 7 of SQ2-
7. Former employee of the organization 1) Now we will start a survey on the integrity
concerned level of public organization ○○. Please listen to
the following questions carefully and choose
the answer that best applies to you.
SQ2-2. S takeholder (Automatically checked
based on the database)
102
(Only those who chose Answer 7 of SQ2-
1) Now we will start a survey on the integrity
(employees) of OO have given favors to
] level of public organization ○○ where you particular individuals?
worked in the past. Please listen to the Don’t
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly know/
following questions carefully and choose the agree
Agree
agree
Neutral
disagree
Disagree
disagree No
answer that best applies to you. response
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨
Perception of Corruption Q5. D o y o u b e l i e v e t h a t h a v i n g a

relationship with the public officials
Q1. Do you believe that the public officials ( e m p l o y e e s ) o f OO b a s e d o n
(employees) of OO have pursued un- regionalism, school relations, kinship
necessary projects or wasted budget? and religion affects the handling of their
Don’t work?
agree agree disagree disagree No Don’t
response Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly know/
agree agree disagree disagree No
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨
response
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨

(employees) of OO have made improper Q6. Do you believe that public organization
solicitation to or exercised influence OO is disclosing information on
over external parties in relation to their its major policies and projects in a
duties? transparent manner?
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Don’t
agree agree disagree disagree Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly know/
disagree agree disagree disagree No
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ response
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨

(employees) of OO have performed Q7. Do you believe that the public officials
their duties in an improper manner to (employees) of OO have abused their
pursue personal interest? authority in performing their duties?
Don’t Don’t
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly know/ Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly know/
Agree Neutral Disagree Agree Neutral Disagree
agree agree disagree disagree No agree agree disagree disagree No
response response
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨ ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨
103
Q8. Do you believe that the retired public Don’t

officials (employees) of OO have att- disagree agree disagree disagree No
response
empted lobbying or influence-peddling ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨
over OO?
Don’t
agree
Agree
agree
Neutral
disagree
Disagree
disagree No Q12. In your opinion, to what extent is
response
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨
public organization OO making efforts
to prevent corruption and improve its
integrity?
Q9. Do you believe that the public officials Don’t
Very know/
(employees) of OO have used internal Never Hardly Rarely Neutral Slightly Greatly
greatly No
response
information for private purposes or ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨
given it to a third party?
Don’t
response
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨
Experience of Corruption
Q13. Have you seen or heard of the public

Control of Corruption officials (employees) of OO accepting
money, valuables, entertainment
Q10. D
o you believe that public organization or conveniences from duty-related
OO strictly controls and punishes parties in the past 12 months?
those involved in corruption?
Don’t 1. Yes 2. No
response
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑨
Q14. When considering the overall situation,
to what extent do you believe the head
of public organization OO is making
Q11. D
o you believe that public organization efforts to improve the integrity of the
OO effectively protects reporters of organization?
corruption and public interest whistle- Never Hardly Rarely Neutral Slightly Greatly
Very
greatlyv
blowers? ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
104
Q15. To what extent do you believe the
senior staff of public organization OO is
playing a leading role to improve the
integrity of the organization?
Very
Never Hardly Rarely Neutral Slightly Greatly
greatlyv
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Improper Solicitation
The last two questions are regarding improper

solicitations in the public sector. They are not reflected
in the Integrity Score of public organization OO.
Q16. Do you believe the members of public

organization OO receive solicitations
from internal or external stakeholders
frequently?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Q17. D o you believe the public officials

(employees) of public organization
OO handle their work in an improper
manner according to the solicitations
made by internal or external stake-
holders?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
▪ Thank you for participating in this survey. ▪
105
<Appendix 3> Results of 2015 Integrity Assessment
2015 Integrity Index of Korea increased to 7.89

ACRC announced the results of 2015 Integrity Assessment of public organizations
On December 9, the ACRC announced the 21,000 policy customers (policy customer
results of the 2015 Integrity Assessment evaluation) consisting of experts from
of 617 public organizations. The integrity academia, civil society, local residents and
score of public organizations is calculated by school parents.
combining the survey results of citizens who
had direct/indirect experience of the works Policy customer evaluation was conducted
of the target organizations and the score for only for central administrative organizations,
the occurrences of corruption. metropolitan/provincial governments,
offices of education, and public service-
The Comprehensive Integrity Index is related organizations of Type I and II (with
produced out of a 10-point-scale by adding more than 1,000 staff members).
up the scores from the external integrity,
internal integrity and policy customer
surveys, and deducting points for the Overall integrity level in the public sector
occurrences of corruption and actions
lowering the reliability of the survey results. The comprehensive integrity score of all
public organizations in 2015 was 7.89 out
The survey this year was conducted for 4 of 10, a 0.11-point increase from 7.78
months from August to November and was of the previous year. The increase in the
administered to more than 245,000 people comprehensive integrity level resulted from
in total, including 167,000 public service increases in external, internal, and policy
users (external integrity assessment), 57,000 customer integrity levels, and a decrease in
staff members of public organizations the occurrences of corruption compared to
(internal integrity assessment), and last year.
106
Trend in public sector integrity (2002-2015)
8.68 8.77 8.89 Unit: point

8.46 8.20 8.51 8.44 8.43
7.71 7.86 7.86 7.78 7.89
6.43
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
* Time series interrupted in 2008 and 2012 due to modification of the model
According to the survey results, external related organizations showed the highest
integrity level of public organizations score of 8.24 points, while metropolitan/
recorded 8.02 points, a 0.07-point increase provincial governments recorded the lowest
from the previous year; the internal score for the comprehensive integrity
integrity score was 8.00 points, a 0.18-point level as 7.22 points. This can be attributed
increase; and policy customer integrity to the fact that metropolitan/provincial
level was 7.08 points, a 0.22-point increase. governments are mandated to provide
The results show that the overall integrity public services that are closely related with
level of performance and policies of public citizens’ lives and need a large amount
organizations has improved. of budget, including the supervision and
management of construction projects and
By type of target organization, the com- permissions and approvals.
prehensive integrity level of public service-
Comprehensive integrity level and comparison of integrity scores by component (2014-2015)
2014 2015 Unit: point
7.78 7.89 7.95 8.02 7.82 8.00 6.86 7.08
+0.11 +0.07 +0.18 +0.22

Comprehensive External Internal integrity Policy customer
integrity integrity evaluation
107
Comprehensive integrity level by type of organizations
Unit: point
Total 7.89
Central government agencies 7.59
Metropolitan/Provincial governments 7.22
Municipal governments 7.70
City/Provincial offices of education 7.40
Public service-related organizations 8.24
Among central administrative organizations, (more than 2,300 employees); Korea East-
Statistics Korea (Type I) and Korea Agency West Power among Type II (1,000 – 2,300
for Saemangeum Development and employees); Korea Institute for Animal
Investment (Type II) had the highest level of Quality Evaluation among Type III (300
integrity. – 1,000 employees); Postal Savings &
Insurance Development Institute among
*Central administrative organizations with 2,000 or Type IV (150 – 300 employees) and Korea
more employees are classified into Type I category,
while those with less than 2,000 employees into Type
Forestry Promotion Institute among Type V
II category. (less than 150 employees).
In the local government category, Daejeon *Public service-related organizations are classified into
Types I – V (classified by the number of employees),
Metropolitan City received the highest research institutes, local public corporations and local
integrity score among provincial and industrial corporations.
metropolitan governments; Sokcho-si
of Gangwon-do, Haman-gun of Gyeong- External integrity level
sangnam-do, and Jongno-gu of Seoul
Metropolitan City for the respective cate- Over the past year, the ratio of survey
gories of cities (si), counties (gun) and respondents with direct experience of
districts (gu); and the Jeju Special Self- corruption by offering money/enter-
Governing Province Office of Education tainment/convenience to a public official
among the offices of education. or his/her spouse was 1.7%, similar to
that of last year, while the ratio of indirect
In the case of public service-related experience of corruption, that is corruption
organizations, the highest levels of integrity experienced by relatives or colleagues, was
were exhibited respectively by National 0.8%, a decrease from 1.1% of last year.
Health Insurance Service among Type I
108
There was a moderate decrease in the ratio Internal integrity level
of experience of offering money or valuable
items, but the level of corruption perception A close look at the survey responses
slightly deteriorated compared to the of employees of direct experience of
previous year for such corrupt practices as corruption shows that the ratio of direct
the unfair performance of duties based on experience of corruption has decreased
personal connections or relationships and compared to the previous year. The rate of
the undue exercise of influence. This seems offering money/entertainment/convenience
to have resulted from the increase of public in relation to personnel management
expectations for the fair performance of decreased from 0.4% to 0.3%, the rate of
duties by public officials. experience of illegal/undue execution of
budget from 7.7% to 4.8%, and the rate of
Meanwhile, the public perception on the experience of improper order by superiors
transparency and accountability of public from 6.8% to 6.2%.
organizations has improved from a year
earlier. Perceptions on work areas including
personnel management and budget
This year’s assessment was conducted for execution, organizational culture and
2,514 work areas in a total of 617 organi- corruption prevention systems have all
zations. The survey results show that the improved. Therefore, it can be said that
external integrity levels are relatively low for the integrity level of public organizations
work areas for which officials in charge have assessed by public officials themselves has
a high level of discretion or whose budget enhanced from last year.
and business scale is enormous.
Deduction for corruption cases
Corruption-prone areas by type of organi-
zation include investigation/inspection The ACRC has enhanced the validity of the
for central administrative organizations, Integrity Assessment by calculating the
construction management/supervision occurrences of corruption and deducting
for metropolitan/provincial governments, points from the survey results since 2012.
and permission/approval for municipal This year, the number of corruption cases
governments and public service-related reflected in the assessment result is 579
organizations. cases from 198 organizations in total, a
decrease from last year.
109
By type of organizations where corruption Follow-up action

cases occurred, administrative agencies
(central government agencies, local Based on the results of this year’s Integrity
governments, and offices of education) Assessment, the ACRC will encourage the
recorded 484 cases from 137 organizations public organizations with low levels of
(553 cases from 161 organizations in 2014), integrity to make voluntary efforts to reduce
and public service-related organizations had corruption by implementing corruption
95 cases from 61 organizations (128 cases prevention policies and initiatives focusing
from 79 organizations in 2014). on their corruption-prone areas.
At the same time, the Commission will

spread the best practices of the organizations
with high integrity scores in order to raise
the level of integrity in the public sector as a
whole.
110
<Appendix 4> Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is the purpose of the Integrity be evaluated by their employees from
Assessment? an internal perspective, while external
viewpoints can be provided by citizens,
The IA is carried out to accurately identify public officials and stakeholders who have
the causes and status of corruption in public directly experienced the works of the
service on the basis of assessments by both public organizations concerned. Surveys
external and internal customers of public that guarantee complete anonymity and
service (citizens, employees, stakeholders, confidentiality can attract frank answers
and experts). It is impossible to ensure from respondents.
an objective assessment if assessment
results rely on limited sources such as Surveys are widely used worldwide to
media reports or subjective perceptions of measure the levels of corruption. A
organizational image. To avoid this, the IA majority of the source data comprising the
is based on the results of surveys of citizens Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) draw on
and employees of public organizations survey results.
who have first-hand experience of public
organizations’ works as well as experts and Starting from 2011, the ACRC has incor-
stakeholders. Data sources also include porated Incidences of corruption in public
objective data including the statistics of organizations in the assessment framework
corruption cases. to improve the objectivity of assessment
results.
Q2. Why is the Integrity Assessment
based on the result of surveys? Q3. Why is the Integrity Assessment
carried out by survey companies?
An assessment and analysis of the levels
of corruption in the public sector needs to The Integrity Assessment for public organi-
be based on facts and reality so that it can zations is based on a survey of more
be used to accurately diagnose the current than 200,000 respondents. Such a large-
status of corruption and develop effective scale survey needs to be conducted by a
anti-corruption strategy. The current status professional poll agency with professional
of integrity in public organizations can staff and facilities to ensure accuracy and
111
efficiency. That’s why the ACRC commissions views about the relative importance of
the surveys for the Integrity Assessment various concepts. Therefore, weights for
to private pollster companies, which are the components and survey items of the
selected through open bidding process Integrity Assessment are produced by a
every year. group of academics, related experts, civic
organizations and the public organizations
Q4. Why does the Integrity Assessment subject to the assessment based on the
not cover anti-corruption "efforts" Delphi method. The weights can vary every
made by public organizations? year according to the improvement of the
assessment framework.
The degree of anti-corruption efforts made
by public organizations is different from Q6. Can we get the External Integrity
the concept of “integrity" in the Integrity score by averaging the Corruption
Assessment. In the Integrity Assessment for Index and the Corruption Risk Index?
public organizations, the levels of integrity
are measured by administrative service No. Integrity scores are produced by
users from the perspective of customers, multiplying each survey item or index by its
not from the perspective of public officials weight. The score for External Integrity can
or administrative service providers. be produced by multiplying the scores for
the Corruption Index and the Corruption
There is a separate anti-corruption tool Risk Index by their own weights, and then
called the Anti-Corruption Initiative Asse- adding up the values produced.
ssment, which has been implemented by
the ACRC since 2002 to evaluate the anti- Q7. In the case of External Integrity,
corruption efforts of public organizations. each target work has the same
weight. In this case, can we get the
Q5. How are weights for External External Integrity score by aver-
Integrity, Internal Integrity and aging the integrity scores for each
Policy Customer Evaluation cal- work?
culated?
No. The External Integrity score is different
The weight for each component of from the value produced by averaging the
Comprehensive Integrity represents the integrity scores for each work. The reason
relative importance of one component is that there are two types of survey items
against the others. People have different with one requiring answers on a 7-point
112
scale, and the other requiring answers number of entire respondents) in ascending
in frequency or amount of corruption order, and suppose the highest frequency
experience. is 100. If organization A’s average frequency
of gratuities offered is over 95% of entire
Depending on the type of questions, organizations’ average frequency of
different methods are used to produce the gratuities offered (this value is called UCP),
integrity score. In the case of survey items according to the formula below, organization
with 7–point scale answer choices, scores A’s score for gratuities offered will be 0.
are produced by averaging the integrity
Frequency Average
scores of each work. In the case of survey of gratuities/ frequency of
items asking frequency or amount of entertainment/ offers for an
)
convenience organization
corruption experience, on the other hand, offered for an = 10 × (1−
scores are not produced for ach target work organization UCP₁
but for the entire organization by applying a * UCP₁= value equivalent to 95% of cumulative
formula using the UCP value. gamma distribution of average frequency
of offers for all organizations
Q8. What is the rate of gratuities offered?

Q10. Can we get a list of the public offi-
It is the rate of the people who answered cials who received gratuities or
that they provided gratuities to public entertainment?
officials out of entire respondents. That
is, the rate of gratuities offered = (the The survey questionnaire for the Integrity
number of people who said to have Assessment does not include questions about
provided gratuities/the number of entire the persons who were offered gratuities or
respondents)×100. Here, entire respondents entertainment by respondents. Therefore,
mean all respondents who participated in a the survey findings do not tell us which public
given survey. officials received gratuities or entertainment.
Besides, since the main purpose of the
Q9. Can we get 0 for the score of corr- Integrity Assessment is to diagnose the status
uption experience? and causes of corruption, it is not appropriate
if survey findings are used to detect and
Yes. For example, we can arrange the values punish public officials who committed
for the average frequency of gratuities corruption. Such an act may lead to
offered for each public organization (total defamation of the public officials concerned
frequency of corruption experience/the or criminal liability of the respondents.
113
Q11. Can we know the respondents In addition, steady efforts to prevent

who offered gratuities or enter- corruption by improving systems, culture
tainment to public officials? and practices will be effective in improving
integrity in the long term rather than
According to Article 33 of the Statistics Act, fragmentary or perfunctory attempts to
confidential information of individuals and improve the integrity score. Organizations
organizations that has become known in are advised to make a voluntary effort to
the course of collecting statistics should examine detailed and specific causes of their
be protected, and should not be used for vulnerability to corruption. Besides, since
any purpose other than that of collecting the Integrity Assessment is based on the
statistics. Therefore, personal information of assessment made by internal and external
survey respondents cannot be disclosed. customers of public service, it is necessary
to set up a strategy to improve integrity
Q12. What we need to do to improve from their perspective.
the integrity score of our organi-
zation?
It is difficult to give a perfect answer to

the question about improving integrity
since the characteristics of functions and
organizational environment vary among
organizations. However, we can notice some
common features from the organizations
rated highly in the Integrity Assessment.
First of all, leaders demonstrate a strong
determination to tackle corruption and high-
level officials take the lead in maintaining
high levels of integrity. Such organizations
make an effort to remove the possibility of
corruption through monitoring of public
service delivery, while trying to ensure
reasonableness in personnel management
and budget spending. They also impose
heavy punishment on corrupt officials by
applying strict disciplinary standards.
114

Integrity PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrity PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrity PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Practical Guide to

Definition of “act of corruption”

The assessment of Internal Integrity, which

Figure 2-1 Components of “Comprehensive Integrity”

Definition and components of External Integrity

Direct and indirect experience and perception of

Definition and components of Internal Integrity

Figure 2-3 Breakdown of Internal Integrity

Internal Work Integrity Transparency & fairness in personnel management,

Definition and components of Policy Customer Evaluation

Perception of Perception of favor for former public officials,

Definition and components of Occurrences of Corruption

“Occurrences of Corruption” is defined as The Corruption Case Index is calculated based

Figure 2-5 Breakdown of Occurrences of Corruption

Definition and components of Acts Lowering Assessment Reliability

Direct and indirect experience and perception

3. External Integrity Assessment

The assessment of External Integrity is However, in the Integrity Assessment, each

�Table 2-1� Weighted components of External Integrity

Areas Items of measurement Scoring methodology

�Table 2-2� Weighted components of Internal Integrity

Areas Items of measurement Scoring methodology

5. Policy Customer Evaluation

Surveys of citizens and public officials

Areas Items of measurement Scoring methodology

Illegal influence peddling by retired public officials Individual respondent

Private use and disclosure of duty-related Individual respondent

Strictness of criteria for disciplinary action or level Individual respondent

* Weights in parentheses used in 2015

There are limitations in the survey-based “Occurrences of Corruption” consists of

�Table 2-4� Weighted components of Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index

Areas Items of measurement

Less than KRW 1 million (0.066)

* Weights in parentheses used in 2015

�Table 2-5� Weighted components of Corruption Case Index

Level of prevalence and systematization of corruption (0.375)

Negative impact (0.330)

* Weights in parentheses used in 2015

“Acts lowering assessment reliability” refers Acts lowering assessment reliability

�Table 2-6� Types of acts lowering assessment reliability

Types of acts lowering assessment reliability

• Omitting some respondents from the list, or omitting the

• Encouraging respondents to give favorable answers

• Recommending answers in favor of the target agency

• Conducting a self-assessment similar to the Integrity

Omitting information • Not submitting data on officials disciplined for corruption

2. Weighted sum of scores

3. Calculation of scores by “individual respondent scoring” and “aggregate organization scoring”

4. Scores for sub-category “direct experience of corruption” calculated by “aggregate

6. Calculation of scores for deduction

2. Scoring for Two Types of Survey Questions

Answer Scale 10-point score

Two types of survey questions

Individual respondent scoring

Aggregate organization scoring

Score calculation: Individual respondents’ experience/frequency/amount of corruption or

Sum of scores of respondents for “work a”

Score of work a + score of work b + score of work c

(2) Aggregate organization scoring

3. Calculation of scores by “individual respondent scoring” and “aggregate organization scoring”

4. Scores for sub-category “direct experience of corruption” calculated by “aggregate

● Calculation of the frequency/amount of corruption experience for External Integrity

● Calculation of the frequency/amount of corruption experience for Internal Integrity

① Frequency of gratuities/entertainment/convenience offered in relation to personnel

② F requency of illegal/undue execution of budget, and frequency of orders hindering fair

● Calculation of the average frequency or amount of corruption experience for each

● Calculation of the rate of corruption experience for each organization

Wк (Corrupt Public Official Disciplinary Index of Org. K) = (0.423)Xк + (0.577)Yк

• Wк (Corruption Case Index of Org K) = (0.295)Xк + (0.375)Yк + (0.330)Z*к

1. Name of work in detail: W

4. Disadvantageous disposition: M ark V if the respondent received disadvantageous