Fatmir Musa Project Manager UNDP Project “Fighting Corruption to Improve Governance”

1. Methodology for measuring the Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability (RTA) at local level Fatmir Musa Project Manager UNDP Project “Fighting Corruption to Improve Governance”

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

3. Relation of the methodology with other anti-corruption instruments • From methodological point of view, the methodology is a combination of: • Indicator Based Governance Assessment (assessment of the risk of appearance of corruption based on CONTACTUNDP tool)and • Corruption Risk Assessment (assessment of resistance to corruption) (based on National Integrity SystemTransparency International tool) • Quantified in this methodology and upgraded with methodological value – quantification of the received data in the level to get a indicator with concrete numbers for the level of: • Vulnerability to corruption and • Capacity of resistance to corruption from local self-government

4. Methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at local level • The methodology covers three areas: • Public procurements • Urban Planning • Financial management and property

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

6. Description of the methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at local level • The approach in designing the methodology is as follows: • Defining corruption hot-spots • Defining anti-corruption mechanisms versus corruption hot-spots • Defining indicators for the anti-corruption mechanisms • Quantification of the indicators • Setting up the Index of RTA

7. Description of the methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at local level • For illustration and easier understanding of the methodology, here is an example from the area of public procurements: • Hot spot in the competences of the municipalities ispublicity in announcing procurements • Anti-corruption mechanism ispublic announcementof the procurement in media, the official gazette and web-sites of Bureaus for public procurements • Defining of indicators which implies to the publicity of the procurement are: • Percentage of the number of the procurement which are announced publicly from the total number of procurements done through tenders • Percentage of the value of publicly announced procurements in the total values of the procurements done through tenders

8. Description of the methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at local level • Quantification of the indicators in the concrete case in percentages would be: • Number of publicly announced procurements towards total number of procurements conducted through public tenders: • from 0 tо 20% - 1 point • from 20 tо 40% - 2 points • from 40 tо 60% - 3 points • from 60 tо 80% - 4 points • from 80 to 100% - 5 points • The value of publicly announced procurements towards total value of procurements conducted through public tenders: • from 0 tо 20% - 1point • from 20 tо 40% - 2 points • from 40 tо 60% - 3 points • from 60 tо 80% - 4 points • from 80 to 100% - 5 points

9. Description of the methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at local level • The final values of the RTA Index is from 1 to 5 which indicates the level of responsibility, transparency and accountability according the following table: • RTA Index 5 – for the average arithmetic values between 4,5 and 5 (full responsibility, transparency and accountability) • RTA Index 4 – for the average arithmetic values between 3,5 and4,5 (high responsibility, transparency and accountability) • RTA Index 3 – for the average arithmetic values between 2,5 and3,5(medium responsibility, transparency and accountability) • RTA Index 2 – for the average arithmetic values between 1,5 and2,5(low responsibility, transparency and accountability) • RTA Index 1 – for the average arithmetic values between 1 and1,5 (absence of responsibility, transparency and accountability)

10. Description of the methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at local level • The methodology is designed in a way to allow creation of separate RTA Index: - Separate RTA Index for specific area • Overall RTA Index for whole areas * Both level of RTA Index are produced using the same formula:

11. Description of the methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at local level • SNP : MNP x 100 = PP where: • SNP is scored number of points (sum of all points won in the process of quantification of indicators) • MNP is maximum possible number of points (sum of all maximum values of the quantification of indicators) • PP is percentage points (shows the percentage of points won against the maximum number of points that could have been won)

12. Description of the methodology for measuring the Index of RTA at local level • After the PP are calculated, they should be converted into RTA Index according the following formula: • PP x 0.05 = RTA IP where: • PP is percentage point • RTA IP is RTA index points • Value of 0.05 is portion of every percentage point in the maximum value of RTA Index of 5 (5:100=0.05)

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

14. Thank you for your attention!