December 6, 2017

Since the implementation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, public service users’ experiences of offering money, gifts, entertainment or favors have sharply decreased

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC, Chairperson Pak Un Jong) has been conducting an ‘integrity assessment’ every year since its introduction in 2002 in order to assess the level of integrity of public institutions and identify corruption-prone areas. Being internationally acknowledged in terms of its effectiveness for the prevention of corruption, the integrity assessment initiative won the first prize in the category of ‘Preventing and Combating Corruption in the Public Service’ at the 2012 UN Public Service Awards.

The ACRC revealed the 2017 integrity assessment results for 573 public institutions on December 6th. The comprehensive integrity score of target public institutions is calculated based on statistics of corrupt public employees and media reports of corruption cases (deduction of points) and the results from phone or online (web-based) surveys of firsthand service users (external integrity level), internal staff of public institutions (internal integrity level) and experts/stakeholders (policy customer evaluation), etc. on personal perception of corruption as well as actual experiences with corrupt practices within target organizations.

The total number of people surveyed this year amounted to 235,600. Of the people surveyed, the number of public service users who have had first-hand experiences with public services delivered by target public institutions amounted to 152,000, internal staff of target public institutions, 63,200, experts from the academia and civil society organizations, etc., duty-related parties, local residents and school parents, etc., 20,400. The ACRC conducted the survey (phone or smart phone interview, email survey) for about 4 months from August to November, 2017.

(Overall Integrity Level) the overall integrity level of public institutions assessed this year edged up by 0.09 points from 7.85 in 2016 to 7.94 points on a ten point scale.

External integrity level (8.13 points) and policy customer evaluation (7.29 points) were improved compared to the previous year, and it is analyzed that such improvement can be attributed to the implementation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, which caused the frequency, amount and prevalence of offering money, gifts, entertainment or favors to sharply decrease. However, internal integrity level (7.66 points) assessed based on a survey of internal staff of target public institutions went down, and this fall seems to be attributed to enhanced officials’ awareness of corruption and stronger corruption sensitivity after the implementation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

By institution type, public service-related organizations scored the highest (8.29 points), followed by local autonomous governments (7.72 points), central administrative agencies (7.70 points), metropolitan and provincial offices of education (7.66 points), and metropolitan city governments (7.65 points).

By each type of public institution, institutions that achieved the highest comprehensive integrity score included: Statistics Korea, Ministry of Personnel Management, Chungchengnam-do provincial government, Gyeongsan city government, Changnyeong-gun office, Daedeok-gu office, Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education, National Health Insurance Corporation, Korea Midland Power Co., Ltd., Korea Housing Finance Corporation, Police Mutual Aid Association, Ulsan Port Authority, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Gwangju Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, and Daejeon Express Transit Corporation.

By each type of public institution, institutions that marked the lowest comprehensive integrity score included: National Tax Service, Defense Acquisition Program Administration, Gyeongsangbuk-do provincial government, Gyeongju city government, Uljin-gun office, Haeundae-gu office, Gwangju Metropolitan Office of Education, Kangwon Land, Inc., Financial Supervisory Service, Korea Educational Broadcasting System, Korea Postal Service Agency, Korean Sport & Olympic Committee, Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology, and Seoul Housing & Communities Corporation.

Compared to the previous year, the integrity level of Shinan-gun, Jellanam-do province rose 58 notches, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, 56 notches, Wonju-si, Kangwon-do province, 53 notches, Korea Airports Corporation, 28 notches, and Korea Broadcast Advertising Corporation, 22 notches.

On the contrary, among public institutions whose integrity level was assessed for the first time this year, Kangwon Land, Inc. and Grand Korea Leisure Co., Ltd. both received the fifth grade/tier (i.e. least-performing category) on the 2017 Integrity Assessment.

(External Integrity Level) the external integrity level assessed by service users who have had firsthand experiences of public services delivered by target public institutions scored 8.13 points this year, an increase of 0.09 points from the previous year (8.04 points).

The ratio of public service users who have directly offered money, gifts, entertainment, and convenience to public institutions over the last one year stood at 1.0 per cent, a sharp decrease from last year (1.8 per cent). In particular, experiences of offering monetary gifts and entertainment have decreased by 57% and 34%, respectively on a year-on-year basis, which indicates significant improvement in customary practices of offering monetary gifts, entertainment and convenience to public officials after the implementation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act in September.

Furthermore, perceptions of corruption such as performing public duties in accordance with improper solicitation (+0.05 points), giving preferential benefits to a certain person (+0.06 points), discharging public duties based on a personal relationship (+0.07 points), influence peddling (+0.05 points), etc. have all improved.

The total number of duties assessed to gauge the level of external integrity for 573 public institutions this year was 2,295, and duties like managing contracts and providing subsidies showed relatively higher levels of integrity compared to other public duties.

The most corruption-prone areas of duties were guidance & control and inspection in central administrative agencies and public service-related organizations, respectively, while duties like construction management & supervising and grating permission/license were most vulnerable to corruption in metropolitan city governments and local autonomous governments.

(Internal Integrity Level) the internal integrity level assessed by internal staff of target public institutions decreased by 0.16 points from 7.82 point in 2016 to 7.66 points. To be more specific, integrity culture index, including fairness and transparency in performance of duties and effectiveness of anti-corruption system, and work integrity index, including experience and perception about personnel administration and budget execution & directives, have deteriorated (dropped by 0.13 points and 0.19 points, respectively).

The ratio of offering money, gifts, entertainment, and convenience for favorable personnel administration, which has been assessed by internal staff remained the same as the previous year (0.4%), while the ratio of experiencing unlawful or unjust budget execution (8.5%) and the ratio of experiencing improper directives (8.7%) have increased year on year (by 0.8%p and 1.2%p, respectively). Such increase is deemed to result from the fact that the level of integrity of the public institution concerned fell short of expectations of internal employees whose level of corruption awareness enhanced.

In particular, the ratio of offering money, gifts, entertainment and favors in relation to personnel administration (0.7%) and the ratio of experiencing unlawful or unjust budget execution (9.7%) have been found to be the highest in local autonomous governments, while the ratio of experiencing improper directives has been found to be the highest in metropolitan and provincial offices of education (10.2%).

(Deduction of Scores for Occurrence of Corruption Cases) the reasonableness of the assessment of integrity for each organization is improved by applying the results from the integrity assessment survey and deducting the score for occurrence of corruption incidents detected by an external investigation.

The total number of corruption incidents that were reflected into the 2017 integrity assessment was 488 cases that occurred in 202 institutions (406 cases in 148 administrative agencies and 82 cases in 54 public service-related organizations). The number of organizations subject to deduction of scores and the number of corruption cases that took place therein slightly increased from 187 organizations and 482 cases in 2016, whereas the total amount of money, etc. received slightly decreased to 7.88 billion won from 8.4 billion won in 2016.

In administrative agencies, the ratio of corrupt officials with the low rank (187 cases of corruption, 46.1%) was a little higher than that of corrupt officials with the mid-rank (170 cases of corruption, 41.9%), and the ratio of corrupt officials with administrative position, including principal/director or a position with higher rank, was particularly high in metropolitan and provincial offices of education.

The organization whose score for occurrence of corruption cases recorded the highest was National Tax Service (0.70 points), followed by Korea Land and Housing Corporation (0.68 points), Finance Supervisory Service (0.65 points), and Korea Gas Corporation & Korea Gas Safety Corporation (0.61 points). The organization with the largest aggregate amount of corruption cases was Boseong-gun office (670 million won), followed by Haman-gun office (490 million won), National Tax Service (410 million won), Korea Southern Power Co. (398 million won), and Gyeongju City Government (360 million won).

The ACRC will add public organizations that are vulnerable to corruption, including organizations in which hiring corruption scandals have occurred, first to the list of target organizations subject to the 2018 integrity assessment and encourage public institutions that received a low grade this year to try harder to improve their integrity level by providing them with integrity consulting and anti-corruption initiative assessment.

In addition, the ACRC will have each institution whose integrity level has been assessed publish the result from the integrity assessment on their official website for not less than a month, thereby making it easier for the public to look through it and arousing public officials’ attention to integrity.