ACRC adds active administration to the integrity survey items for the 2020 Integrity Assessment

- Local sports associations and small local councils to be included in the scope of institutions subject to the assessment -

July 28, 2020

Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission

The Republic of Korea

“Active administration” will be added to the sub-items of the 2020 Integrity Assessment for 723 public institutions, and local sports associations and small local councils in local provinces with a population of 200,000 or less will be included in the scope of public institutions subject to the 2020 Integrity Assessment.

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC, Chairperson Jeon Hyun Heui) will conduct a large-scale survey of more than 200,000 people, including citizens and public officials, who have directly experienced the service of public institutions, starting from next month to November this year in order to measure the integrity level of public institutions in 2020.

A total of 723 public institutions are subject to the integrity assessment this year, including central and local administrative agencies, education offices, public service-related organizations, local councils, state-run universities, and public medical institutions.

Starting this year, the government will expand the scope of public institutions subject to the assessment to include small-sized local councils in provinces with a population of less than 200,000, which have recently seen a number of irregularities. In addition, the integrity level of local sports associations will be additionally assessed to diagnose corruption-prone areas in the sports community, which has become a social issue.

In particular, the ACRC decided to strengthen the elements of active administration by including items of “active and responsible work process” in the integrity survey questionnaire. Previously, the ACRC deducted up to 7 percent of the total integrity level in the event of corruption cases in the public institutions, and also deducted points in the case where disciplinary action for passive administration is given since last year.

In addition, the ACRC plans to increase the proportion of external integrity that is evaluated by the people who have directly experienced the work of public institutions in person to reflect the people’s voices more.

The ACRC will complete a survey for measuring the integrity of public institutions and analysis of data on corruption cases from next month to November and announce the results in December.

The results of the integrity assessment will be reflected in the evaluation of major public institutions conducted by the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, etc. When the ACRC announces the result of its integrity assessment, the public institution concerned is required to publish it on its official website for at least one month within 14 days of the announcement.

The Public Institutions Integrity Assessment is a system that diagnoses the level of integrity by combining the results of surveys conducted on people and public officials who have experienced the work of public institutions directly and the current status of corruption in the institutions concerned. The ACRC has been measuring and disclosing the integrity levels of public institutions every year since 2002.

The ACRC believes that it is important for public officials to listen more actively to the voices of the people and work in a transparent manner, and plans to conduct an assessment of the integrity of public institutions without a hitch to find out how much people feel about the anti-corruption efforts of public offices.

ACRC Director General Lim Yoon Ju said, “We are going through a period of huge changes in our daily lives this year, and in such a difficult situation, we need to promote anti-corruption policy without wavering so that our society can take a leap forward,” adding that “We ask for the public attention and cooperation to accurately diagnose and improve the level of integrity and the corruption-causing factors in the public sector.”