This chapter outlines CACIAF’s current integrity check system and suggests ways to strengthen the institutional arrangements. Some of the main recommendations include: introducing a comprehensive strategy and risk-management process, assigning well-defined competences and tasks, upgrading the knowledge testing system, and considering the feasibility of psychological assessment in the selection process.
Reforming Integrity Checks and Code of Ethics in Bulgaria
Recommendations for the Anti-Corruption Commission
Report
OECD Public Governance Reviews
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
2. Reforming the integrity assessment procedures for CACIAF staff
Abstract
2.1. Overview of the current system of integrity checks at the CACIAF
According to the Anti-Corruption Law (SG. No. 7/19.01.2018), all employees of the CACIAF are subject to initial and regular (periodic and occasional) ‘integrity checks’ (Art. 15(5) and (7)). Commission members undergo professional and moral quality screening and must provide proof of how they meet the requirements for the position during the process of their election by the National Assembly (Anti-Corruption Law, Art. 9). Under CACIAF’s processes, ‘integrity checks’ involve reviews of asset and interest declarations, knowledge tests, disciplinary sanctions in force, performance appraisals and drug and alcohol tests. The CACIAF has adopted organisational (internal) rules for conducting the integrity checks of its employees and undertaken these checks since the establishment of the organisation in 2018 (CACIAF, 2018[3]).
The employees working at the CACIAF fall under three categories:
1. civil servants employed under the Civil Servant Act (SG. No. 67/27.07.1999)
2. civil servants employed under the Anti-Corruption Law (officials of the Anti-Corruption Directorate)
3. employees contracted under the Labour Code (SG. No. 26/1.4.1986).
CACIAF conducts three types of integrity checks:
1. Initial integrity checks take place before the appointment of all employees. When several public bodies and departments were merged and the CACIAF was established in 2018, all reassigned employees underwent the initial integrity check within six months of their reassignment. Regardless of their legal status and the type of employment, each employee had to pass an integrity check as a part of the recruitment process.
2. Periodic integrity checks are carried out over a fixed period of time, annually at most, on the basis of an order of the President of the Commission.
3. Occasional integrity checks are unannounced tests based on the order of the President of the CACIAF. They are not subject to time limit requirements. Inspectors and directors of the CACIAF have to agree to become subjects of both periodic and occasional integrity checks during their employment.
The integrity checks rely on several indicators which are applied according to the type of check (Table 2.1). The declaration (described below) covers circumstances that need to be declared according to the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Law.
2.1.1. Declarations of incompatibility, assets and interest
All staff members are obliged to submit declarations of incompatibility, assets and interest and any changes thereof (Art. 3). The verification of the declared facts and circumstances should establish the reliability and correctness of the data submitted by the candidates and employees subject to the inspection. The inspection teams can access electronic registers, databases and ask for data held by other public authorities to verify the declared facts and circumstances.
2.1.2. Knowledge tests
Under the Regulation on the conduct of competitions and selection for mobility of civil servants of 2019, candidates who wish to work at the public administration, including the CACIAF have to take a knowledge test (Art. 36). The test includes questions related to the organisation, the operation of the administrative body in which the competitive position is located, and the professional field of the position. The purpose of the test is to check the knowledge and skills of each candidate that are needed to carry out the duties related to the respective position.
In addition, the candidates have to take another knowledge test. This aims to verify the knowledge required to perform the activities in the relevant unit of the CACIAF, as well as to comply with the Constitution and laws of the country in the interest of citizens and society. The second test is also used repeatedly during the employment relationship as a mandatory element of the initial and periodic integrity check procedures.
2.1.3. Disciplinary sanctions in force
As part of the integrity check procedure, the Human Resources Department issues a statement for the inspection team about disciplinary sanctions imposed during the employment regarding the employee. Disciplinary reprimands and penalties including non-advancement and downgrading are calculated into the assessment of the integrity of the employees.
2.1.4. Performance appraisals
The Human Resources Department provides information for the inspection team about the results of the latest performance assessment. The scoring within the check procedure depends on how the quality of work performance has been evaluated between ‘outstanding performance’ and ‘unacceptable performance’.
2.1.5. Random alcohol or drugs checks
The Code of Ethics of the CACIAF stipulates that neither the members of the Commission, nor the employees of the CACIAF are allowed to consume alcohol, non-prescription narcotics and/or drugs while performing their duties (Art. 14(1)). The heads of the departments may initiate occasional checks to test such consumption. If the check proves that an official has consumed alcohol, non-prescription narcotics and/or drugs on more occasions, the head of the relevant unit proposes the launch of disciplinary proceedings and a disciplinary penalty.
Table 2.1. Indicators and scoring applied in integrity check procedures
|
Initial |
Periodic |
Occasional |
Scoring |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. Verification of circumstances in the declarations of incompatibility and declarations of assets and interest |
X |
X |
|
|
|
2. Knowledge tests |
X |
X |
|
|
|
3. Disciplinary sanctions in force |
X* |
X |
For candidates and employees employed under the Anti-corruption Law:
For candidates and employees employed under the Civil Servant Act:
For employees employed under the Labour Code:
|
|
|
4. Performance |
X* |
X |
|
|
|
5. Alcohol and drug tests |
X |
|
*In case of re-appointment once, within a period of 6 months after the reassignment of employees from public bodies and units that merged into the CACIAF in 2018.
Source: Answers provided by the CACIAF to the OECD Questionnaire
The indicators applied in the integrity checks are determined depending on the type of the inspection. The maximum sum that can be received is 100 points. The employee fails an initial and periodic integrity check if it does not collect at least 50 points. Occasional check indicators are scored in reverse, higher points reflect a failure to produce a negative test on alcohol or use of other type of substance. According to the Anti-corruption Law failing an integrity check is a ground for dismissal (Art. 15(9)).
2.2. Integrity checks in the appointment process of CACIAF employees
2.2.1. Recruitment under the Civil Servant Act
The appointment of an employee to a vacant position within the administration of the CACIAF is carried out in accordance with the Civil Servant Act and must be preceded by a competition held under the Ordinance for conducting competitions and selection for mobility of civil servants of 2019.The head of the administrative unit or the secretary general initiates filling a vacant position to the Chairman of the CACIAF. Once the request is approved, the Human Resources Department organises the selection process. The job announcement includes information on the integrity checks procedure.
The candidates submit the required documents at the premises of the CACIAF in person or electronically. If they successfully pass both knowledge tests, applicants must fill out a declaration of incompatibility. After an interview process, all successful candidates must undergo an initial integrity check.
2.2.2. Recruitment under the Anti-corruption Law
The employees of the Anti-Corruption Directorate have to comply with the strictest requirements of employment as this Directorate collects, analyses and checks information received about corruption committed by senior public officials. The competition for entry into the civil service within the Anti-Corruption Directorate follows a specific procedure regulated in the Regulations for the organisation and activities of the CACIAF and its administration and in the Ordinance No. 1 of 1 August 2018 on the specific requirements for entering the civil service in the Directorate. Early stages of the recruitment process involve language and knowledge testing,1 the results of which are made public on the CACIAF website.
In addition, the CACIAF undertakes a psychological examination as an additional compulsory element of the selection process for employees of the Anti-Corruption Directorate with the candidates admitted to the final interview stage. Currently, other employees of the CACIAF are not tested in terms of their psychological status. The psychological test covers the psychological aptitude of the candidates and is a prerequisite of the final interview (CACIAF, 2018[4]).
2.2.3. Recruitment under the Labour Code
Employees working in the administration of the CACIAF can also be appointed in accordance with the Labour Code and Decree No. 66 of 28 March 1996 of the Council of Ministers on the Provision of Certain Activities in Budgetary Organisations. In this case the process is similar to the recruitment of civil servants. The vacant position is announced on the CACIAF’s website with relevant information and description on the job, the minimum and specific requirements for filling the position, information on the integrity checks procedure, and additional requirements for candidates. Employees contracted under the Labour Code also fall under the scope of the Anti-Corruption Law, thus are obliged to submit a declaration of assets and interests, nevertheless, those who hold technical positions are excluded from this provision.
2.3. Strengthening the institutional arrangements for integrity checks
Integrity assessment is a complex set of measures which may rely on both data-driven screening and qualitative assessment elements, and in exceptional cases investigative methods. Through data-driven screening public bodies check the identity, criminal background and wealth upon official records. Character driven checks provide an insight to the more personal attributes of integrity, the soundness of values and commitments. Many governments also test the knowledge of public employees of legal and organisational measures on integrity.
Random or intelligence-led covert integrity testing is a special tool by which public officials are deliberately placed in potentially compromising positions without their knowledge, and tested, so that their resulting actions can be scrutinised and evaluated by their employer or an investigating authority. It stands apart of the other screening methods as it can only be applied in cases specified by law and needs special legislation to permit the use of any evidence obtained (OECD, 2005[5]).
Integrity testing might also extend to monitoring private and public activities before and after public service employment. In Slovenia, candidates aiming to work at the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption must inform the candidacy committee of any past or present personal circumstances that could influence or appear to influence the impartial and objective performance of their duties or could hurt the Commission's reputation (Government of Slovenia, 2010[6]). In Argentina, the Public Activities Monitoring System (MAPPAP) checks and verifies compliance with public ethics standards of persons entering and leaving high-level public positions. Public officials must declare the public and private positions and functions held during the year before their employment. The information is collected and presented in an open data system on the internet (Government of Argentina, 2022[7]).
In many OECD countries, background checks and pre-screening for integrity are two of the first activities used to identify people who present high risk. This can be done even before their skills and competencies are considered. However, identifying effective pre-screening tools can be a challenge, as there is little consensus on the accuracy or reliability of pre-screening tools when it comes to integrity (U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, 2012[8]). For that reason, integrity and the commitment to the organisation’s values could be tested at multiple stages and through the combination of tools in the selection process and afterwards.
For example, in Australia, each public entity must conduct vetting to ensure the eligibility and suitability of its personnel who have access to government resources. While checking personal identity and eligibility to work in the country is mandatory, integrity and reliability checks are recommended. The screening system is built on both data-driven screening and qualitative assessment methods (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2. Recommended pre-employment checks in the Australian public service
|
Screening check |
Rationale |
|---|---|
|
Integrity and reliability check |
|
|
Employment history check |
An employment history check identifies whether there are unexplained gaps or anomalies in employment. |
|
Residential history check |
A residential history check helps to substantiate the person’s identity in the community. All personnel need to provide supporting evidence of their current permanent residential address. |
|
Referee checks |
A referee check helps entities engage people of the appropriate quality, suitability and integrity. The Attorney-General’s Department recommends conducting professional referee checks covering a period of at least the last 3 months. A referee check may address: a. any substantiated complaints about the person’s behaviour b. information about any action, investigation or inquiry concerning the person’s character, competence or conduct c. any security related factors that might reflect on the person’s integrity and reliability. |
|
National police check |
A national police check, commonly referred to as a criminal history or police records check, involves processing an individual’s biographic details (such as name and date of birth) to determine if the name of that individual matches any others who may have previous criminal convictions. |
|
Credit history check |
A credit history check establishes whether the person has a history of financial defaults, is in a difficult financial situation, or if there are concerns about the person’s finances. |
|
Qualification check |
A qualification check verifies a person’s qualifications with the issuing authority. |
|
Conflict of interest declaration check |
A conflict-of-interest declaration identifies conflicts, real or perceived, between a person’s employment and their private, professional or business interests that could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and thus their ability to safeguard Australian Government resources. A conflict can be brought by (and not limited to) financial particulars, secondary employment and associations. |
|
Entity-specific checks |
The Attorney-General’s Department recommends entities identify checks needed to mitigate additional entity personnel security risks where not addressed by the recommended minimum preemployment screening checks. Additional screening checks are entity-specific and are separate from the security clearance process. Some examples of entity-specific checks include drug and alcohol testing, detailed financial probity checks and psychological assessments. |
Source: Adopted from (Australian Government Attorney General's Office, 2022[9])
In Lithuania, the recruitment process of the Special Investigation Service (STT) provides an assessment of the candidate's motivation to work at the STT and knowledge of the relevant laws respectively. The applicants are asked questions to assess their ability to use their knowledge in practice and prove specific skills required for the post to be filled, including their ability to communicate and cooperate as well as their professional and personal qualities (Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Lithuania, 2018[10])
In general, public organisations in OECD countries use a variety of targeted tools to implement integrity checks and assess personal character (OECD, 2020[11]):
use of uniform curriculum vitae formats, allowing to apply integrity filters to ease identification of suitable candidates;
pre-screening integrity test (e.g. online), personality tests or similar examinations, as a first step to be considered for the position, and/or as input into the final decision;
interview questions asking candidates to reflect on ethical role models they have had previously in the workplace, and/or to discuss ethical dilemmas they have faced and how they reacted to them;
situational judgement tests and questions that present candidates with a morally ambiguous situation and have them explain their moral reasoning;
role-play simulations and gamification to be conducted in an assessment centre;
reference checks which include questions related to ethical decision making and assessment from peers in previous positions on the ethical nature of the person and their ability to manage others ethically;
questions that enable the candidate to demonstrate awareness of and model moral management behaviour (recognising that being an integrity leader is not only about being a sound moral person, but also about actively role-modelling ethical decision making, communicating about ethics to employees, using rewards and sanctions to promote ethics, and giving employees an appropriate level of discretion and guidance to make their own ethical decisions).
2.3.1. The CACIAF could introduce a more comprehensive strategy and risk management process for identifying and mitigating public integrity risks
Currently, the integrity check process is fragmented because of the history of the formation of the CACIAF and the various laws that govern its employees. While the CACIAF must operate within these laws, if the opportunity arises Bulgaria could bring better consistency to the laws and rules applying to all the staff of the CACIAF. In the meantime, CACIAF should develop a strategy that clearly sets out the different regimes applicable and apply a risk-based approach to developing a clear plan on how to mitigate those risks.
Implementing integrity check tools have time and cost implications, which can be reduced by screening selected candidates or employees of higher risk. While the underlying aim of integrity checks is to establish whether a candidate or the inspected CACIAF employee can and will perform its powers and duties with honesty and integrity, currently none of the procedures rely on the assessment of risks related to the tasks and functions concerned. The relevant rules in force do not distinguish among the different types of employment, the levels of hierarchy and responsibilities in terms of the scope and frequency of the integrity checks. CACIAF recognises the need for an assessment of which positions should be subjected to more vigorous integrity checks.
According to the information received, human resources processes, including the competition procedure have been audited regularly. The scope of the audit has been determined by the methodology adopted by the Ministry of Finance. The methodology rather focuses on the implementation of formal measures such as the adoption of legally prescribed organisational regulations and the mandatory signature of the CACIAF’s Code of Ethics declarations by all employees. The audit does not extend to a wider scope of integrity risks and controls.
The CACIAF’s organisational regulation on risk assessment in force is key to understand the internal and external context of its work, as well as the drivers and potential impediments to achieving its integrity objectives. To support the integrity check procedures, the CACIAF could further elaborate its risk assessment methodology to identify specific risks certain positions and responsibilities entail. Upon the experiences collected within the New South Wales public service in Australia, a risk-based approach to employment screening might entail several potential advantages, including:
establishing a clearer and more defensible rationale for employment screening that is based on the role;
standardising screening throughout the organisation, which reduces the reliance on hiring managers to determine what checks, tools and interview questions should be applied and ultimately reduces the likelihood of under-screening or over-screening potential candidates;
using resources more effectively as the amount of screening performed is more tightly linked to the body’s needs;
improving the organisation’s overall risk management as roles that unexpectedly carry large risks can be identified (Independent Commission Against Corruption of New South Wales, 2018[12]).
The risk assessment should consider the competences and responsibilities of each position within the CACIAF, based on factors such as seniority and decision-making capabilities, access to confidential or sensitive information and involvement in operational issues. Special attention could be paid to typically vulnerable activities, such as the enforcement of legislation (for example, investigation, control, imposing sanctions), handling of sensitive information (especially ‘insider’ or confidential information), management of funds and financial resources (allocating budget, payment of expenses), management of goods and services, public procurement and contracting, payments (Transparency International, 2015[13]). In Ukraine, public organisations are recommended to draw up a list of positions vulnerable to corruption. Tasks of high risk include communication with other public bodies and local authorities, management of state funds and assets, selection of contractors or suppliers and revision of contracts, and handover of completed works, goods or provided services.
Analysing audit outcomes, systematic overview of job descriptions, interviewing employees, undertaking control risk assessments, and conducting Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) gap analyses are common methods for identifying potential risks for the different positions. (OECD, 2020[11]). For instance, in Australia government agencies use a matrix to set out the specific checks that are performed for each level of risk (3). Tiered sets of screening checks allow organisations to differentiate between basic or low-risk roles (which require fewer, less expensive checks) and complex or high-risk roles (which entail more detailed and expensive checking) (Independent Commission Against Corruption of New South Wales, 2018[12]).
Table 2.3. Categorising roles and functions based on risk levels
|
Risk category |
Level of risk |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Low risk |
Medium risk |
High risk |
|
|
Decision-making authority |
|
|
|
|
Financial delegation |
|
|
|
|
Financial functions |
|
|
|
|
Job requirements |
|
|
|
|
System access |
|
|
|
Risk assessments can be useful to engage employees across the organisation to provide different perspectives and validate the results. Managers and frontline employees – those who are directly responsible for operations or service delivery can have different perceptions of the likelihood and impact of risks. Frontline employees, especially officials of the Anti-corruption Directorate and the Territorial Directorates, can also be in a better position to identify emerging risks related to specific functions and responsibilities. Using quantitative techniques and data analytics can also help to identify potential fraud and corruption in a range of areas where the CACIAF collects reliable and valid data.
The European Partners against Corruption (EPAC) that brings together more than 80 anti-corruption authorities and police oversight bodies including the CACIAF, explicitly underlines the important role of integrity risk management process, especially in times of rapid change (Box 2.1). Anti-corruption authorities have the responsibility to quickly identify their risks and opportunities if they intend to protect, preserve and further develop their values (European Partners Against Corruption, 2017[14]).
Box 2.1. Integrity risks in the operation of anti-corruption authorities
According to the Integrity Risk Management Guidelines adopted by the European Partners Against Corruption (EPAC) the typical fields where integrity risks may arise are the following:
procurement and property management
conflicts of interest and favouritism
giving and receiving gifts
incompatibilities, restrictions and limitations
post-employment restrictions
undue/unlawful influences
whistle-blower’s protection
human resources (recruitment, motivation, discipline)
knowledge management – loss of know-how
transparency and decision making
sponsoring
operational field
technology; access and storage of files
IT & (personal) data protection and security
financial irregularities
intellectual property
material and physical resources (misuse, loss)
instrumentalisation of anti-corruption authorities und public oversight bodies (unlawful influence).
By assessing risks related to positions and responsibilities effectively and regularly the CACIAF could better outline its objectives and priorities, and tailor the integrity checks to its own context and staffing needs more flexibly. Moreover, the precise mapping of the specific features certain functions entail can help the CACIAF to assign the most capable people to the most suitable roles and tasks.
2.3.2. The CACIAF could develop expertise and consistency in integrity checks by assigning well-defined competences and tasks to a specific unit or an integrity advisor
Integrity check procedures within the CACIAF are performed by designated integrity verification teams made up of members with legal and/or economic education. Reserve members are also appointed to fill in if a member is absent or an objection has been raised. At present, there is no explicit regulation about which unit or directorate the inspectors should belong to. The inspection team may include staff from all directorates and units of the CACIAF who hold the required legal or economic university degree.
The regulation is different regarding initial integrity checks. In such procedures the inspection team is the competition commission appointed by order of the Chair of the CACIAF. According to the “Regulation on the conduct of competitions and selection for mobility of civil servants of 2019”, the members should include a representative of the Human Resources Department, an official with legal qualification and the immediate supervisor of the open position (Art. 6(2)).
In specific cases, officials are prohibited from taking part in integrity checks procedures, for example, when they have an interest in the outcome or has relations to the person subject to the inspection giving reasonable doubts to his impartiality. The members of the competition commission need to declare that they:
have no personal interest in the outcome of the competition;
are not in a relationship with any of the candidates that raises reasonable doubts about their impartiality;
have been informed of the obligation not to disclose the information that became known to them during the competition.
The verification of the integrity of the inspectors in the inspection team is carried out by another inspection team appointed by the President of the Commission. Only after all members of the inspection team have been successfully cleared can the integrity check procedure take place. According to the CACIAF, no member of an inspection team has been disqualified.
Considering a formalised shift from ad-hoc to permanent committee membership will allow for shorter and more straightforward and consistent procedures for the selection of the members, the verification of their integrity, and the accumulation of expertise in the integrity check procedures.
The rules on the composition of the inspection teams and their areas of responsibility should be aligned and clearly defined. A coherent process of harmonising their roles and the integrity requirements towards them could eliminate the possibility of facing different integrity standards, while having overlapping competences.
The directorates and units co-ordinate with each other within the rather complex setup of integrity check actors and developed working methods to bridge the different areas of responsibilities. Assigning a single point of responsibility and accountability with formal competences could enhance how the CACIAF discharges its responsibilities and conducts integrity check procedures. The system could be consolidated by providing ownership for the integrity check framework through the identification of a co-ordinating unit within the administration (Box 2.2).
Box 2.2. Ownership of the integrity screening process in Australia
The Australian Standard on Employment Screening recommends that the chief executive officer of an organisation be held accountable for its employment screening framework. Key elements of ownership over integrity testing include that:
there is a single employment screening policy/process owned by a senior manager with authority to implement and enforce its requirements;
key users of the process (for example, hiring managers and the head of risk) are consulted during the drafting of the policy/process;
the process has the support of senior management, including the agency head and the audit and risk committee;
financial and human resources have been allocated to implement the policy/process.
The co-ordination and documentation of the integrity check system could also be linked to a person with a more general integrity advisory function within the CACIAF. As identified focal points in the workplace, integrity advisors are in a position to facilitate co-ordination of integrity and transparency policies within the organisation, as well as in co-operation with other organisations and jointly with other integrity actors. Given their position, they may be able to provide support to risk owners in assessing and managing risks within their organisation; diffusing integrity-related information and procedures; and designing tailor-made training sessions and advise the inspection teams and competition commissions.
A designated unit or integrity advisor could also supervise and monitor the consistent implementation of the integrity check procedures, overview the work of the inspection teams, contribute to the development of knowledge tests, report on the results, lessons of the procedures and any emerging trends, and provide recommendations for improvement of the system.
2.3.3. The CACIAF could adopt a periodic plan and more tailored internal rules on the implementation of periodic integrity checks
As set out above, there are three types of integrity checks: (1) initial check of their integrity during the recruitment process and later on become subject to (2) periodic checks of integrity and (3) occasional checks based on the suspected use of alcohol and narcotic substances. Under the Anti-corruption Law inspectors and directors of the CACIAF are subject to periodic and occasional checks of integrity when taking up their new roles and duties (Art. 15(5) and (7)). The failure to comply with the integrity check leads to dismissal.
In practice, occasional checks only cover medical examination of potential cases of alcohol, drug and substance abuse, while periodic checks follow up on the initial screenings in the same structure and with similar indicators examined no sooner than one year after the first procedure.
The heads of the departments concerned may initiate occasional checks which are carried out by the inspection teams. Each employee of the CACIAF can be subjected to occasional check and get tested on the use of alcohol and/or drugs during working hours. In the event of the use is established, the manager initiates disciplinary proceedings against the employee.
The CACIAF reported that it carried out 485 initial integrity checks between 2018 and 2021. However, neither periodic, nor occasional checks have been carried out since the CACIAF was set up in 2018. Similarly, no specific plan or strategy has been laid out to carry out integrity checks. The regulation of the integrity checks carried out by the CACIAF depend greatly on data-driven background screenings and use alcohol or drug tests to determine potential risks related to certain positions. The integrity check system in its current form does not track and provide new information about any new conflicts of interests and ethical values officials acquire after they pass the initial check during the recruitment process and begin their career at the CACIAF.
A more focused, well-tailored and carefully planned application of the checking procedures prescribed by the Anti-Corruption Law could make their implementation more consistent and effective. As mentioned in relation to integrity risks, in practice not all positions face the same level of ethical decision making and therefore may not require the same degree of screening (Box 2.3). For instance, following the original legislative goal the targeted and consequent use of occasional checks for testing officials who are up for promotion could make the system more foreseeable, motivate ethical behavior, and help to develop ethical awareness of future leaders.
Box 2.3. The foundations and different levels of integrity screening of public officials
Australia
Section 8(2A) of the “Independent Commission Against Corruption Act” of 1988 passed by the Parliament of New South Wales (NSW) states that “fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official” can constitute corrupt conduct. Therefore, pre-employment screening is widely used in the NSW public service to ensure the suitability, integrity and identity of people engaged to work. The level of pre-employment screening needed varies according to the organisational context and role being filled.
United States
The US public service does background checks and security clearances for federal jobs in order to verify that employees would be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the United States. The background investigation usually involves checks of criminal and credit histories and in cases that a federal position includes access to sensitive information - a security clearance is needed.
The type of background investigation depends on the position’s requirements as well as the level of security clearance needed for the position. Positions in the federal government are classified in three ways:
1. non-sensitive positions;
2. public trust positions; and
3. national security positions.
For the different positions there is a different level of clearance required. For instance, lower levels of security clearances, background investigations typically rely entirely on automated checks of an applicant’s history. For a secret clearance in a national security position, the investigation requires agents to interview people who have lived or worked with the applicant at some point in the last seven years or more.
Chile
Senior public managers working in the public service are expected to exercise their functions efficiently and effectively. Their performance is evaluated upon the Performance Agreement which covers i) professional competence; ii) probity and integrity in public management; and iii) awareness of public impact.
As part of their selection process, the Civil Service of Chile conducts an evaluation interview designed by external consultants and carried out by the project manager. The evaluation explores the experience and knowledge of the candidate, knowledge about the position, adaptation to the interview situation, and the values associated with the profile of the senior public manager. While the managerial evaluation serves as a guidance in the selection process, it is not graded, nor it is used as a filter criterion to pass to the overall test of competencies.
Source: Australia: NSW Public Service Commission, https://www.psc.nsw.gov.au/workforce-management/recruitment/recruitment-and-selection-guide/deciding-and-appointing/pre-employment-screening-checks; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/other-assessment-methods/integrityhonesty-tests/ (accessed on 22 June 2022); Information provided by the Government of Chile
Adopting a long-term plan which clearly states which functions and positions become subjects of periodic integrity checks, in what depth and selecting targeted tools for testing might invigorate the system. This way the CACIAF could better prepare for the integrity check procedures and make strategic decisions in areas like recruitment, promotions and its overall integrity framework.
2.4. Upgrading the testing procedures in the integrity check system
2.4.1. The CACIAF could assign a co-ordinator to develop the knowledge testing system and add integrity elements to the questionnaires
The knowledge tests are aimed to verify the knowledge required to carry out activities in the relevant structure of the CACIAF and to comply with the Constitution and laws of the country in the interests of citizens and society. The purpose of the tests is to verify the knowledge of the person subject to the inspection. The tests are in writing and contain a total of 50 questions for the initial check and 55 questions for the periodic checks, the value of each being 1 point. The candidate needs to collect at least 20 points to get admitted to the next stage of the initial check procedure.
As reiterated in the reply given to the OECD’s questionnaire, currently, the “Rules for conducting the integrity checks of the employees of the CACIAF” do not provide for a specific directorate or unit to prepare the tests for knowledge testing, as they are prepared by the members of the inspection teams appointed by an order of the Chair of the Commission.
As the knowledge tests are an integral part of the integrity checks within the CACIAF, the Commission has developed a variety of options particularly tailored towards the different directorates and units, the employees there, and the specificity of their work. There are different versions of the knowledge tests being used for the Anti-corruption Directorate, Inspectorate, Conflict of Interest Directorate and Territorial Directorates. With regards to the Territorial Directories, the tests are designed for economists or jurists due to the specificity of work in these units (three versions of the test each). All other employees who do not belong to either of those units are required to undertake a general version of the knowledge test that aims to assess the familiarity with the CACIAF’s authority and power, internal rules and management.
The test aims to assess whether individuals are familiar with specific laws and regulation of Bulgaria. In detail, individuals are tested on their knowledge of the Constitution of Bulgaria and other laws, regulations on classified information together with their familiarity with the CACIAF, its functions, structure and the Code of Ethics. According to the information received upon the OECD’s questionnaire, in the knowledge tests within the integrity checks, there are questions from the Code of Ethics of the CACIAF, as well as in the tests during the competitions.
During the fact-finding interviews, it has been highlighted that the knowledge tests are often formalistic as they focus on the familiarity with the relevant legal provisions. At the same time, by their characteristics they do not contribute much to the assessment of the integrity of employees, a better understanding of their capacities and whether they come up to expected high standards of conduct.
The CACIAF could consider adding integrity elements and include references to the National and the CACIAF’s Code of Ethics to the legally prescribed points of the knowledge tests (Box 2.4). Furthermore, the integrity elements of the knowledge tests could be differentiated upon the functions and responsibilities of the units and position concerned. For positions of some ethical intensity, candidates could be tested through questions and dilemmas that reflect the kind of ethical dilemmas they are likely to face, so that they can demonstrate their personal values and moral reasoning skills. Positions of lower ethical intensity could be seen as steppingstones where the officials and future leaders can demonstrate their integrity leadership capabilities. This way, the employees of the CACIAF could begin to develop an integrity track record right at the beginning of their career that can be further assessed and elaborated in future knowledge tests applied in periodic or occasional integrity check procedures.
Box 2.4. Testing the integrity knowledge of public officials
Latvia
In 2014 and 2015 the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) initiated knowledge testing of public officials on corruption and prevention of conflict of interests. Knowledge tests have also become parts institutional anti-corruption training programmes, which public organisations increasingly developed and implemented for their employees in co-operation with KNAB. The knowledge tests helped to ascertain the employees’ knowledge level and to plan the contents of further training in co-operation with KNAB.
Malta
The Government of Malta launched the Integrity and Ethics Awareness and Learning (IEAL) Programme in 2021. The IEAL programme is mandatory for categories of perspective and appointed employees whose role and responsibilities are susceptible to high risk. Public employees in such posts are listed in the Public Administration Act and are obliged to repeat the assessment every two years.
The IEAL Programme aims to enhance integrity standards in the day-to-day activities of government officials through a development programme to increase their awareness and make them more knowledgeable about the responsibility regarding their actions and decisions. It also provides guidance and reflections on how to take appropriate and ethically correct decisions when faced with dubious situations. This is achieved by presenting realistic case scenarios and the outcomes of internationally renowned studies.
The programme provides an overview of how ethical dilemmas can develop at the workplace. The Programme encourages public employees to consider how to address ethical dilemmas, to evaluate well the risks linked to their decisions and the possible consequences of their actions. It consists of two parts (1) formation sessions followed by (2) a test. The themes the programme covers include governance, distribution of power, values and performance. Officers who fail the test are permitted to redo the assessment within six months of the first attempt.
Source: Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (2014 and 2015) Progress and results in preventing and combating corruption in Latvia. https://www.knab.gov.lv/en/media/1484/download; (European Partners Against Corruption, 2021[15]) (accessed on 22 June 2022); Information provided by the Government of Malta
Until now the focus of the development of knowledge tests have been on tailoring the questions on the relevant legal provisions to the needs and specific features of the organisational units. To harmonise the currently rather fragmented and formalistic use of the tests and make this tool more effective, the CACIAF could designate a single unit to co-ordinate tests and (in co-operation with other units and inspectors) adopt more practical integrity elements to the questionnaires.
2.4.2. The CACIAF could introduce psychological assessment to the selection process of certain functions and positions to test integrity values
While currently other (potential) staff members of the CACIAF do not have to undergo psychological testing, due to their specific tasks and responsibilities, the employees of the Anti-Corruption Directorate have to pass this additional test to get to the final interview stage. The Directorate performs operational and investigative activities in the entire territory of Bulgaria related to the detection, prevention and suppression of corruption crimes committed by persons holding senior public positions. It also carries out inspections under the Judiciary Act of 2007, as well as individual actions in pre-trial proceedings assigned by the Prosecutor's Office.
Psychological testing is co-ordinated by the Human Resources Management Unit. According to the information received during the fact-finding interviews the CACIAF has signed an agreement with the Institute of Psychology of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Bulgaria to conduct psychological examination of candidates for work at the Anti-Corruption Directorate. The Institute prepares the questionnaires and methodology and provides an opinion on the psychological state of the candidates and whether they qualify to carry out operative-search activities.
The personal profile is a complex assessment of the psychological qualities, value orientation and attitudes related to the specific professional requirements for operative-search activities. For the assessment standardised personality questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and other psychological methods are applied. The CACIAF is not directly involved in the preparatory and evaluation process of the psychological tests. The selection board considers the test results and terminates the recruitment process for those who do not pass the psychological examination.
Members of the CACIAF interviewed for this report indicated that the introduction of psychological tests to all recruitment processes would contribute to more effective testing of the integrity of candidates. Currently, depending on the job they are applying for, the selection committees have to screen candidates for various competences. For instance, senior officials are expected to present strategic competence and a vision for the future development, management competence of planning, organising, and co-ordinating, leadership to motivate and develop staff, and the ability to work in teams. While the mandatory competences for civil servants are legally prescribed and apply to all civil servants working in the Bulgarian public sector, and the selection criteria for managers and experts are also defined by the internal rules of the CACIAF, integrity is not listed among the requirements for any of the job categories (CACIAF, 2021[16]).
Knowledge tests help to make decisions against predetermined objective criteria, whereas psychological tests could provide appropriate tools to get a more realistic picture about the candidate’s integrity profile. Testing for integrity, moral reasoning or other values is a practice used in some OECD countries, either across civil service or within specific organisations such as the police, intelligence, and national security agencies (Box 2.5).
Box 2.5. Testing the integrity values of public employees in Luxembourg
To verify the integrity values of prospective and already employed public employees the Luxembourgish recruitment and selection unit applies a Personality Questionnaire (Questionnaire de personnalité), which contains a section on professional consciousness to explore whether the candidate respects procedures, rules, standards, completes the tasks and is attentive to the quality of their implementation.
This questionnaire is regularly used during recruitment and selection in public entities.
The section covering integrity is part of the Questionnaire on Staff Motivation, in which candidates receive a score in relation to the two following extremes:
1. the candidate considers integrity and ethics to be outside the professional context and does not need to be convinced about the objectives;
2. the candidate considers that it is important to apply moral principles and to be able to work with a clear conscience.
Source: Information provided by the Government of Luxembourg
The personal assessment of candidates and employees is a complex discipline. It requires support from qualified psychological experts equipped with the right knowledge and skills, particularly for positions of higher integrity risks. Therefore, in Lithuania, a psychologist is a permanent member of the committee overseeing the preliminary selection of candidates applying to the Special Investigation Service (Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Lithuania, 2018[10]).
While the values-based assessments can provide insight on the values fit, thus can be an important indicator of future performance, they might also have privacy implications. Therefore, in many OECD countries value-driven assessments are only applied to specific groups of employees of high integrity risk, such as the police force (Box 2.6) or in well-grounded individual cases. For example, in Australia the Attorney-General’s Department recommends organisations seek legal advice (e.g., from the Australian Public Service Commission and the Australian Human Rights Commission) about the suitability and use of any entity specific psychological checks. The organisations may launch the assessment procedure after they acquire written consent from the candidates (Australian Government Attorney General's Office, 2022[9]).
Box 2.6. Psychological evaluation in the selection process of law enforcement bodies
Psychological screening is one of the tools that many police agencies use to ensure that they employ the most suitable candidates as part of a multi-stage recruitment process. Other tools might include tests assessing verbal, written, numerical and reasoning skills, a thorough background and financial check, testing of the physical abilities, a polygraph exam and medical checks.
International Association of Chiefs of Police
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) provides guidelines for the psychological evaluation. According to the document information about the required duties, responsibilities, working conditions, and other psychologically relevant job characteristics should be obtained from the hiring authority. This information helps evaluators identify knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics associated with effective and counterproductive job performance. The evaluator should be familiar with the overall hiring/selection process of the hiring agency, agency assessment standards, and procedures required by law.
It is recommended that a written psychological assessment relevant to the purpose of the evaluation be administered using test instruments that have documented reliability, validity, and other empirical evidence supporting the use in the pre-employment evaluation of public safety applicants. Individual face-to-face interviews with candidates, whether in person or remotely via telepsychology methods, should be conducted before a final determination of the candidate’s psychological suitability is made. The purpose of the interview is to obtain relevant interpersonal and mental status information about the candidate, and to confirm and/or clarify test scores, personal history, and related information collected during the psychological evaluation.
Hiring agencies that permit second-opinion evaluations as part of an appeal process are encouraged to require these psychological evaluations to be based on the same criteria used for the initial psychological evaluation.
Australia: Queensland Police Service
The purpose of the psychological assessment is to evaluate whether applicants have the necessary psychological characteristics to perform the inherent occupational requirements. The psychological assessment process may include psychological testing, psychological interview and/or other assessment. The written psychological test may take up to three hours to complete, while psychological interviews typically take between one and two hours. Not all applicants receive invitation to a personal interview.
All test results remain confidential. In the case of successful applicants, the data might also be used for future training and human resource management decisions. The results are be retained for a minimum of seven years. For successful applicants the results are retained for a minimum of 80 years from the employee’s date of birth or seven years from date of separation, whichever is later.
United States: Los Angeles Police Department
The Psychological Evaluation consists of an oral interview and evaluation by a psychologist on factors related to successful performance in the difficult and stressful job of a police officer. The information evaluated includes the written psychological tests along with information obtained in the background investigation process.
Candidates with a history or prior diagnosis of a psychological or psychiatric condition, including learning disabilities or Attention Deficit Disorder, or who have been treated with psychotropic medication or therapy, will be asked to provide relevant medical records before a final psychological determination can be made.
Source: International Association of Chiefs of Police - Police Psychological Services Section (2020) Pre-employment Psychological Evaluation Guidelines, https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/p-r/Psych-PreemploymentPsychEval1.pdf; Queensland Police Service (2021) Psychological Assessment Information Sheet & Consent Form, https://www.police.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/Information%20and%20Consent%20form%20-%20PAI%2012%20mth%20RENEWAL%20online%20Mar%202021.pdf; Los Angeles Police Department (n.d.) Psychological Evaluation, https://www.joinlapd.com/step-7-psychological-evaluation (accessed on 22 June 2022).
Nevertheless, the first step is to clarify which values are integral to the work and the position and functions concerned. This should go beyond simply listing key words such as “integrity” and “accountability” and include a description of which behaviours illustrate these values in a work context (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4. Psychological constructs implicated in public service
|
Positive personality attributes |
Negative personality attributes |
|---|---|
|
agreeableness |
excessive force |
|
conscientiousness / responsibility |
sexual misconduct and harassment |
|
dependability |
substance abuse |
|
emotional toughness (freedom from anxiety, hostility, and psychological distress) |
insubordination and other supervisory problems |
|
flexibility / adaptability |
embezzlement, bribery, fraud |
|
Independence / achievement orientation |
deceitfulness |
|
integrity |
Inappropriate verbal conduct |
|
intellectual efficiency |
blackmail, theft |
|
self-discipline / self-control |
lying |
|
social confidence / self-control |
kickbacks and revenge |
|
social sensitivity |
personal violence |
|
tolerance |
discrimination |
|
well-being |
absenteeism |
Source: (Corey and Zelig, 2020[17])
The successful psychological testing of candidates is also closely linked to the assessment of the risks certain functions might entail. The susceptibility to influence, the ability to resist and speak up might require different personal characteristics and levels of psychological testing depending on the tasks and responsibilities concerned. Psychologists co-operating in a closer relationship with the CACIAF can gain more insight on the specificities its work, thus might be able tailor the tests more to the needs of the organisation.
During the fact-finding interviews several points were suggested to be adopted into the integrity testing system, each reflecting to the experiences gained and needed working at the CACIAF:
testing how the candidate reacts and makes decisions in specific situations that could emerge in everyday work
assessment of the values the candidate stands for, its ability to communicate clearly and openly, susceptibility to influence, the ability to argue, susceptibility to negative phenomena.
As mentioned, not all officials face the same level of ethical decision-making and therefore do not need the same degree of testing. Psychological tests might be the most effective in screening candidates applying for positions of high ethical intensity. For example, they might be applied for a smaller number of pre-screened candidates who already successfully passed the knowledge test before the final decision about their employment is made.
2.4.3. The CACIAF could assess the effectiveness of asset and interest declarations in the integrity check procedures and adopt a risk-based approach to prioritising controls
Declarations of assets and interests are mandatory elements of the integrity check procedures (Box 2.7). All employees of the CACIAF have to submit the declarations within a month after taking up their posts and by 15 May each year regarding the previous calendar year. Depending on the type of declarations – for incompatibility and for assets and interests, the Inspectorate or the Human Resources Department administers the declarations in a register. Declarations are kept for a period of five years from the termination of the employment. From the declaration document only the information on interests is publicly available.
Box 2.7. Assets and interests to be declared for the employees of the CACIAF
The declaration on assets and interests submitted by the employees of the CACIAF annually includes the following information:
real estate(s)
motor vehicles, water and aircraft vehicles, as well as other vehicles, which are subject to registration under the law
cash amounts, including deposits, bank accounts and receivables of total value above BGN 10 000, including foreign currency
investments in investment and pension funds and equivalent forms of savings and investments, if their total value exceeds BGN 10 000
available securities, shares in companies with limited liability and limited partnerships and financial instruments under Art. 3 of the Markets of Financial Instruments Act
obligations and credits above BGN 1 000, including credit cards, if the absorbed credit limit during the previous calendar year in local or foreign currency exceeds BGN 10 000
labour incomes, received during the previous calendar year;
incomes outside those for the occupied position, received during the previous calendar year, exceeding BGN 1 000
third person’s real estate and motor land, water vehicles and aircraft in the value above BGN 10 000, which the person, his/her spouse, or with whom he/she is in factual cohabitation on marital grounds, permanently uses, notwithstanding of the reasons for that and of the conditions of use
costs of training, travelling and other payments of a single price above BGN 10 000 when those are not paid with own means, with public means or with means of the institution in which they occupy the position
participation in commercial companies, in bodies of management and control of commercial companies, of non-profitable legal persons, or of cooperatives, as well as performing activity as a sole trader on the date of the election or appointment and 12 months before the date of election or appointment
contracts with persons who carry out an activity in areas, related to receivables by the person holding senior public position, decisions in the sphere of his powers or obligations under the office
data about related persons, in the activity of whom the person holding senior public position has private interest.
Source: Anti-Corruption Law (Art. 37)
Clearly defined objectives pursued by asset and interest disclosure and the verification process ensure effective implementation. They are instrumental in the detection of financial and non-financial interests that may affect the decisions of the officials. Disclosure before or upon entry into public functions and departure are instrumental in detecting potential conflicts of interest in public functions or post-public employment. In between, the CACIAF opts for additional disclosure annually or each time when changes occur in public duties to detect any issue that may arise from such changes.
However, since the scope covered by disclosure requirements is large and the frequency is rather high, the CACIAF could consider assessing whether the declarations are revealing the legal and ethical questions that are raised by them. The assessment could address the review process, how many problems are identified, whether they are reflected in the recruitment competitions and integrity checks, and the number of conflicting cases eventually resolved.
Depending on the results of the assessment adopting a risk-based approach to prioritising controls is necessary (Box 2.8). To increase the effectiveness of the declaration system officials holding positions and functions of high risk, and members of the senior management could be checked with more scrutiny and frequency, while other employees could adhere to less stringent rules.
Box 2.8. Controls in the monitoring of asset and interest declarations in France
17 000 high-ranking French public officials must submit to the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life each year, in the two months following their entry into functions or the beginning of their mandate, two declarations: a declaration of assets and a declaration of interests. The Board of the High Authority defines and adopts a yearly control plan. It is based on risk exposure, occupied functions and seniority of the different categories of public officials. Control priorities are also bound to legal publication deadlines for the public officials whose declarations are made public on the website of the High Authority.
All declarations are checked but some of them are controlled more thoroughly. Four motives can lead to such an in-depth verification process: (1) a specific exposure; (2) the fact that, upon formal verification, the declarations are visibly incomplete, sent after the timeframe or erroneous; (3) red flags (civil society organisations, citizens, other administrations, etc.); and (4) abnormalities revealed in controlling assets variation during the mandate or time in office.
Source: High Authority for Transparency in Public Life (2022) https://www.hatvp.fr/en/high-authority/ethics-of-publics-officials/ (accessed on 22 June 2022)
2.4.4. The CACIAF could raise awareness and build capacity through trainings on integrity check procedures
There are a number of CACIAF employees that would eventually be involved in integrity checking, including those with specific tasks in recruitment such as the human resources staff as well as line managers. These staff should be adequately trained on what integrity entails and CACIAF’s expectations and how the integrity checks should be implemented.
The trainings for professional and official development of the employees in the state administration are conducted by the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) upon law. The IPA was established in 2000 and functions under the Civil Servants Act and serves as an institution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria. The Institute focuses in three work streams, namely: training, research, and consultancy to successfully modernise the Bulgarian public administration. The Institute of Public Administration conducts courses for newly appointed officials, for managerial positions and for professional development. In this context, it offers a course on the National Code of Conduct aimed to develop ethical standards for public administration officials and prevent corruption behaviour (Box 2.9).
Box 2.9. Integrity training by the Institute of Public Administration
The Institute of Public Administration conducts mandatory career development training for: 1) first-time civil service recruits; and 2) first-time management appointees. Additionally, the IPA proposes professional development training for officials in managerial and expert positions in the public administration. The IPA enables administrations to request ad-hoc training throughout the year.
The IPA training catalogue for 2021 includes new and updated courses, some of them co-financed by the European Union through the European Social Fund. Such courses include: modelling, analysis and improvement of work processes in administration; Strategies and policies to counter risks in the public administration; Code of Conduct - Functions and Highlights.
The programme on the Code of Conduct includes three main modules, namely: “Codes of Ethics - Substance and Meaning”, “Code of Ethics as a prevention tool”, and “Code of Conduct and Ethical Infrastructure”. The modules touch upon European ethical principles, levels of ethical regulation, various types of conflict of interest, specific ethical rules, situations with involvement in corruption, presents and benefits, reporting corruption, whistle-blower protection, anti-corruption behaviour, and good practices. Knowledge on integrity related issues is being tested through examining practical case studies and through a final test.
Other integrity-related courses offered by the IPA which are not mandatory and require the payment of a fee include: Risk management in public sector organisations; Law on Liability of the State and Municipalities for Damages (LPLM); Combating fraud in the use of EU funds.
Source: (OECD, 2022[18])
As the IPA plays a legally prescribed key role in providing trainings for the Bulgarian civil service, the CACIAF does not have a designated directorate or unit responsible for organising trainings for the inspection teams. According to the information shared in the OECD’s questionnaire the CACIAF does not have a designated unit or person to provide guidance for the members of the inspection teams should doubts or questions emerge during the integrity checks.
The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity calls on adherents to invest in integrity leadership to demonstrate a public sector organisation’s commitment to integrity, in particular through delivering periodic training and guidance to increase awareness of, and to develop skills concerning the exercise of appropriate judgement in matters where public integrity issues may be involved (OECD, 2017[1]).
Carrying out an initial and later regular, practical integrity trainings (in the form of, for example, lectures, ethical dilemma discussions, e-learning or simulation games), could build the knowledge and skills necessary for effective and successful integrity check procedures. The co-ordinating unit or integrity advisor could disseminate information through information booklets, a website, a co-ordinating unit or person with dedicated functions to increase the clarity and diffusion of the standards and procedures. Members of the inspection teams could be offered guidance on specific questions that can be raised to test the applicants’ level of integrity more adequately. The trainings specific to integrity checks could be integrated into a comprehensive system of integrity trainings as recommended under Section 3.2.2 of this report.
Note
← 1. This includes several stages starting with (1) the assessment of the level of language culture by means of a written test of 30 closed questions. A candidate who has answered 15 of them correctly is considered to have passed the test (50% of the test). The (2) level of general competence is assessed to establish the basic knowledge of normative and secondary legislation. The results of the tests are recorded in reports. The selection board prepares three different versions of a closed question test with one possible correct answer. The answers to each candidate’s test questions are to be verified by the members of the selection board and authenticated by the signature of one of them. The results of both levels are published on the website of the CACIAF.