Maria Giuseppina Muratore, Istat

Brussels 30-31 March 2017 Using indicators to inform policy and measure progress on anti- corruption

The Italian survey module

on experiences of

corruption

2

United Nations Convention against Corruption

General Assembly by resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003 2005

Ratified from Italy October 2009

“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish”

• Prevention

• Criminalization of corruption in public and private

Council of Europe Fight against Corruption (1997) Group of States against Corruption – GRECO (1999) Countries evaluation

Input at interna-tiona level

3

UN - SDG Goal 16 2015

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies

for sustainable development, provide access

to justice for all and build effective,

accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms

16.5.1 Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months

Input at interna-tiona level

4

BES Wellbeing Scientific Committee Istat – Cnel

Partnership Istat and ex SSPA

Istat and ex CIVIT (now ANAC)

For the first time Focus on corruption and bribery measurement

• Indicators NOT based on perception

• Indicators NOT on registered data (used for other aspects, estimate of illegal GDP)

Input

at natio-

nal level

5

• In 2013: 3314 proceedings of known perpetrator at least one crime of bribery/corruption

• 1.286 were dismissed(38,8% of proceedings)

• 2028 were prosecuted ( 61,2%)

• Between dismissed ones, 128 (3,9% for prescription and 688 ( 20,8%) because of insignificance of the fact, groundlessness of the fact

• In 2013: 711 crimes for corruzione e concussione sentenced at final stage

Judicial statistic 2011 2012 2013 2014

peculato 1802 2087 2165 2537

peculato mediante profitto dell'errore altrui 95 65 79 115

indebita percezione di erogazioni a danno dello Stato, di altri Enti Pubblici e di Comunità Europee 5803 3899 3341 4505

malversazione a danno dello Stato 143 110 145 168

concussione 751 824 698 956

corruzione per un atto d'ufficio 118 140 126 132

corruzione per un atto contrario ai doveri d'ufficio 992 1668 1357 1621

corruzione di persona incaricata di un pubblico servizio 41 38 46 77

corruzione in atti giudiziari 58 134 117 42

responsabilità del corruttore 598 1097 880 846

istigazione alla corruzione 274 282 303 297

peculato, concussione, corruzione ed istigazione alla corruzione di membri e funzionari delle Comunità Europee e di Stati esteri 5 9 8 14

2016

RankCountry

2016

Score

2015

Score

2014

Score

2013

Score

2012

Score

1 Denmark 90 91 92 91 90

3 Finland 89 90 89 89 90

4 Sweden 88 89 87 89 88

5 Switzerland 86 86 86 85 86

6 Norway 85 87 86 86 85

8 Netherlands 83 87 83 83 84

10 United Kingdom 81 81 78 76 74

10 Luxembourg 81 81 82 80 80

10 Germany 81 81 79 78 79

14 Iceland 78 79 79 78 82

15 Belgium 77 77 76 75 75

17 Austria 75 76 72 69 69

19 Ireland 73 75 74 72 69

22 Estonia 70 70 69 68 64

23 France 69 70 69 71 71

29 Portugal 62 63 63 62 63

29 Poland 62 62 61 60 58

31 Slovenia 61 60 58 57 61

38 Lithuania 59 61 58 57 54

41 Spain 58 58 60 59 65

44 Latvia 57 55 55 53 49

44 Georgia 57 52 52 49 52

47 Malta 55 56 55 56 57

47 Czech Republic 55 56 51 48 49

47 Cyprus 55 61 63 63 66

54 Slovakia 51 51 50 47 46

55 Croatia 49 51 48 48 46

57 Romania 48 46 43 43 44

57 Hungary 48 51 54 54 55

60 Italy 47 44 43 43 42

64 Montenegro 45 44 42 44 41

69 Greece 44 46 43 40 36

72 Serbia 42 40 41 42 39

75 Turkey 41 42 45 50 49

75 Bulgaria 41 41 43 41 41

79 Belarus 40 32 31 29 31

83Bosnia and

Herzegovina39 38 39 42 42

83 Albania 39 36 33 31 33

90The FYR of

Macedonia37 42 45 44 43

95 Kosovo 36 33 33 33 34

123 Moldova 30 33 35 35 36

CPI 2016

Score 47 (global

average 43; european average 63)

60° rank in the global herarchy of 176 Countries Paesi

Nearly at the end in Europe

• Perception measurement fails to provide a credible assessment of the real dimension of corruption in specific countries and its time variation since are not based on evidence

For instance in Italy, paradox that the more institutions work the higher becomes the corruption index Due to several inputs of detection as a mandatory prosecution, judiciary totally independent from government, freedom of information leading to resounding exposure to corruption cases by media can affect negatively the perception of corruption

8

The contribute of victimization survey

Indicators useful to know:

• The dark figure of corruption

• Not only the judicial iter

• Which sectors are more involved in corruption

• Indirect experience of corruption and recommendations, that are very interesting in order to detect the humus for corruption

Main goal: petty corruption

Focus: interaction between citizens and Public official

9

Steps….. Long planning phase Cognitive test (SASU 2007- 2008)

Literature review (2014)

Focus groups and interviews to experts (2014- 2015)

Pilot survey July 2015 (CATI – CAPI) on 5 metropolitan municipality

Final survey October 2015 – June 2016 (CATI – CAPI) about 40.000 persons 18-80

10

Cognitive test and pilot survey on the European

Safety Survey (SASU)

E30 In the last five years did any government official or official in local administration, for instance a police officer, a judge or an inspector in your country ask you, or expect you to give a bribe for his or her services? [BRIBE: EXTRA PAY, ADDITIONAL SERVICE OR MATERIAL GAIN FOR OFFICIAL SERVICE]

For the Italian context, 1 question is not enough

• The wording recall the grand corruption • Words as government official or official in local administration are

not understood and evoke again grand corruption • Terms “bribe” translated in Italian evokes big amount of money • Consider also gift, exchange of goods • Presence of intermediaries, not necessarily direct relationship • To introduce the victim role to help disclosure

11

Steps… Focus groups and key experts interviews

with judges, journalists, academics, politicians, citizens, representatives of NGO, doctors, representatives of workers (trade association) ….

12

Clienterism/nepotism/reccomendat

ions

Perception

about corrupti

on widespr

ead Tolerance

Opinions

about the

Whis-blowe

r

Indirect

experience

Quality of

services

Direct

experience

Dynamics:

costs, mediato

rs, reportin

g

Corruption in

private sector SECTORS *

What did you obtain paying (efficac

y)

Awareness

about citizens protecti

on rights

What to do

in order

to chan

ge

civil servants

Trust on

services

Expert/ - academic yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes

Cuis (Cnel e other association, Anac)

Yes

Disagreement

Yes Yes

Bank of Italy

Yes , after experienc

e Yes Yes

World Bank No Yes Yes

Focus experts academics – institutions no Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISTAT (experts on institution survey) Yes Yes Focus politicians experts–associations

disagreement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

ONG health rights

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Journalist 1

Yes no

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Journalist 2

Yes no Yes Yes Yes

Academic Expert on health Yes Yes Yes sì Yes Yes

Doctors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Judges

Yes Yes Yes Yes

* Settori: Amministrazione pubblica (sanità - incluso medico di base -, istruzione, lavoro, enti locali, giustizia, dogane, fisco, controlli, licenze, permessi, pensioni, invalidità) Imprese di servizi (luce, gas, trasporti etc.)

International referent points UNODC

WORLD BANK

Mexico, Afghanistan, Iran, Uruguay…

Several Survey models:

- based on evaluation of services - based on Victimization context (on business and

household)

The planning phase

Our choice: an ad hoc module, at the end of the main victimization survey questionnaire

14

Output of planning phase

Where: sectors

• Health

• Social assistance

• Education

• Job searching

• Public offices

• Justice

• Police and army

• Public utilities

What: more specific definitions

• Private and public sector

• Both corruption and bribery

• Individual and household

• Indirect experience of corruption

• Vote-buying (European, national and administrative elections)

• recommendations/nepotism

(grease the wheels)

15

Who: actors

• Direct relationship

• Intermediaries/

Mediators

• Economic activities

• Profession

• Education

Dynamic in details

• The way: how was requested

• If he/she payed (money, gift, other…)

• The amount: how much…

• Would you do again … and (if not) reasons for not repeating

• Was it useful…..

• The reporting: (if yes) to whom; (if not) reasons

Output of planning phase

16

Bribery: un agreement (pactum sceleris) between a public officer and a private person (artt. 318-322

Penal Code)

Corruption (art. 317 Penal Code): when a public officer , because of his power, obliges someone else

to pay o to do favors, to him-self or to others

Bribery in private sector (art. 2635 Civil Code)

Vote-buying

From juridical definition to questions

17

The pilot survey

Sample of 650 persons in 5 metropolitan cities (Milano, Padova, Roma, Napoli, Palermo)

Mix mode tecnique: Cati/Capi

After the pilot we changed: • Some questions • the target population (till 80 years old) • The interviewers training

Questions on corruption PERSONS 18 - 80 years old

NOW, I WILL ASK YOU ABOUT EPISODES AND BEHAVIOR, YOU COULD BE VICTIM. PLEASE CONSIDER ONLY SITUATION HAPPENED IN ITALY.

Does it ever happen to you or to someone in your family, that someone makes you understood, or suggested you, or asked you directly or through other persons, extra pay, a gift or others favors, in order to obtain a service or to speed up it?

This question-request is inserted in the 8 sectors we

investigated, like in a screening

Example from health: 16.SAN1 Does it ever happen to you or to someone in your family, when you need to do a medical visit, a diagnostic test, an operation, that a doctor, a healthcare assistant or others, in order to do what you need or to speed it, makes you understood, or suggested you, or asked you directly or through other persons, extra pay, a gift or others favours?

If no (probing question)

……. Ask for money to operate or to give assistance in a public hospital…..?

And for all respondent

An other question… not specifically corruption in our penal code

…. A doctor…Make you understood before the child birth/operation…in the public sector, you need to do a medical visit in the private doctor’s office?

Filter questions

21

Without filter questions for:

• Health

• Education

• Job searching

• Public utilities

Filter questions for :

• Assistance

• Public offices

• Justice

• Police and army THEN THE CORRUPTION

REQUEST

• Prevalence rate (life course, 3 years, last 12 months) as a whole and by sector

health, social assistance, education, job searching, public offices, justice, police and army, public utilities

• Incidence rate (3 years, last 12 months)

as a whole and by sector

Indicators

Victimization survey contribute

23

• Rate of indirect victimization by region and sector

(health, social assistance, education, job searching, public offices, justice, police and army, public utilities)

• Rates on the diffusion of the culture of the phenomenon

Indicators

Victimization survey contribute

24

Le domande del questionario: la corruzione

diretta

È MAI CAPITATO A LEI O A QUALCUNO DEI FAMILIARI CHE VIVONO CON LEI, QUANDO AVETE CERCATO UN LAVORO, PARTECIPATO A CONCORSI PUBBLICI, O CERCATO DI AVVIARE UN’ATTIVITÀ LAVORATIVA CHE QUALCUNO VI ABBIA FATTO CAPIRE O VI ABBIA SUGGERITO O CHIESTO, ANCHE TRAMITE ALTRE PERSONE, DENARO, REGALI O ALTRI FAVORI? E VI È MAI CAPITATO CHE VI CHIEDESSERO DENARO O ALTRO PER AVERE PROMOZIONI, TRASFERIMENTI DI SEDE O ALTRE AGEVOLAZIONI NEL LAVORO?

25

Le domande del questionario: la corruzione

“indiretta”

CHE LEI SAPPIA, RICHIESTE DI DENARO, REGALI, FAVORI SONO STATE FATTE A QUALCUNO CHE CONOSCE DI PERSONA, COME PARENTI, AMICI, VICINI DI CASA, COLLEGHI DI LAVORO, PER ESSERE FACILITATI:

• In occasione di ricoveri, interventi chirurgici e cure sanitarie • Quando hanno fatto richiesta di benefici e sussidi assistenziali (pensioni,

contributi, alloggi) • In occasione di esami o iscrizioni a scuole o università pubbliche e private • Per essere assunti in un posto di lavoro o avviare un’attività lavorativa • Nel disbrigo di pratiche presso uffici pubblici (Comune, Catasto, Agenzia delle

entrate, Inps, Asl etc.) • In occasione di denunce, richieste di interventi o di altri contatti con le Forze

dell’ordine o con le forze armate • In occasione di processi/cause penali, civili o amministrative • Per pratiche con aziende dell’energia elettrica, del gas, dell’acqua o dei telefoni

26

Altri fenomeni: le raccomandazioni

A PARTE GLI EPISODI DI CUI ABBIAMO GIÀ PARLATO, LEI CONOSCE PERSONALMENTE QUALCUNO CHE È STATO RACCOMANDATO O CHE È STATO FAVORITO PER OTTENERE: 1. Un posto di lavoro, un avanzamento di carriera o un trasferimento di

sede di lavoro 2. Una licenza, un permesso, una concessione 3. Che è stato raccomandato per avere un alloggio popolare o un

appartamento di enti pubblici o un sussidio, una pensione di invalidità o altri benefici economici

4. L’ammissione a determinate scuole, università, al dottorato o a scuole di specializzazione o promozioni a scuola, a esami universitari o esami di Stato per l’iscrizione ad un Albo professionale

5. O che è stato raccomandato per la cancellazione di multe o di altre sanzioni

6. … o per essere favorito in cause giudiziarie?

LE È CAPITATO CHE QUALCUNO LE ABBIA CHIESTO UNA RACCOMANDAZIONE (UN FAVORE) O DI FARE DA INTERMEDIARIO CON ALTRE PERSONE? O CHE QUALCUNO LE ABBIA OFFERTO DENARO/REGALI PER OTTENERE UN VANTAGGIO? CONSIDERI ANCHE LE RICHIESTE DA PARTE DI SUOI FAMILIARI, PARENTI E AMICI

• (at work) Did you ever see exchange of favours or of money you considered not legal or not appropriate? (if yes) what did you do?

27

• Recommendations: Proportion of persons «helped» by region and sector

A pervasive phenomenon

Victimization survey contribute

For professionals and entrepreneurs….

ACCORDING TO YOU, HOW OFTEN HAPPEN FOR BUSINESSES LIKE YOURS …. TO BE OBLIGED TO PAY OR TO DO GIFTS OR FAVORS TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN ORDER TO….

1. To obtain permission, license or to speed up...

2. To be helped in case of fiscal control

3. To win contracts with public institution

4. To obtain permit and licence for import and export

5. To speed up the judicial iter

28

(if often or always) DID IT HAPPEN TO YOU?

Victimization survey contribute

30

The final survey • Data collection was carried out from October 2015 to

June 2016

• Sample of 40.000 persons 18 - 80 years old

• Mix mode technique CATI/CAPI

• Quality indicators:

- Cooperation rate: CATI 67,0% - CAPI 68,0% - Refusal rate: CATI 21,0% - CAPI 23,0% - Interruption rate: CATI 1,0% - CAPI 0,0% - interviewers evaluation: 90% CAPI - 87% CATI no or at least small difficulty; 82,6% CATI – 84% CAPI: interviewees sincerity

A good answer from citizens

…. Do you understand of what we are speaking?

Yes, about corruption

…. What do you think?

It was the right time Istat did it

But also some uncertainty

….. I can’t tell it to you

31

In conclusion Meaningful

data

A small window on a sensitive topic

A measure

For the future: the needs • Business victimization survey

• Sources integration

• Joint analysis of experienced corruption and corruption tolerance and expressed civic values (from other surveys)

• In our module:

• More space in survey

• Solution about the problem of direct and indirect respondent

• Persons or household

• To solve the denominator problems

32

Challenges for comparability

• How many questions?

• Module versus ad hoc survey

• Each country has its own peculiarities

Under the G7 Italian presidency

• A workshop on the measurement of corruption

• To address the issue of more reliable indicators for accurate corruption measurement

• A starting point

• At experimental stage

• To manage accurate data for a better governance

• To appraise public administration performance

• To adjust countermeasures against corruption

Agreement Istat- ANAC (National Anti-Corruption Authorities) March 2016

• The goal: to develop the knowledge of the phenomenon of corruption through initiatives and structured surveys on experience of the phenomenon

• 4 areas

1. implementation of survey on business companies on corruption phenomena and the quality of the information disseminated by the Public Administration;

2. cooperation on reference prices;

3. use of databases, of information assets and standardization management categories in each institution;

4. development of structured surveys on perception and corruption experience and development of indicators

Questions for reflection

• Which is boundary from bribery and corruption

• What to include in SDG: which form of corruption

• How to solve the denominator problem mix with the reference time

• Sequence of the questionnaire: experience or perception/tolerance first