Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/235428826/Restore-the-Health-of-Your-Organisation-A-Pratical-Guide-to-Curing-and-Preventing-Corruption-in-Local-Governments-and-Communities
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 02:23:20
Document Index: 449814231

Matched Legal Cases: ['art.\n4', 'art.\n5', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1']

Restore the Health of Your Organisation - A Pratical Guide to Curing and Preventing Corruption in Local Governments and Communities | Governance | Strategic Management
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadRestore the Health of Your Organisation - A Pratical Guide to Curing and Preventing Corruption in Local Governments and CommunitiesUploaded by United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)GovernanceStrategic ManagementLeadershipLeadership & MentoringTransparency (Behavior)5.0 (1)DownloadEmbedDescription: The Guide uses a medical metaphor (prevention and cure) to describe a step-by-step strategic planning process to address corruption in local government: - Triggering events, wake-up calls, urgent ...View MoreThe Guide uses a medical metaphor (prevention and cure) to describe a step-by-step strategic planning process to address corruption in local government: - Triggering events, wake-up calls, urgent surgery; - Building a guiding coalition; - Diagnosis, planning courses of action and mobilizing resources; - Field-testing and implementation; - Impact evaluation, stabilization and on-going prevention. This approach is illustrated by a lead story & case studies. The Guide ends with 30 practical tools to help translate this approach into action.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIII
Copyright © Joint copyright between United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2006
and Partners Foundation for Local Development, FPDL, 2006.
Email: tcbb@unhabitat.org
Partners Foundation for Local Development (FPDL)
Str. Piata Amzei 7-9, sc D, et 6, ap 34, Sector 1, Bucuresti, Romania
Tel/fax: +40 21 313 56 64, +40 21 313 56 68 or +40 21 314 19 66
Website: http://www.fpdl.ro
This publication has not been formally edited by the United Nations.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this manual do not imply
degree of development. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of this manual do
not necessarily reflect the view of the United Nations Human Settlement Programme or its
UN-HABITAT: HS AND ISBN NUMBERS
HS/863/06 VOLUME ONE (CONCEPTS AND STRATEGIES)
ISBN 92-1-131407-0 (SERIES)
ISBN 92-1-131851-3 (VOLUME ISBN NUMBER)
HS/864/06 VOLUME TWO (PROCESS FACILITATION TOOLS)
ISBN 92-1-131852-1 (VOLUME ISBN NUMBER)
FPDL: ISBN NUMBERS
ISBN GENERAL FOR BOTH VOLUMES: 973-7750-22-5
ISBN VOL. 1: 973-7750-23-3 (CONCEPTS AND STRATEGIES BY FRED FISHER)
ISBN VOL. 2: 973.7750-24-1 (PROCESS FACILITATION TOOLS BY ANA VASILACHE AND NICOLE RATA)
Designed and printed in Bucharest, Romania by FPDL
Cover by Ioana Rata
The publication of this manual was made possible through the financial support of Local
Government Initiative of the Open Society Institute - LGI/OSI, UN-HABITAT and FPDL
Corruption has a profoundly corrosive effect on local governance and the
quality of life in cities. When decisions are taken to serve private rather
than public interests, they undermine the ability of local government to
promote social and economic development and to protect the
environment. As a result citizens of all walks of life, but especially the
poor, suffer the consequences in terms of loss of quality of life and the
ability to pursue sustainable livelihoods. UN-HABITAT, as the focal agency for local authorities within the UN
system, promotes a governance approach to combating corruption. Good
urban governance is based on effective participation, transparency and
accountability, and responsiveness to the needs and priorities of the majority of citizens.
Lack of participation often means that the poor do not have a voice in determining their
development priorities. Complex and non-accountable municipal administrative practices
tend to increase citizen apathy leading to lower revenues and less spending on social
programmes and basic services. Non-responsive allocation of resources can lead to
disproportionate spending on the priorities of the better-off rather than on those of the poor.
Non-transparent land allocation practices push the poor to the urban periphery and
hazardous areas, depriving them of secure access to a major productive asset. Concern for improved standards of governance, transparency, and accountability is now
spreading across the globe. At the local level in many countries, citizens groups are holding
their governments to account. But change can also start from within the local government.
Using a medical metaphor, this "Practical Guide to Curing and Preventing Corruption in Local
Governments and Communities" provides a wealth of suggestions on how to initiate such a
process. It offers a hands-on capacity-building approach to restore the health of local
governments, increase revenues and improve service delivery, reduce poverty and social
exclusion, and uphold ethical standards and practices. This Guide is the result of an initiative by Partners Foundation for Local Development (FPDL)
supported by the Local Government Initiative Program (LGI) of the Open Society Institute and
by UN-HABITAT. The Guide is a follow-up of the publication on "Tools to Promote
Transparency in Local Governance", which was developed jointly by UN-HABITAT and
Transparency International, under the umbrella of the Global Campaign on Urban
Governance. The new Guide also complements the range of local governance training
materials developed by our Training and Capacity Building Branch.
I hope this Guide will contribute to promoting good urban governance and to the realization
of the Millennium Development Goals. We welcome your views on how to improve this
Guide including lessons and experiences from the field.
The inspired words of Margaret Read symbolize our hope that we can
change the world for better, through our work as a Romanian NGO,
together with our allies from LGI/OSI, UN-HABITAT, and our network of
CEE/SEE trainers and training organizations. How to make the change? FPDL, LGI/OSI and UN-HABITAT answer is the
Regional Program "Working Together", an international program through
which we identify the change agents, trainers and training organizations,
and build their capacity to promote good governance and democratic
leadership in their countries. The capacity building activities include
Training of Trainers, Training Manuals and Methodologies Dissemination,
Networking and Experience Exchange, and Support for National Programs Development. "Restore the Health of Your Organization - a Practical Guide to curing and Preventing
Corruption in Local Governments and Communities" continues the fruitful collaboration
between FPDL, LGI/OSI and UN-HABITAT in developing and disseminating new training
manuals. The book "Corrupt Cities - a practical guide to cure and prevent corruption", by
Robert Klitgaard, Ronald Maclean-Abaroa, and H. Lindsey Parris, has been the guiding
Why the focus on local governments? While decentralization and the adoption of democratic
self-governance processes at the local level have brought the promise of better governance,
they have also spawned opportunities for decentralized corruption. When local governments
ignore the need for transparency and accountability systems, they provide new temptations
for the misuse of public offices for personal gain. In the transition period toward democracy,
the implementation of new policies through sick institutions, and the weak enforcement of
the new rules, increases the level of corruption. There is a huge need to fix the systems that
breed corruption at local level and public leaders are expected to take the initiative to restore
the health of their organizations. Is this expectation a realistic one? Yes! And yet, we realize that this will not be easy. We know
that corruption has always existed, since the beginning of humanity and human
organizations. We also know that corruption exists in all countries; however, it tends to be
more damaging in poor countries thus adding an additional challenge to local governments
in these countries. Corruption undermines institutions, thwarts the rule of law, is a
disincentive to investors, and results in inequitable distribution of wealth and power. We
know that many anti-corruption campaigns around the world have failed because they
either took an exclusively legalistic approach, relied mainly on appeals to morality, were
pursued without commitment, or became corrupt by focusing mainly on imprisoning
political opposition. But our initiative is based on a significant dose of optimism because we know there are
successful anti-corruption initiatives, at the level of organizations, cities, projects, ministries, or
even entire countries, from which we can learn. If La Paz, New York, Hong Kong, or State College,
have succeeded in transforming difficult corrupt situations into catalysts for administrative
reforms, why should other cities and other public institutions not succeed also?
FPDL FOREWORD
We also believe there are local public leaders and managers, who have the courage to name
the illness of their organizations, recognize its symptoms, diagnose it, and make the necessary
changes to treat it. The manual "Restore the Health of Your Organization" was developed for
these courageous leaders as a source of inspiration and a practical guide to action.
This Practical Guide describes a strategic approach to curing and preventing corruption and
provides a set of tools for local leaders to use in the planning and implementation of their
plan of action. In addition to their commitment and courage to restore the health of their
organization and community, they will know how to:
• Identify and treat, with priority, the most damaging and dangerous forms of corruption
• Change corrupt systems not (only) corrupt individuals
• Elaborate short, medium and long term objectives for their anti-corruption strategy
• Work with employees, as well as with the community members, in a participatory process,
to collect and analyze data on corrupting practices, and identify curative actions
• Work with an external consultant, or facilitator, who would provide assistance in
conducting the corruption-curing intervention.
We hope that those who have the power to make the necessary changes to restore the
health of their local governments and communities will use this Practical Guide. And it
should be no surprise that healthier local governments would be also more effective,
efficient, and just organizations.
This Practical Guide is the result of a lot of hard work and commitment on the part of a small
group of thoughtful committed citizens and I want to acknowledge and thank them all:
• Ronald MacLean Abaroa, one of the Corrupt Cities book author, former mayor of La Paz,
Bolivia, founding member of Transparency International and its first president for Latin
America, for inspiring and supporting our work
• Fred Fisher, our respected mentor and the main author of this and many other manuals,
for his professionalism, attractive and unique style, and last but not least his patience in
• Nicole Rata, FPDL Deputy Director, for our collaboration in writing the manual Toolkit part
• The Expert Meeting participants for their professional support in improving manual first draft:
o Rafael Tuts, UN-HABITAT Training and Capacity Building Branch Chief
o Tomasz Sudra, Katalin Pallai - LGI Steering Committee members
o Adrian Ionescu - LGI Executive Director
o Viola Zentai and Irina Faion - LGI Program Managers
o Lisa Hammond - IREX Moldova Citizen Participation Program Chief of Party o Victor Giosan - Romanian Government General Secretariat, Secretary of State
o Artashes and Jurgita Gazaryan - School of Democracy and Administration, Lithuania
o Juli Hohxa - Partners Albania Director
o Nicole Roswell - Partners for Democratic Change
• Gudrun Halgrumsdottir, Rejkjavik Akademy, for her support in organizing in Iceland, the
least corrupt country of the world, the Expert Meeting that focused on improving the
initial draft of the manual. • And last but not least, the LGI Steering Committee and UN-HABITAT for supporting this
manual's elaboration and printing
Executive Director - Partners Foundation for Local Development - FPDL
UN HABITAT FOREWORD III
FPDL FOREWORD V
BUILDING A GUIDING COALITION 3
Tool 1 - Why Do We Want to Cure Corruption? 5
Tool 2 - How Powerful Are We? 7
Tool 3 - Do We Need to Involve Others? 10
Tool 4 - What Is Our Guiding Star? 12
Tool 5 - What Is Our Desired Future? 14
Tool 6 - How Much Time and Support Do We Have? 16
Tool 7 - What Are the Main Steps of the Intervention Process? 18
Tool 8 - What Are Our Roles and Responsibilities? 19
Tool 9 - How Do We Work in Our Team? 20
Tool 10 - How Do We Plan Our Meetings? 21
Tool 11 - Invalid Excuses Not to Address Corruption 22
Tool 12 - Corruption IQ-Test 23
Tool 13 - Communication Strategies 25
Tool 14 - What Are the Main Functions of Our Local Government? 29
Tool 15 - Functions Analysis: Where Corruption Viruses Breed 31
Tool 16 - Functions Analysis: Amount of Public Money 34
Tool 17 - Functions Analysis: Number of Citizens Negatively Impacted 36
and Level of Risk for Their Health and Security Tool 18 - Functions Analysis: Identifying Functions 38
that Are Easier to Change
Tool 19 - Identifying Key Areas of Intervention 40
Tool 20 - Another Method of Identifying Key Areas of Intervention 41
Tool 21 - Understanding Key Areas of Intervention 43
Tool 22 - Gathering Data and Defining the Problems 45
Tool 23 - Problem Tree: Identifying Cause-Effect Relationships 48
PLANNING ACTIONS AND MOBILIZING RESOURCES 49
Tool 24 - Courses of Action and Mobilizing Resources 51
Tool 25 - Another Way of Planning Courses of Action 52
Tool 26 - Detailed Action Plan 54
Tool 27 - Working with Management to Plan Courses of Action 56
IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE 59
Tool 28 - Stakeholder Identification: Who Will Gain and Who Will Lose? 61
Tool 29 - Assessing and Overcoming Risks in Implementing Courses of Action 62
Tool 30 - Assessing Support for Implementation of Courses of Action 63
Tool 31 - Implementation Plan 64
Tool 32 - Monitoring the Implementation Process 65
Tool 33 - Progress Evaluation and Redesign 66
ONGOING PREVENTION 67
Tool 34 - Clarifying Roles in The New Situation 69
Tool 35 - Preventing Corruption: A Framework for Policy Analysis 70
Tool 36 - Sustainable Solutions: Preventing Corruption 73
Tool 37 - Sustainable Solutions: Effectiveness and Efficiency 74
Tool 38 - Sustainable Solutions: Motivating Personnel 75
Tool 39 - Linking Rewards to Performance 76
Volume 2 provides a set of practical tools for local leaders who have the will and courage to
initiate and implement a corruption-curing-preventing intervention in their organizations
and, external consultants/facilitators who are invited by these leaders to plan and guide the
participatory intervention. We have designed these Process Facilitation Tools to inspire users and to provide them with
a logical frame for thinking and action. The Tools are organized in five clusters, which follow the planned change process stages
described in Volume 1 - Part III:
• Building a Guiding Coalition • Diagnosis
• Planning Courses of Actions and Mobilizing Resources
• Ongoing Prevention
We want to stress once again that the planned change process may have in different theories
different stages, or even names, but all have in common three main objectives: to know the
present, to imagine the desired future and to decide on the way to arrive there. Here are some other useful ideas for using these Tools:
• The sequencing of the various stages and the tools as outlined should not be followed
rigorously. The proposed process is not a linear one. At times, and for different reasons
based on your specific needs, it may be necessary to go back and forth among the
stages/tools, or to skip some of them. • Do not use the tools in a mechanical way. For example, the results from the use of an
exercise may not immediately lead to a decision, but rather be input to the decision
making process of the coalition.
• The stages form a cyclical process, once the cycle is complete, it should lead you to
another cycle, based on what have you learned and accomplished. • The process facilitation tools are designed to be supplemented with other technical tools
and studies, such as surveys, review of financial data, or specific studies and researches,
which are needed to inform the work of the guiding coalition to document and evaluate
the existing situation or to estimate the impact of the planned change. In this respect,
you may want to involve think tanks or expert groups to carry out specific tasks. • Adapt creatively the proposed tools to your specific situation
In order to use these Tools effectively, those who take the responsibility to plan and guide the
participatory intervention process should have: a high level of commitment and full
availability over an extended period of time; and specific knowledge and skills related to
facilitating communication, group work, planned change, and problem solving processes. You are encouraged to use the other UN-HABITAT/FPDL manuals as a source of inspiration.
Check out their websites www.unhabitat.org and www.fpdl.ro in order to learn more about:
• Tools to Support Transparency in Local Governance offering 29 tools on assessment and
monitoring, access to information and public participation, promotion of ethics,
professionalism and integrity, and institutional reform.
• Local Elected Leadership Series - describing the 12 leadership competencies that foster
good governance performance by elected officials
• Building Bridges Series - linking local governments and citizens into working together
• Local Government Financial Management Series: with in-depth knowledge and systems
• Participatory Budgeting Toolkit
• The series of handbooks What is Decision-Making, What is Participatory Planning, What
is Communication, What is Negotiation, What is Conflict - offering useful knowledge to
be applied in the difficult corruption-curing-preventing process
• The Organizational Development Manual providing a general view on different aspects of
organizations to help you make rigorous diagnosis
All these manuals provide practical tools that complement the present Toolkit. BUILDING A GUIDING COALITION
This tool can be used by Guiding Coalition members, as well as by an extended group of key
stakeholders, in order to share ideas and build common understanding on why they want to
start the corruption curing intervention in their local government, and to identify the
reasons why curing corruption is important and urgent at the same time.
1 Use Nominal Group Technique to collect group members' answers to the question: What are your main concerns regarding the corruption in our Local Government?
Provide everybody with one-two cards, (or more, depending on how many persons are in
the group) and ask them to write down one idea on each card.
2 After 5 minutes, invite them to present their ideas in plenary, one by one, and put the
cards on a wall. In order to facilitate clustering of ideas, ask group members to arrange
their ideas close to a similar one. 3 After all presentations, if the case, further organize the cards in plenary, with the help of
participants, and ask for their comments. 4 Explain that it is crucial to build a common understanding on why they think it is
important and urgent at the same time to cure and prevent corruption. Ask the following
What would happen if nobody were doing anything? What would be the benefits if we are successful in our attempt to cure and prevent
corruption in our Local Government?
5 Depending on the size of the group, this discussion (answering the two questions) could
be in plenary (if the group is small, 5-7 persons), or could be done in small groups (if the
group is bigger that 8 persons).
6 Ask group members to register the answers on flipchart paper and present in plenary.
7 Synthesize the main reasons based on ideas generated and ask again:
So, why do we want to cure corruption in our local government? 8 Categorize answers on a flipchart as in Annex 1. Retain reasons/ideas which are in the
category: urgent and important.
Tool 1 - Why Do We Want to Cure Corruption?
Annex 1: Important and Urgent
Guiding Coalition members assess their power sources in order to be sure that they have
enough information, expertise, and relationships, to be able to influence and guide
successfully the process of restoring their Local Government health.
The change process initiator/leader(s) invites trusted collaborators and experts to be
members of the Guiding Coalition. During one of their first meetings the Guiding Coalition members have to assess their
strengths - the types of power they have in view of the challenge they are undertaking.
1 Each member receives a handout with the power type definitions. See attached Annex 2 Each member of the group assesses, based on his/her own knowledge and perceptions,
the types of power that the other members of the group hold. 3 Each member marks with a dot on the flipchart the respective box having the name of
the assessed person and the type of power. The flipchart is proposed to be prepared as in
Annex 2, attached.
4 After everybody marks their perceptions, each person has to comment if they agree with
the perceptions of the other members of the group and if some of the power types are
missing but the person thinks he/she has them. 5 Members of the Guiding Coalition discuss the assessment results. Some issues to be
• The powers they have, what is the most extended, what is the least present;
• What types of power are missing and needed, and who else they might identify and
invite to be a member of the Guiding Coalition.
Tool 2 - How Powerful Are We?
Annex 1: Handout with Power types definitions
Adapted from UN HABITAT Elected Leadership and Management series: "The Councilor as
Power-Broker," by Fred Fisher and David Tees.
• Reward power is based on the perception of others that the person who holds it can
provide rewards, such as promotions, favors, recognition, access to material, information
and other types of resources that are important to them. This power, in public
institutions, is based mainly on legal rules and regulations.
• Coercive power results from the perception of others that the person who holds it has the
ability to punish - to inflict pain, reprimand, demote, and take away privileges. This
power, in public institutions, is based ,mainly on legal rules and regulations.
• Legitimate power is based on the official position the person holds in the organization
and community. The position gives the person the legal right and authority to exert
power over and influence others.
• Personal power comes from the perception of others that the person who holds it is
charismatic, possesses personal traits that engender responses such as respect,
obedience, admiration, sympathy and loyalty.
• Expert power is based on the perception of others that the person who holds it possesses
some special knowledge, skills, or expertise, and has access to professional information.
• Connection power is based on the perception of others that the person who holds it has
connections with influential or important people, and has access to information.
Annex 2: Flipchart for assessing Guiding Coalition members' power
We suppose that the Guiding Coalition has 6 members: Nicole - N, Maria - M, Ana - A, John - J, Tomas - T, and Fred - F.
Guiding Coalition members will build a common understanding on the main principles of
the change process and the advantages of following them: • Make the change process participatory inside the organization, to the extent is possible;
• Involve the community (private sector, citizens) in the change effort;
• Do not take punishment actions toward the majority of the staff members before
offering them a chance to be involved in the change process; andC
• Focus on changing systems and not individual values/mentality.
1 Distribute the questionnaire (see Annex 1) and explain how it should be completed. 2 Prepare a flipchart (see below) and invite participants to put dots to illustrate their
3 For each statement, invite those that are at the extremes of rating to discuss in plenary
and provide arguments for their answers. Allow other participants to comment and
register pro and cons for each statement as it emerges from discussions. 4 In conclusion, discuss why consultation and involvement is essential for successful
changes in organizations.
Tool 3 - Do We Need to Involve Others?
Please circle the number that best describes your opinion about each statement in the table
1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neither; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
If the group is too small, you could organize a dialogue, first in pairs, and after in plenary,
based on the questionnaire statements; allow people to provide arguments for each option. Tool 3 - Do We Need to Involve Others?
Guiding Coalition members agree on a common purpose, the Vision that will be the guiding
star of the change process their local government will go through in order to cure and
prevent corruption. At the end of this exercise Guiding Coalition members will have a Vision
statement that can be easily understood and communicated, and can raise audience
attention and interest. This tool may also be used with an extended group of the local government management
The Vision that Guiding Coalition members will elaborate and agree on will include:
• The core values and purpose of their healthy local government, and • A vivid picture of their healthy local government that the curing process will strive to
reach (what success will look like).
The Vision will guide the curing process so that the prescribed treatments will not become a
series of confusing and incompatible medications. The Vision will provide the glue that holds
together, at the beginning of the process, the Guiding Coalition members, and as the change
process unfolds, the entire organization. In order to articulate the Vision, Guiding Coalition members discuss and agree on common
• What core values does each of you bring to the work? (values so fundamental that you do
not expect any rewards for respecting them)
• What core values would you build in the healthy local government?
Articulate Core Purpose "Core purpose" is Local Government's main reason for being; the core purpose should make
people proud that they work for the local government because they have meaningful work
(work that has specific, positive impact on others). • What would happen in our community if our Local Government would cease to exist?
• What would happen in our community if our Local Government would not treat its
corruption illnesses? Why is it important that our Local Government be healthy?
Articulate the desired future
The desired future consists of achievement of an ambitious goal, as challenging as climbing
high mountains. The desired future should be so exciting that it would continue to keep the
organization motivated even if the leaders change. The desired future should be audacious,
ambitious and creative. Express the desired future in words that describe an image that people can carry around in
their heads. Feelings like passion and excitement are essential parts of the vivid description. Imagine you are 5 (or 10) years in the future. • What would you like to see?
• How should our healthy local government look? like?lik
• What has our local government achieved?
Tool 4 - What Is Our Guiding Star?
Put together all ideas and articulate your Vision of the Healthy Local Government. If you do
this thoroughly, it will be your guiding star for at least the next ten years!
Depending on the number of Guiding Coalition members, agreed upon answers can be
processed in plenary through:
• Guided discussions and registering of main ideas/key words on the flipchart
• Answers written on cards and structured by similarities
• A smaller team of 2-3 persons that articulate the Vision statement and present it to the
whole group as the starting point for discussions and agreement
This tool should be applied through a workshop of 1-2 days, having as objectives:
• To build a common awareness on the existing state of local government health • To define events/factors that could influence the local government's state of health in the
future • To build a common understanding about the desired future • To increase individuals' commitment to action Process
Up to 50-60 people could be invited, representing all of the functional areas and levels of the
local government. It is also possible to invite representatives of NGOs, customers and
suppliers, professional associations who are interested or are affected by the Local
Government's state of health.
The group profile and the specific invitees, as well as the focus and design of the workshop
should be discussed and decided by the Guiding Coalition members. The workshop has four segments, each lasting up to a half day. The participants sit at tables
of five to eight persons, with flipchart papers, marking pen and tape. Depending on the focus
and assigned tasks, grouping may vary during the workshop (group membership may be
assigned or based on self-selection).
1. Focus on past
a Each participant is asked to individually make notes on significant events/factors they
can recall relative to the past 15-20 years that influenced the organization's health
and had impact on up to 3 levels: individual, organization (Local Government), and
community. b Register all the events/factors in plenary and define the list of most significant and
important events. c The group at each table is asked to analyze the impact across these events, each group
for one of the following levels: at individual, Local Government and community level,
and to define good and bad trends, the direction of movement, and to extract patterns
d Each table is asked to report in plenary and the facilitator should take notes.
e Good and bad trends, as well as the direction of movement of each trend, are
discussed and interpreted in plenary. 2. Focus on present
This component includes activities that focus on present factors, both external and
internal, that are shaping the future health of the Local Government. a Analyze and define Main External factors:
• Participants are asked to develop in groups the list of the most important events
they think are influencing their Local Government's future health • Each group selects priorities from the list
b Analyze and define the Main Internal factors: • Participants are asked to generate a list of "prouds" and "sorries" relative to the
current health of their Local Government
• Participants vote the "proudest prouds" and the "sorriest sorries" • Group results are displayed and discussed in plenary. The Guiding Coalition members
probe and the facilitator notes key statements and summarizes them on flipcharts.
Tool 5 - What Is Our Desired Future?
This component elaborates the desired future, based on identified factors which can
shape this future:
• New groups are formed and are given the task to imagine the most desirable, attainable
future five years out, of a healthy local government with adequate systems in place to
address corruption. The desired future should include a description of the impact of a
healthy local government on individuals and the community. • All the groups present their results in plenary and a synthesis that includes all ideas is
realized to illustrate the desired future of the healthy local government and its impact
on individuals and the community as a whole. 15
Guiding Coalition members think about the time and the support, inside and outside the
organization, they have in order to identify the appropriate approach to be used in starting
This tool can be used by Guiding Coalition members at the beginning to decide on the
general approach to start the curing process, but also in a later step, when deciding on the
courses of action for curing specific activities/functions of their local government. Remember the contingency: The Inclusive Collaboration strategy
If time is not a critical factor in making corruption-related decisions, and you have a
supportive environment in which to make decisions, you probably should collaborate with as
many key stakeholders as possible. In other words, build a strong base of support in the
organization and community. The Strategic Alliances strategy
If you don't have a supportive environment to either cure or prevent corruptive conditions
and you have time, it's probably best to base your decision on those strategic alliances that
can help you implement whatever decision(s) you plan to make. The Strategic Consultation strategy If time is critical to making decisions, i.e. to wait will only increase the organizational cancer
being grown by corruption, and you have a supportive environment, it will still be important
to consult with a few strategic stakeholders before making the decision. To use our medical
analogy regarding corruption in local governments, it's probably best not to engage in open
heart surgery without a backup team. Secondly, if the patient dies, you are not left making
all the funeral arrangements before they run you out of town. The Legitimate Power and Authority strategy There are times when you may not have much time to make decisions, you don't know if you
have a supportive environment, and you believe the decision must be made. In situations like
this, base your decision on the power and authority that is vested in your position, political,
or professional standing. After understanding the four types of planned change strategies, Guiding Coalition
members will analyze their own situation and decide on the appropriate strategies to be
used during the curing process, using the frame for analysis attached in Annex 1.
Tool 6 - How Much Time and Support Do We Have?
Annex 1: Deciding on the most appropriate approaches/strategies to be used
in starting the corruption curing process in our Local Government
Respond with 1 to 5 to the following statements, first individually, then mark on a flipchart
with dots each individual's answers and discuss results in the group.
Based on your collective perceptions on the time you have to make the necessary changes to
address corruption in your local government (how urgent and how important are the
problems to be addressed), as well as on the support you already have or you can gain for
your intervention, decide on the most appropriate approach/strategy.
1= I do not agree at all, 2= I do not agree, 3 = I am not decided, 4 = I agree, 5 = I totally agree
Note: if the Guiding Coalition members have insufficient information to answer these
questions, you should postpone this exercise until they can make informed decisions.
To support Guiding Coalition members' agreement on the intervention process steps in their
Local Government. This tool can also be used with an extended group of key stakeholders to
increase their understanding of the future change process steps. Process
Make clear to Guiding Coalition members that their main role includes: identifying the ill
areas of the organization (where corruption is breeding), collecting information in order to
find the real problems to be addressed and their solutions. In order to do that they have to
follow a logical path of specific steps. 1 Prepare 10 cards that name following steps:
• Form and build the Guiding Coalition team
• Diagnosis: decide on the main area(s) of intervention
• In-depth diagnosis: identify and analyze problems for the main area(s) of intervention
• Validate diagnostic results through other stakeholders' involvement
• Decide the short-term treatment: urgent surgery • Decide the medium- and long-term treatment: courses of action and resource
mobilization to implement treatment
• Test treatment (and redesign as needed)
• Implement treatment
• Monitor and evaluate treatment progress
• Stabilize health and plan preventive actions
If the group is larger than 5, you will need more than one set of cards, so that more teams
can do the same task in parallel. 2 Add 3-4 empty cards, for additional steps, to be completed by group members.
3 Ask group members to work in teams to discuss and sequence the proposed steps in a
logical order. Explain that they may write on the empty cards other steps they consider
useful. 4 Facilitate the group(s)' report and discussions.
5 Make a 10 minute presentation:
• Why the process is not linear, and there are always back-and-forth movements, or
• Why Guiding Coalition members are responsible to decide on the most appropriate
process steps to fit their specific situation
6 Ask Guiding Coalition members to decide on the main steps, sequence and rough timing
of the intervention/curing process in their Local Government. Tool 7 - What Are The Main Steps of the Intervention Process?
This tool can be used to help Guiding Coalition members define their roles in coordinating
and supporting the intervention/curing process Process
This is the first step in clarifying roles and responsibilities among the Guiding Coalition
members. As the change process unfolds, further clarification of specific tasks would be
necessary, but this can be done only when Guiding Coalition members have more
information on the intervention process steps. At this starting stage, the process of assuming roles and responsibilities is based on: • Each member's identified sources of power • Each member's personal interest, availability and commitment
• The common understanding of all team members concerning the intervention process steps
• The common Vision of a healthy Local Government as a Guiding Star of their efforts
1 Ask members of the Guiding Coalition to define the most appropriate roles they think it
is realistic to perform during each of the main steps of the planned change process, based
on their sources of power, availability and commitment.
2 Discuss in plenary the proposals, in order to integrate everybody's ideas and wishes,
avoiding overlapping roles and identifying missing roles.
Review and summarize the final decision with the members of the Guiding Coalition. Tool 8 - What Are Our Roles and Responsibilities?
Guiding Coalition members agree on some rules that will govern their relations when
working together, so that their work will be efficient.
1 Ask Guiding Coalition members what work rules they propose in order to make their work
effective and efficient. Explain that whenever a team works to solve problems, the "multi-
head syndrome" surfaces: not everyone sees the problems in the same way or wants to
solve the problems in the same manner. People have different life experiences and values,
professions and interests. They see reality from different perspectives. In order to
overcome this syndrome and work effectively, people have to share their different
perspectives and listen carefully to each other. They need to follow some rules of behavior
in order to work together in an optimal way.
2 Each person can propose a rule, verify if other members agree and then, write it on the
flipchart as a commonly agreed upon rule of work.
3 Be sure that the following rules are present, or propose them if they are not identified by
• Take an active role - participate and be involved
• Focus discussions on the main theme • Commit time and energy to fulfill responsibilities
• Be open to new information and ideas
• Maintain patience toward each other and the process
• Listen - to show respect and avoid miscommunication
• Do homework and follow through on commitments
4 Conclude with the idea that team members' "focus, involvement and commitment" are
crucial elements of a successful intervention. When these three elements are present
they create team synergy, meaning that the team's power and energy are greater than
the sum of the various parts. Focus means staying on track and having all members 100% physically and mentally present.
Focus makes a group powerful.
Involvement means team members participate to build ownership, generate information,
ideas and decisions, and energy.
Commitment is the result of focus and involvement, and transforms a group into a team. 1
Adapted from "In Search of Solutions", by David Quinlivan- Hall and Peter Renner, 1990, 1994 PFR Training Associates Ltd., printed in Canada
Tool 9 - How Do We Work in Our Team?
Guiding Coalition members become aware of the importance to prepare their meetings
carefully, as well as the meetings to be held with extended stakeholders groups during the
1 Brainstorm a checklist of key aspects that need to be taken into account when preparing
2 Make sure that the following key ideas are not missing:
• Is the purpose of the meeting clear? How do you know?
• Is the process of the meeting (agenda) clear?
• Is the timeframe realistic? (Could the meeting purpose be achieved in the respective
timeframe?)
• Are the right people invited to attend? If a decision must be made, will the decision
makers attend the meeting? Should there be additions or deletions to the participant
• Will persons who have no interest attend our meeting?
• Do we need an expert? If yes, is he/she invited?
• Is advance material needed? If yes, is it prepared and available on time?
• Should some people bring special information, such as reports?
• What could hinder the effectiveness of our meeting? (some other issues, some hidden
3 Explain that careful preparation means having a checklist and is about involving key
players in advance.
Tool 10 - How Do We Plan Our Meetings?
Members of the Guiding Coalition should use this tool for building their capacity to motivate
people to support and join the curing process by invalidating the excuses most often used as
pretexts for not addressing corruption.
1 Ask the question: What are the main excuses people use to justify their lack of initiative and involvement
when it comes to addressing corruption?
2 Make a list of the most common excuses, complete it by including ideas from Part I, and
then ask members of the Guiding Coalition to prepare 3-5 minute presentations to
answer the question "for what reasons are each of the excuses invalid?" Depending on the size of the group, there are some options to carry out this task:
• Work in teams to prepare and deliver these presentations, each group working with all
• Work in groups or individually to each prepare a presentation to invalidate one to three
of these excuses 3 Before starting the presentations, explain: • Why it is important to be ready to give convincing arguments and persuade different
stakeholders, inside and outside the organization, that these excuses are invalid.
• What are the effective persuasion principles: listen actively before jumping to argue
your own ideas in order to understand the other point of view; acknowledge your
understanding of the other's point of view; use a calm tone of voice and behavior; use
objective data/information from respected sources; give your arguments; ask for
feedback (to be completed by participants!)
After the presentations, ask the group to identify excuses they think they will encounter
more often during the curing process, inside or outside their local government.
Tool 11 - Invalid Excuses Not to Address Corruption
This tool should be used by the Guiding Coalition, extended staff and/or during stakeholders
meeting, in order to raise awareness about the most often used excuses why not to address
corruption and build their capacity to motivate people to support and join the curing
process, by invalidating these excuses.
1 Give each participant the Corruption IQ-Test that is in Annex 1 and ask them to complete it.
2 Process results in plenary by having the IQ Test table drawn on flipchart paper and by
giving participants dots to mark their answers for each statement. 3 Discuss the excuses most often used to justify not doing anything about corruption in
your organization and community. Find reasons to invalidate them. You may use ideas
from the list of "Seven Invalid Excuses for not Fighting Corruption," included in the book
"Corrupt Cities - A Practical Guide to Cure and Prevention", pages 14-15.
Tool 12 - Corruption IQ-Test
An Informal Corruption IQ-Test
For each of the following statements, there are four choices to register whether you agree or
disagree with the statement-and how strongly. Please be as honest as possible as you think
about these statements. (Denial is not an option!) Remember, the scores are just between
you and your pencil. Scoring criteria: 1 = Strongly disagree
Guiding Coalition members elaborate a plan on how to communicate about their intention
to start a profound change process in their local government in order to cure and prevent
1 Alert the group to the dangers of poor communication. Explain that some of the errors to
be avoided when starting change processes in organizations include: • Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency about the illness to be cured; as well as
• Under-communicating during the entire intervention process, due to the lack of a
2 Describe the qualities of a good message, independent of the communication channel to
be used: • Simple and concise • Logical, credible and complete (all important information is included in a logical manner)
• Language adapted to the recipient (in terms of interest, level of information/
knowledge and culture)
3 Present the three channels of communication: Visual, Vocal, Verbal and explain that their
impact is in that order - first the visual, second the tone and music of the voice, third the
content expressed by actual words.
4 Ask group members to elaborate their first communication strategy by answering the
• Who should be informed about our decision to start the process of curing corruption
in our local government? • Why should we inform these target groups and what information should we give
them in order to achieve our purpose?
• How much detail is appropriate?
• How should we present the information?
• When should we present the information?
• What concerns/reactions will our information raise among target groups?
5 Check if the message announcing the change includes the following information:
• What is the Guiding Star?
• What is the proposed Change that will move the local government toward the
Guiding Star - the Vision • Why this Change is urgent and important (the bad consequences if the existing
situation/illness evolves as well as the potential benefits if the existing
situation/illness is treated and improves)
• What support is expected from the target audience (information, actions, or other
initiatives from possible allies)
6 Explain that the communication effort, with those who are involved in the change
process or are affected by it, is essential for success of the intervention, and that means
Guiding Coalition members should elaborate communication strategies at key intervals
during the intervention process. Tool 13 - Communication Strategies
The Guiding Coalition members should use this tool in order to agree on a list of main
functions for local government in order to sharpen the focus of the diagnostic process.
1 Ask the mayor/local government manager to bring to the meeting a list of functions as a
starting point for discussions. Complete the list with Guiding Coalition members' ideas,
after all members agree.
The following is a list that we will use further with some of the tools:
2 You may use a Mapping tool in order to generate ideas in a more creative way: each group
member may take a sheet of paper, draw in the middle a central image representing the
main subject, in our case "the local government". Radiating out from this central image
they draw branch-like lines representing their local government's main functions. From
each of these initial branches, they may radiate and develop other sub-divisions of these
functions. At the end of the branches they may depict the target clients, who are the final
beneficiaries of these functions.
3 Compare drawings and agree on a common Map describing the local government's main
functions and their final beneficiaries.
See as an example Annex 1 to this Tool.
Tool 14 - What Are the Main Functions of Our Local Government?
Annex 1 - Mapping Local Government Main Functions and Beneficiaries
Members of the Guiding Coalition should use this tool in order to make a preliminary
diagnosis and identify the functions in which corruption is most likely to exist within their
local government. Guiding Coalition preliminary diagnosis results should be validated by:
• Extended stakeholder group work using a similar tool
• Public opinion polls, interviews or surveys that collect citizens' perceptions on what are
the ill functions, with the most corrupt activities, within their local government
1 Each member of the Guiding Coalition receives handouts with the frame of analysis, as
shown in Annex 1 and 2. They have to assign each function of their local government
based on three variables: level of monopoly, level of discretion, and level of
accountability/transparency. 2 One by one, each function is discussed in plenary, with each member explaining why they
assigned the respective function to one quadrant or another. Consensus should be built
as to where to place the respective function: 1) to what extent local government has a
monopoly in performing the function; 2) to what extent public officials have discretion in
making decisions; and 3) to what extent local government is both accountable and
makes decisions in a transparent way. 3 The facilitator has cards with local government functions written one on each. After
reaching group agreement on appropriate placement, the function is assigned to the
designated quadrant on a flipchart.
4 The functions which are characterized by a high level of monopoly and discretion with a
low level of accountability and transparency are the ones where most likely corruption
viruses breed. (Remember C=M+D-A.)
5 Guiding Coalition members should compare the results of this analysis showing which
functions have the greatest potential for corruption with their own knowledge about
which functions are actually most corrupt in their local government. The results may
overlap, with functions having large potential for corruption also being perceived by the
group as being the most corrupt in the local context. If not, it may be that further data
collection is needed about the functions that have a high potential for corruption based
on the formula above.
Tool 15 - Functions Analysis: Where Corruption Viruses Breed
Annex 1: Functions that breed corruption
TooL 15 - Mapping the Corruption
Annex 2: Functions that breed corruption
Guiding Coalition Members identify the functions of their local government that funnel high
amounts of public money, where corruption could cause severe hemorrhage, draining public
money into private pockets for private gains. Process
1 The mayor or local government financial manager should give all group members
information about the amount of public budget/money funneled through the various
2 Functions are put in order based on how much public money is funneled through them.
See example in Annex 1.
3 The functions which funnel a high value of public money are the ones where corruption
most likely exists. These may be compared to see how much they overlap with functions
that have the biggest potential to breed corruption, as identified through the previous
Tool 16 - Functions Analysis: Amount of Public Money
Guiding Coalition Members rank the functions that breed corruption, looking at the number
of citizens impacted negatively and at the level of risk to their health and security based on
this impact. Process
The Guiding Coalition members have a series of cards, with one local government function
written on each. On a flipchart is a drawing of the frame of analysis, on which cards will be
placed based on group decisions.
1 Functions that have been identified as being corrupt are put in order according to how
many citizens are negatively impacted. The numbers of citizens are evaluated based on
the information provided by local government's managers. 2 Then the impact is analyzed and cards are moved, based on the level of risk for citizens
health or security, two important human basic needs that local government has to protect.
See Annex 1 as a model.
Tool 17 - Functions Analysis: Number of Citizens Negatively Impacted
and Level of Risk for Their Health and Security
Annex 1: Model of Analysis
Tool 17 - Functions Analysis: Number of Citizens Negatively Impacted and Level of Risk for Their Health and Security
diagnosis and identify which of the functions can be more easily changed. Extended stakeholders group working with a similar tool should validate guiding Coalition
preliminary diagnosis results.
1 Present the concepts underlying this frame of analysis:
The frame of analysis is adapted from Francis Fukuyama's frame of analysis for state
functions. He proposes to look at state functions through two variables:
• Specificity: functional outputs are more or less specific and measurable, meaning they
are more or less easy to monitor
• Transactions intensity: functions need fewer or greater numbers and levels of decisions
to have outputs, meaning they are more or less difficult/complex to manage
The functions that are easier to monitor (high specificity) and are managed through low
numbers and levels of decisions (low transactions intensity), are easier to be changed.
The most problematic to change are the functions that have low specificity and a high
volume of transactions. Because outputs are hard to measure, it is virtually impossible to
hold accountable those who are responsible. In this case there are two options to deal with these functions:
• The "exit" option - creating competition pressures through privatization or other means
• The "voice" option - empowering with political power, through public institutions, the
local communities that are directly affected by the function. This option requires local
communities to be organized.
2 Each member of the Guiding Coalition receives a handout with the frame of analysis, as
shown in Annex 1. They have to assign each function of their local government based on
two variables: specificity and transactions intensity. 3 One by one, each function is discussed in plenary, each member explaining why they
where to put the respective function. 4 The facilitator has cards and on each is written one local government function. After the
group agrees, the function is assigned to one quadrant on the flipchart.
5 The functions which are characterized by a high level of specificity and a low level of
transactions intensity are easier to be changed and, if identified also as corrupt, could
become priority areas of intervention for the curing process.
Tool 18 - Functions Analysis: Identifying Functions that Are Easier to Change
Annex 1: Specificity and transactions intensity
Tool 18 - Identifying Functions that Are Easier to Change
Guiding Coalition members, based on the results of the different frames of analysis, decide
key areas of intervention on which to focus their effort in order to cure and prevent
corruption in their local government.
Guiding Coalition members look at the local government functions that have a high
potential to breed corruption, or for which they have facts proving corruption exists, and
identify key areas of intervention based on their main purposes:
• To obtain short term successes: they need to identify those corrupt functions that are
easier to be changed (high specificity and low transactions intensity).
• To stop the hemorrhage of public money (in order to use it for other purposes such as
raising salaries, making other investments, etc): they need to identify those corrupt
functions that funnel the biggest amount of public money.
• To stop the negative impact on a bigger number of citizens: they need to identify those
corrupt functions that affect the biggest number of citizens. • To protect citizens' basic needs of health and security: they need to identify those corrupt
functions that put at risk the health and security of citizens - these are mostly the inspection
functions whose main purpose is to enforce law and order in different human activities (such
as norms for food production, rules for circulation on public roads, safety norms for
construction, regulations for environmental protection, etc.).
They can add other purposes or combine them when deciding on priorities for key areas of
intervention. They can identify priorities also by answering the following questions:
• What are the key areas where it is most pressing to intervene? The situation could be
pressing from the point of view of the large number of negatively impacted citizens, or
the large amount of public money lost in private pockets for private gains, or the risks to
the health and security of our citizens.
• Is there one area where intervention could positively affect other areas? Maybe law and
order enforcement functions (inspection functions, police) should be the starting areas for
intervention, impacting positively the health of other functions health.
• In what area are we most motivated to intervene and why? What are our main interests
as Guiding Coalition members and what underlies these interests?
Tool 19 - Identifying Key Areas of Intervention
on key areas of intervention on which to focus their effort in order to cure and prevent
1 Each Guiding Coalition member receives a handout, with the list of corrupt functions and
criteria they need to use to assess these functions
2 The criteria and the weight of different criteria are discussed and decided upon among
group members before starting the assessment.
Examples of criteria could include:
• Easy to change (under our control, easy to monitor, we have the expertise)
• Funneling a high percentage of the public budget
• Putting at risk the health or security of citizens
• Impacting negatively on a high percentage of citizens
3 For each criteria they have to decide, first individually, from 1 to 10 , to what extent the
function corresponds to the criteria. For example, if the criteria is "easy to change",
individually they chose 1 if the function is not at all easy to change (very difficult to
change), and 10 if the function is very easy to change, or any number in between based
on perceived levels of difficulty to change. 4 Group members add the numbers which they assigned to their assessment of the
5 In plenary group, members compare their results and make an average for each function.
The functions that receive larger numbers could be the key areas for intervention. 6 This scoring creates a good basis for discussions, and decisions may be made after
hearing all participant ideas and concerns about the scoring results.
Tool 20 - Another Method of Identifying Key Areas of Intervention
Annex 1: Model of multi-criteria assessment
Group members decided the following should be used to prioritize key areas of intervention:
A = Easy to change
B = High percentage of public budget funneled through the function
C = Impacting on a high percentage of citizens
These criteria may be applied to each function and evaluated from 1 to 10, for example:
1= is extremely difficult to change; 10 = is very easy to change
1= a very low percentage of our public budget is devoted, used by or funneled through this
function; 10 = a very high percentage of our public budget is devoted, used by or funneled
through this function
1= this function has impact on a very low percentage of citizens; 10 = this function has
impact on a very high percentage of our citizens
Group members may also decide that the first criterion is more important so they may
multiply the number by 2 before adding it to the other numbers.
Here is a sample of individual scoring:
Guiding Coalition Members or extended stakeholders groups may use this tool for a deeper
understanding of the key areas of intervention: what activities are currently necessary to
perform the function, who is responsible and involved in the respective function inside the
local government, and who are the beneficiaries of the respective function outputs outside
the local government. Process
TheThe Guiding Coalition leader prepares Handouts as shown in Annex 1 as a Model for
Procurement Key Areas of Intervention. The handout contains: • A detailed list of activities undertaken to perform the respective function. • Who is responsible and involved in the respective activities inside local government?
• Who are the beneficiaries of the activities outside local government?
The handout content is used as a starting point for discussions within the Guiding Coalition
team. Ideas are added and a final table is developed for each key area of intervention.
Tool 21 - Understanding Key Areas of Intervention
Annex 1 - Example of Handout
This tool should be used during the diagnostic stage to collect more data/facts about the key
areas of intervention in order to better understand the illness of the organization and make
a correct diagnosis by identifying the real problems that underlie symptoms of the illness. Process
For the elaboration of an efficient treatment, more data is needed in order to focus on the
real problems and avoid merely treating symptoms of the illness. Data collection focuses on defining the specific conditions conducive to corruption and the
possible causes of the corrupt actions/behaviors. The data collection may be done in different ways: • During Guiding Coalition meetings
• Through questionnaires distributed inside and outside the organization and collected
through systems that assure confidentiality of respondents (boxes located in the City Hall
or other public spaces, Internet) • Through interviews with key stakeholders
• Through open telephone lines, where citizens and different stakeholders may be interviewed • Through Focus groups and workshops with mixed groups (representatives of providers
When this tool is used we should be sure that those involved in generating ideas and
• Have a common understanding about the desired situation (the change process 'guiding star')
• Have a sense of the urgency and importance of the curing process
• Have an understanding of the steps within the curing process and the importance of this particular step to collect more data in order to identify the real problems needing to be addressed • Have their fear of repercussions for expressing honest opinions adequately addressed by those conducting the process
A model already completed for the procurement function is attached as an example in Annex 1.
This model format should be used separately for each selected key area of intervention.
Tool 22 - Gathering Data and Defining the Problems
Objective This tool should be used in the diagnostic stage in order to understand how different
problems are related in a cause-effect chain of relationships. Process
1 Read carefully the list of problems identified as conditions, reasons for which the system
is conducive to corrupt behavior and activities.
2 Arrange the problems, so that they are linked as cause and effect.
3 Discuss what problems should be addressed first and how solving one problem could
influence other problems to be solved.
See Annex 1 as an example.
Tool 23 - Problem Tree: Identifying Cause-Effect Relationships
Annex 1 - Problem Tree Example for Procurement Function
Step: Vendor performs contract
PLANNING ACTIONS AND MOBILIZING RESOURCES
This tool can be used to help Guiding Coalition members or extended groups of stakeholders to:
• Elaborate courses of action for the curing process in the selected area of intervention and
for the specific activities, based on the results of previous analysis
• Clarify roles and responsibilities to implement actions
• Identify necessary resources to be mobilized in order to implement the actions
1 In each area of intervention and specific activity, recapitulate problems to be solved in
order to cure corruption.
2 Prioritize problems to be addressed: once again you may prioritize them using the same
type of questions as those used to prioritize key areas of intervention.
• What is the most pressing problem?
• Is the resolution of one problem dependent or affected by the resolution of another
• Which problems are we motivated to tackle first?
3 Ask group members to work through the following logical sequence, for each problem: • Problem statement: what problem do we want to solve that causes corruption in the
respective activity?
• Objective statement: what is the desired situation to be achieved in a specific period
of time, when the problem is solved? Elaborate SMART objectives, meaning specific,
measurable, accepted by all group members, realistic and time specific.
• Actions to be taken to achieve objective: what actions do we need to take in order to
• Sequencing the actions in time: what is the sequence in time of these actions, so that
we solve the problem and achieve our objective? You may use the Gantt Chart to
schedule actions in time.
• Who is responsible for implementation fo the action?
• With whom will the responsible person will work?: proposed partners to be involved
• What resources are needed for the action implementation (human, material,
informational, etc)?
4 Facilitate the group reports in plenary and ask, after each group presentation, for
Tool 24 - Courses of Action and Mobilizing Resources
This tool should be used to elaborate courses of action and identify resources for their
implementation. This tool should be used after the data collection and problems
identification process, based on the proposed Questionnaire, is finalized (both outside and
inside the organization) and the data synthesized in order to be presented in the working
• Representatives of Local Government from the selected area of intervention -
management and staff who were already involved in the diagnosis effort
• Representatives of the key stakeholders from the selected area of intervention, outside
the organization, involved in the data collection effort or having an interest to be part of
• Other stakeholders not directly involved but identified as possible partners in promoting
1 The meeting should start with building a safe and open environment for discussion of
• Explain / review the change process principles, which were followed up to that
moment; do not attack staff, but give them a chance to be involved in the curing
effort; focus on changing local government work systems and not individual
values/mentality; commit to make the change process participatory inside the
organization as well as open it to outside, by involving those affected by the corrupt
function and by the proposed changes. • Explain the facilitator role.
• Elaborate working meeting rules. 2 Present the synthesis of data collection in the selected area of intervention; provide
handouts with the presented data. 3 Form groups, based on types of organizational affiliation. The process proposed further
assumes that two groups are formed, one being the public authority group (local
government and central representatives, if present), the other consisting of outside
stakeholders (companies, business associations, NGOs representatives or citizens).
4 Distribute a new handout including a list of selected problems that were identified
through the data collection as belonging to the Local Government system of work. Explain
that this selection will help participants focus on improving the health of their Local
Government by treating the system and not individuals working in the system. Ask for
feedback and comments, and eventually add other problems they perceive are missing.
5 Ask each group to work together to answer the following questions:
What can we do to solve these problems? What do we think the other(s) can do to solve these problems?
Ask them to list the actions on separate flipchart papers.
6 Invite groups to present their work and allow only questions for clarification, but no
7 Provide each group with the list of actions identified by the other groups that they should
do, and invite the groups to analyze this list and give answers based on the following
Tool 25 - Another Way of Planning Courses of Action
YES we could do this only if….(explain the conditions and define the partners needed to be involved). NO, we can't do this (and explain the reasons).
8 Invite each group to present their list with structured answers, and facilitate discussions
about the list of actions agreed upon and their good consequences; after, facilitate the
negotiation process among groups to address the remaining actions which were not yet
agreed upon. Sometimes, if too many "hot" things need to be discussed, it is useful to end
the meeting with a positive tone, focusing on the agreed upon activities and postponing
discussion about disagreements for the next meeting.
This tool may be used in a work team context by the Guiding Coalition as well as by an
extended group in planning or implementation steps in order to: • Clarify who is responsible for what related to various decisions and actions.
• Improve task performance and avoid misunderstandings in sharing roles, responsibilities
1 List the types of decisions and activities that need to be taken. 2 Identify the actors who may play some part in making these decisions or taking action.
3 Organize this information using the following grid:
4 Discuss in the group and assign a behavior to each of the actors involved in each
decision/action, based on the following type of behaviors:
R= Responsibility - To the person who should be responsible to initiate actions and to assure
that the decision is carried out. A= Approval required - To the person who must review the particular item, and who has the
option to either approve or veto it.
S= Support - To the person who should provide logistical support and resources for the
I= Inform- To the person who must be informed, but by inference, cannot influence. Guidelines and advice:
• First, assign the responsibility to only one person, who is supposed to initiate the action
and then will be responsible and accountable for the action.
• Avoid having too many people with an approval-veto function on an item.
• Avoid assigning to the same person approval-veto involvement on most decisions,
because that person could become a bottleneck for getting things done.
• Clarify the specific demands for each support person, especially if more than one actor
should be involved. The result of the sessions will illustrate group consensus on each actor role and
Tool 26 - Detailed Action Plan
This tool is a one-day meeting of the entire management of the organization, during which
they make a diagnosis of the organization's health, promote constructive problem
identification and problem solving, and increase involvement and commitment to action of
This tool is an alternative for planning courses of action and could be useful when the
Guiding Coalition wants to improve conditions quickly. For this tool to be applied effectively
and in order to ensure follow-up, cohesion and commitment need to exist at the local
government top management level. Process
In a series of activities, management groups (top, middle, line managers) will work to
generate information about major problems related to corruption, to analyze the underlying
causes, to develop the main directions of action plans to correct problems and to set a
schedule for completing remedial work. 1 Setting the Climate
The introduction part should include: • Session goals and objectives; • Presentation of the core values and purposes of the process to build a healthy local
• Agreement on the necessity for free and open discussion of issues and problems; and • An intervention approach (making it clear that nobody will be punished for what is
said). 2 Collecting Information
a Form a small group(s) of 6-8 persons, representing different functional areas and
working situations. Middle and low management level working in the same area
should not be put together in the same team. Each team should include a balanced
distribution of "change agents", top, middle and line managers. b Explain the task for all groups:
"Think of yourself as an individual with needs and goals, as well as a person concerned
about the whole organization. What are the obstacles toward reaching the "guiding
star" ("De-motivators", poor procedures or policies, unclear goals, or poor attitudes)
that exist today? c Group work and reporters/ recorder register the results. 3 Sharing Information
a Each group reports in plenary its results. b Cluster / categorize the listed items into specific functional areas (e.g. accounting
department, procurement department, etc.). 4 Setting Priorities and Group Action Planning a Form functional groups (reflecting the way participants are working in the
organization), having the department chief as the group leader.
b Participants are asked to identify the real problems related to their area, based on the
list of obstacles, and to decide on the relative priority for each problem. For each
priority problem, participants determine actions to remedy it. They need to be
Tool 27 - Working with Management to Plan Courses of Action
committed to implement these actions themselves, and the actions should be under
their control (as a group). c They analyze the list of actions and identify those that are under their control to be
implemented and those that are under top management control and power to be
d They propose ways to communicate the results of this meeting to their subordinates.
5 Immediate Follow-up
Top managers continue to work to determine what actions should be taken on the basis
of what they have learned during the day. These follow-up action plans are
communicated to the rest of the management group within several days. 6 Progress Review A follow-up meeting with the whole group is held four to six weeks later to report
progress and to review actions resulting from the meeting.
The members of the Guiding Coalition or an extended group may use this to better
understand who are potential opponents and allies when implementing the courses of
action they planned in order to cure corruption in specific activities within their local
government. Process
1 Review and list areas of intervention activities and the corrupt actions / behaviors
identified during the in-depth analysis.
2 Ask members to work in groups to identify for each of the selected activities:
• Who is gaining from the corrupt behavior/action? What is being gained? (through the
corrupt action/behavior)
• Who is losing as a result of the corrupt activity? What is being lost? (through the
Ask them to write down the answers for each activity on A4 paper.
3 Invite them to post the A4 papers with their answers, and to present their ideas and
summarize the group work results on a flipchart, to be seen by everybody, based on the
4 Invite them to discuss and identify who is gaining and who is losing most due to corrupt
actions/behaviors. Tool 28 - Stakeholder Identification: Who Will Gain and Who Will Lose?
This tool is used by Guiding Coalition members or with an extended group of key
stakeholders whom they trust, to estimate the risks that they will encounter when
implementing the courses of action (due to negative reactions of opponents and/or possible
passivity of allies), and develop solutions to overcome these obstacles. Process
1 Ask participants to work in small groups to identify for each planned action:
• What are the most probable reactions to the curing process from those who gain most
due to the corrupt activities (and consequently will lose most if the actions are
• What should we do to neutralize opponents' reactions and overcome the obstacles
resulting from their reactions?
2 Ask participants to work in small groups to identify for each planned action:
• What are the most probable reactions to the curing process of those who lose most
due to the corrupt activities?
• What should we do in order to overcome allies' passivity, to wake them up and
motivate them to support the curing process? 3 Ask participants to work in small groups and identify for the planned actions:
• What other constraining forces could hinder our courses of action during
• What should we do to change them or eliminate them?
4 Facilitate each group's report in plenary and get feedback from other groups. 5 Invite participants to select the most important ideas / actions to be included in the action plans, based on the criteria "most impact on the success of the change process."
6 Summarize the most important actions / ideas and check consensus. Tool 29 - Assessing and Overcoming Risks in Implementing Courses of Action 62
stakeholders, whom they trust, to estimate the support they might find for implementing
the courses of action, and to develop ways to access and attract them. Process
• What is the possible support we may receive from our natural allies - those who are
now losing from corrupt activities?
• What should we do to strengthen and make more effective the support of our allies
support for the courses of action within the curing process (those who lose most or
groups that are more numerous)?
2 Ask participants to work in small groups and identify for each planned action:
• What other driving forces could help implement our courses of action?
• What should we do to strengthen these driving forces?
3 Facilitate each group's report in plenary and get feedback from other groups. 4 Invite participants to select the most important ideas / actions to be included in the
action plans, based on the criteria "most impact on the success of the change process."
5 Summarize the most important actions / ideas and check consensus. Tool 30 - Assessing Support for Implementation of Courses of Action
To elaborate in groups the implementation plan that will decrease / overcome obstacles and
will best use opportunities. Process
1 Identify Positive and Negative forces that will help you or hinder you in implementing the
planned courses of action. When identifying forces think of individuals, groups, events,
2 Analyze these forces by giving a percentage (total should be 100%) based on the
• Impact on the implementation of planned actions
• The extend to which forces are under your control / easy to influence
3 Decide on additional actions which will help the implementation process by influencing
the forces identified in the previous step (Force Field Analysis) as follows: • Strengthening the (+) forces
• Reducing or removing the (-) forces
• Changing the direction of the forces from (-) to (+)
Tool 31 - Implementation Plan
The actors having responsibility to implement the courses of action can use this tool to plan
and organize the monitoring process by collecting information concerning:
• Ongoing review of actions to cure and prevent corruption • Behaviors and concerns of individuals and teams involved in the implementation Process
1 Preparing the monitoring activity
The persons responsible for implementation should work together to define:
• Expected intermediate results during the ongoing process of implementation • Measurable indicators (Qualitative and Quantitative) that could determine and
illustrate the success of implementation efforts
2 Planning the monitoring activity The following structure is useful in planning the monitoring activity:
a What information to collect? b Who will collect this information?
c How can we collect this information?
d When to collect this information?
e Who else should be informed about the progress? 3 Gathering and sharing information regarding people's behaviors and concerns
a What were the specific concerns of the organization members (individuals from your
team, your division / unit, others) last time you updated them about the
b What bothers the individuals in your team the most about the proposed change?
What are the sources of the stress? How could you minimize / eliminate the excess stress?
c What are the major rumors now circulating through the organization regarding the
implementation? What information about them can be useful to share with your team?
Tool 32 - Monitoring the Implementation Process
• To identify obstacles in implementation
• To develop options to overcome these obstacles • To identify allies and resources needed in overcoming the obstacles Process
This tool may be used during a workshop, involving all key actors having responsibilities to
implement the courses of action.
1 Groups reports and 'obstacles identification'
Working in teams, the key actors involved in implementing the actions will define and
present to the others:
• The progress in implementation in relation to the Work Plan
• The obstacles in implementation (structuring them based on the sources of these
2 Developing options to overcome obstacles
Working in the same teams, participants will develop possible options, based on the
• Actions they can do within their team, with the available resources (human,
informational, materials, financial, etc.)
• Actions for which they need support, specifying what kind of support and from whom
(other teams, top management, others, within or outside organization) 3 Discussion of the proposed options in plenary and selection of the most promising ones
• Teams present in plenary the options they identified
• Other options can be added by other team members
• Some options could be deleted because other team members are not able to provide
the requested support
• Criteria are developed and agreed upon in order to select the best option (less
expensive, 'quick fix', or other advantages participants identify) • Prioritization of the proposed options and agreement on the best ones
4 Summarize the conclusions and clarify the next steps
Final agreement and conclusions should clarify the new working plan:
• What are the new actions that should be implemented?
• Who else should be involved? What is expected from this person?
• What is the new deadline for implementation of actions?
• How will the new actions impact the planned courses of action? (e.g. deadline,
resources, other items that should be revised) Tool 33 - Progress Evaluation and Redesign
This tool is useful to facilitate implementation of the proposed changes in the organizational
areas / departments where role ambiguity or confusion may exist due to the new situation.
The tool provides a comprehensive understanding of each individual's "role space".
The logic of this tool is built on consensual determination of the role requirements by all
concerned, which will facilitate the adoption of the proposed change within the organization
and will lead to more mutually satisfactory and productive behavior.
This tool can be a non-threatening activity with a high payoff, and could be used in
Stabilization and Prevention, as well as in Planning and Implementation steps, when
new/different functions and procedures should be implemented in the selected area of
intervention. Process
Dayal and Thomas describe the role profile as:
• "A set of activities that can be classified as prescribed and discretionary elements of the
role, including the obligations of the role to other roles; • The expectations of this role from others in its set."
The role to be defined is called the "focal role". The role incumbents, working with staff
members and the top managers of the organization, define and delineate role requirements
in the new situation, applying the following steps: 1 Analysis of the 'focal role', initiated by the person who has it. The role analysis includes:
• Its place in the organization
• The rational for its existence
• Its place in achieving the overall strategy for curing and preventing corruption
• Its specific duties and behaviors required by the new situation
The specific duties and behaviors are listed on a flipchart and are discussed with the
entire team. Behaviors are added and deleted until the group and the role incumbent are
satisfied that they have defined the role completely.
2 Analysis of the 'focal role' incumbent's expectations of others. The incumbent lists
his/her expectations of the other roles in the groups that most affect the incumbent's
own role performance. These expectations are discussed, modified, added to and agreed
upon by the entire group. 3 Finalizing the role profile
The 'focal role' person should develop a written summary of the "role profile". The written
role profile is briefly reviewed at the following meeting before another focal role is
analyzed. The accepted role profile constitutes the role activities for the focal person. Tool 34 - Clarifying Roles in the New Situation
The Guiding Coalition members can use this tool to build a comprehensive intervention or to
check if the proposed plan of intervention is sustainable and effective.
In a series of meetings, Guiding Coalition members should screen existing policies and their
impact on corrupt practices; then they should elaborate solutions to improve them.
The analysis (existing and desired situation) could be organized based on the following
structure, representing the key policies in preventing corruption:
A. Human Resource Policy (recruitment, rewards, penalties, job description and
performance evaluation, promotion) B. Information Management Policy (how discretion of officials is regulated, the system of
data collection, and internal and external audit)
C. Communication and Outreach Policy (procurement rules, regulation and practices,
alliances and partnerships with citizens or other stakeholders) The following process could be used:
1 Individuals answer the questionnaire provided in Annex 1 of this tool.
2 Register "no" answers and discussions about differences (if any) in answers.
3 For all questions that received a "no" answer, encourage group discussions to define
actions that could make possible a new/improved policy. Tool 35 - Preventing Corruption: A Framework for Policy Analysis
Tool 35 - Preventing Corruption: A Framework for Policy Analysis
This tool can be used after the mixed groups of stakeholders succeed in finding solutions to
all critical problems identified in the data collection step. This tool should be applied in a long-term process:
• In a series of workshops that involve the same group of stakeholders, who have already
defined the solutions to cure and prevent corruption in the specific area of intervention;
and/or • In a series of workshops that involve only people inside the organization, such as
management and staff. This tool will help Local Government to ensure that solutions are sustainable and will
prevent corruption from reoccurring.
Group members review the solutions in order to adjust/develop them to be sustainable in
preventing corruption. 1 Remember the formula: C= M + D-A.
Corruption (C), equals monopoly power (M), plus discretion by officials (D), minus
accountability (A).
2 Ask participants, to work in groups by type of organization (inside and outside local
government) to analyze each of the proposed solutions, one by one, and to add
supplementary actions so that:
• Monopoly power decreases (through encouraging competition);
• Discretion of public decision-makers decreases (through more control and
transparency); and
• Accountability is assured and checked at all levels. 3 Facilitate each group report and discussions to compare differences and similarities. 4 Integrate solutions through facilitation, and to the extent possible, achieve group
Tool 36 - Sustainable Solutions: Preventing Corruption
management and staff. This tool will help Local Government to ensure that the solutions have a positive impact on
the quality of Local Government performance (effectiveness and efficiency of the system).
Group members review the solutions in order to adjust/develop them to support
efficiency and effectiveness of the organization.
1 Present efficiency and effectiveness concepts and explain what "Performance Indicators"
(benchmarks) mean.
2 Ask participants to work in groups by type of organization (inside and outside local
government) to analyze Local Government activities where solutions to cure corruption
were proposed and to:
• Develop performance indicators for each activity; and
• Identify ways to monitor the achievement of these indicators by involving the
beneficiaries/clients.
3 Facilitate group reports and discussions to compare differences and similarities. 4 Integrate solutions through facilitation, and to the extent possible, reach a group
decision by consensus concerning appropriate performance indicators and monitoring
Tool 37 - Sustainable Solutions: Effectiveness and Efficiency
all critical problems identified in the data collection step. This tool should be applied in a long-term process inside the organization, but it is
recommended to communicate the final solutions to the other stakeholders, as well as to the
This tool will help Local Government to ensure that the solutions have a positive impact on
motivation of personnel (effectiveness and efficiency of individuals).
Group members review the activities where changes were proposed in order to improve
support for motivation of personnel.
1 Use Nominal Group Technique to collect participants' answers to the question:
What would motivate people working in the specific activity to do their job properly?
2 Ask participants to work in groups (managers and staff, organized by departments and
divisions) to analyze the activity where the changes were proposed (in the area of
intervention) and evaluate if the following conditions, that research shows effectively
motivate people to properly do their job, are present: • Meaningful work, requiring a variety of skills
• Clear responsibility (task identity)
• Appropriate authority to accomplish the tasks
• Performance standards for each task • Recognition of work and rewards system based on performance • Feedback about work performance
3 Ask participants based on their work results to add to the list of changes other activities
to ensure motivation of personnel at all levels (managerial, executive, staff).
4 Facilitate group reports and discussions about the necessary changes in human resource
motivation policies in order to support the curing and prevention process. 3
Adapted from "Corrupt Cities - a practical guide to cure and prevention", by Robert Klitgaard, Ronald MacLean Abaroa, Lindsey Parris, pages 57, 93
Tool 38 - Sustainable Solutions: Motivating Personnel
Participants are managers and employees working in a specific area of the local government
(procurement, auditing, licensing, public works, etc.), as well as higher-level managers.
Participants will elaborate solutions to link rewards to performance, for the specific key
function, based on survey results. Process
1 Participants review, point-by-point, the answers given in the survey: obstacles to
performing effectively, proposed solutions, performance indicators, and monitoring and
reward systems. 2 Discussions are held about the ideas, and decisions are made about the most realistic and
easy ideas to implement: • Solutions to overcome obstacles;
• Indicators to measure performance, if solutions were successfully implemented; • Ways to measure and monitor performance indicators; how and what rewards can be
linked with performance indicators achievement. (Incentives could include pay, but
also other things such as training, travel, professional recognition, reassignment,
promotion, better working conditions, more independence, etc. Some incentives could
be for individuals, but many would probably be for teams.)
3 Some advice:
• You should learn by doing, experiment step-by-step and avoid incentive master plans
• Begin with the easiest cases, in areas where performance is relatively easy to measure
objectively and where the revenues raised or costs saved can make the experiment
self-financing. • Include information from clients when designing performance indicators and
monitoring systems. See Annex 1 for the proposed Survey to collect employees' ideas in an anonymous way. Adapt
this Survey to your local government function-specific context.
In order to make better decisions, previous to the workshop other useful information should
be collected and presented to participants:
• Current pay scales and work conditions;
• Number of people leaving their jobs;
• Number of vacant posts;
• Number of under-qualified people employed in higher-skilled jobs;
• Current pay and fringe benefits in the private sector (or other public organizations) for
people with roughly equal levels of qualification, (especially for key positions in
revenue raising, auditing, accounting, management, procurement, investigation);
• Information on whether employees take advantage of per diems and other benefits
linked with travel, board memberships, tasks forces, etc.; and/or
• Existing performance-based contracts in other cities.
Tool 39 - Linking Rewards to Performance
Annex 1: Survey
What obstacles do you see in order to perform more effectively in your job and division?
Give two concrete examples of what you were unable to do; explain why and what do you
think was the impact on the entire local government and citizens.
Give some solutions to overcome these obstacles.
Identify indicators/measures by which you believe your performance should be fairly
assessed, if solutions were successfully implemented. For example:
• Quantitative measures of activities and results achieved
• Qualitative measures of activities and results achieved, based on peer groups, outsiders
or clients' perceptions
• Performance-based contests among employees
• Measures of staff morale and turnover
Identify ways to monitor the performance measures/indicators.
Identify rewards/incentives that you should receive if the performance indicators are
Documents Similar To Restore the Health of Your Organisation - A Pratical Guide to Curing and Preventing Corruption in Local Governments and CommunitiesSkip carouselA Post-Conflict Land Administration and Peacebuilding HandbookBuilding Bridges Through Managing Conflicts and Differences - Part 2 (Bulgarian)Building Bridges Through Managing Conflicts and Differences - Part 1 (Bulgarian)Building Bridges Through Managing Conflicts and Differences - Part 2Restore the Health of Your Organisation - A Practical Guide to Curing and Preventing Corruption in Local Government and Communities. Volume 11The Councillor As EnablerBuilding NGO/CBO Capacity through Managing and Developing Human Resources – Part 2 Concepts and StrategiesUrban Sector Studies and Capacity Building for Khartoum StateBuilding NGO/CBO Capacity for Organizational Outreach - Part 1 Concepts and StrategiesWilke Governanceterr Strategies Baden at 8 9-6-069780984216536_contents (1) (1).pdf4 - URBAN DAY 2012 - Governance, Planning and Finance TGLAsean Report Berardi, Franco Bifo - Cognitarian SubjectivationBendell What if We Are FailingNational Urban Delivery Program (2).pdf1285781039 NOS Dwnld Pull Out AFirst Regional Education Forum on Decentralization of Education Managementgovernance in indian perspectiveSoftware Developer JDSOCTEC - Mod3 GovernanceBrief_Latin American Local Citizen CouncilsTapping into Organizational Creativity04 Gordon GovernanceChinese Administrative Reforms in International PerspectiveAppendix 5 - TaxonomiThe Pedantic 21st Century Engineering Student - Some ObservationsViet nam 4856_Grassroot_democracySalterbaxter - Trends in Corporate Reportinggood govDocuments About GovernanceSkip carouselInfluencing ChangeThe Future of Government - Lessons Learned from around the WorldAirport Economics in Latin America and the CaribbeanAccountability through Public OpinionPublic SentinelIntranet Strategy and GovernanceGlobal Redesign - Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent WorldThe Role of Crowdsourcing for Better Governance in Fragile State ContextsBJP 2014 election manifestoOpportunities in Dam Planning and ManagementOpen Banking Working Group (OBWG) Terms of ReferenceOpen Society Foundations - International Migration Initiative / Migration Governance and Enforcement Portfolio ReviewDeloitte Financial Services Regulatory Outlook 2017National Oil Companies and Value CreationAs 8000-2003 Corporate Governance - Good Governance PrinciplesCorporate Governance Reform Green PaperTanzaniaA Quick Guide to Public Financial Management in MyanmarGovernance of Technical Education in IndiaDemanding Good GovernanceInclusive and Sustainable Urban Development PlanningInternational Migrants and the CityThe Right to be Heard FrameworkLegal Frameworks for Tertiary Education in Sub-Saharan AfricaMalawiGlobal GovernanceMENA Corporate Governance Success StoriesThe Land Governance Assessment FrameworkCitizens and Service DeliveryCorporate Governance & DevelopmentMore From United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)Skip carouselWorld Cities ReportComing in from the MarginsUN-Habitat_2015_Training Module Slum UpgradingNational Urban PolicyCounty Engagement Framework for KenyaUrbanization and Structural TransformationStructural Transformation in Developing CountriesUN-Habitat and Association of African Planning SchoolsAfrica Urban Agenda SessionStructural Transformation in EthiopiaWhat Land Means to YouthYouth-Led Action Research on Land Commencement WorkshopLand Tenure Security in Selected CountriesPakse, Lao PDRMakassar Indonesia; Climate Change Vulnerability AssessmentRealizing The Human Rights To Water And SanitationHoi An, Viet NamHoniara, Solomon IslandsApia, SamoaLami Town, Republic of FijiPort Moresby, Papua New GuineaLand Access and Youth Livelihood Opportunities in Southern EthiopiaGender Responsive Urban EconomyGender Responsive Urban Research and Capacity DevelopmentTowards an Africa Urban AgendaNational Spatial Strategies Saudi ArabiaUsing Minecraft for Youth Participation in Urban Design and GovernanceLesotho Urban Housing ProfileGEAP - Gender Equality Action Plan (2014-2019)Unpacking Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Development