INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY

1. Justification for the Integrity Assessment

In accordance with Article 18.1.3 of the Anti-Corruption Law, the IAAC is mandated “to conduct, at least once every two years, a survey on the scope, forms and causes of corruption, establish a corruption index, and inform the public" Additionally, under Article 18.1.7 of the same law, the IAAC is responsible for "to conduct fairness and integrity rating of state bodies based upon a survey conducted once every two years among individuals and legal entities receiving state services, and inform the public."

2. Objectives and Goals of the Integrity Assessment

The goal of this assessment is to conduct calculations and prepare a report based on data collected following the guidelines and questionnaire for the Integrity Assessment survey, and to inform the public of the results.

• Provide foundational information to strengthen integrity, eliminate the causes of corruption, prevent corruption, and support the anti-corruption efforts undertaken by public institutions.
• Identify essential actions that need to be implemented to improve the assessment scores of the respective institutions.
• Increase the willingness of public institutions to enhance assessment results by sharing the outcomes with the public, fostering initiatives and aspirations to reduce corruption, and encouraging proposals for improvement.

3. Structure of the Integrity Assessment

The Integrity Assessment is an evaluation based on a total of 62 sub-indicators across three main indices: the External Fairness Assessment, the Internal Fairness Assessment, and the Policy Participant Evaluation of each institution. These indices are defined as follows:

• External Integrity Evaluation: This reflects the assessment of the institution’s fairness by external stakeholders, including citizens, businesses, and organizations that have received services from the institution.
• Internal Integrity Evaluation: This represents the evaluation provided by the institution's employees regarding its integrity and fairness within the organization.
• Policy Participant Evaluation: This refers to the assessment given by those involved in the stages of policy development and planning, reflecting their views on the institution’s fairness in the policy-making process.

4. Assessment Score Interpretation

The Integrity Assessment is scored on a scale from 0 to 100, where a score of 100 represents the highest level of integrity. A higher score indicates greater perceived integrity and fairness within the institution, with 100 symbolizing the ideal standard of fairness.

5. Integrity Assessment Methodological Model

The Integrity Assessment was conducted following a structured methodological model, as illustrated in the accompanying diagram. This model outlines the systematic approach used for evaluation, encompassing data collection, analysis, and scoring across the key indices:

RESEARCH ON THE PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION WITHIN POLITICAL, JUDICIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTIONS

1. Justification for the Research on the Perception of Corruption within Political, Judicial, and Law Enforcement Institutions

Since 2008, the Anti-Corruption Agency has conducted an annual survey titled "Research on the Perception of Corruption within Political, Legal, and Regulatory Institutions." The results of this research have served as a benchmark for evaluating the implementation of the 24th goal under the 9th objective of the Millennium Development Goals: "Establishing and Institutionalizing a Zero-Tolerance Atmosphere toward Corruption across All Levels of Society."

2. Objectives and Goals of the Research on the Perception of Corruption within Political, Judicial, and Law Enforcement Institutions

The research is of critical importance for identifying corruption trends, positions and roles susceptible to corruption, and factors influencing corruption, as well as for planning and implementing anti-corruption measures. It also serves as a significant source of information for evaluating and assessing the outcomes of anti-corruption activities within political and law enforcement institutions. Until 2017, perceptions of corruption within the political sphere and judicial and law enforcement institutions were studied within a single research framework, and a consolidated report was produced. However, since 2018, these two areas have been examined separately, and the research is being conducted accordingly.

3. Structure of the Research on the Research on the Perception of Corruption within Political, Judicial, and Law Enforcement Institutions

The research is conducted in the following key objectives:

• Clarify perceptions, attitudes, and causes related to corruption;
• Examine the prevalence, scope, and forms of corruption within political, judicial, and law enforcement institutions;
• Identify the causes, conditions, and influencing factors of corruption in the political, judicial, and law enforcement sectors;
• Determine the extent of corruption within political, judicial, and law enforcement institutions, and reveal its harms and consequences;
• Evaluate the anti-corruption activities within political, judicial, and law enforcement institutions, and identify the factors influencing them.

4. Interpretation of the Scores

Each question was evaluated and calculated by experts using a scale from "1 to 5." A lower score indicates a positive meaning, while a higher score signifies a negative meaning.

5. Methodological Model for the Research on the Research on the Perception of Corruption within Political, Judicial, and Law Enforcement Institutions

In previous studies, only quantitative research methods were used. However, starting from 2018, qualitative research methods have also been introduced, specifically utilizing the focus group discussion method.

YOUTH INTEGRITY SURVEY

The purpose of this research is to determine the level of fairness among general education school students, including sub-indicators such as ethics, morality, character development, law-abiding behavior, and attitudes and abilities to resist corruption. Furthermore, it aims to establish preventive and educational measures to be implemented in order to cultivate children into fair-minded citizens in the future.

• Sub-Indicator of Children's Ethics and Morality: This sub-indicator determines children's ethics and morality through age-appropriate questions and represents the level of their moral standards.
• Sub-Indicator of Children's Proper Development: This sub-indicator uses age-appropriate questions to determine children's proper upbringing and development. It reflects the child's ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
• Sub-Indicator of Children's Compliance with Rules, Regulations, and Laws: This sub-indicator uses age-appropriate questions to determine the extent to which children comply with laws and regulations. It reflects how children control themselves and adhere to the established legal norms of society.
• Sub-Indicator of Children's Intolerance Towards Corruption: This sub-indicator uses age-appropriate questions to determine children's tolerance of corruption incidents. It reflects the children's ability to not tolerate corruption.

The Scope of the Youth Integrity Survey

The research included 10th to 12th-grade students, their parents, teachers, and school staff from state and private general education schools nationwide.

Interpretation of Assessment

The Youth Integrity Survey is scored on a scale from 1 to 5, with scores closer to 5 indicating a higher level of fairness among children. A higher score reflects stronger ethical values, honesty, and integrity in the student's behavior and attitudes