Program name: USAID Project for the Promotion of Justice and Integrity in 
the Public Administration (Pro-Integridad)
USAID Financing Office: USAID/Peru – Martin Castro, COR
Contract number: AID-527-C-13-00001 
Contractor: ARD Inc.
Issue Date: November, 2015
 
November 2015
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and prepared by Tetra Tech DPK (Tt DPK), a division of ARD Inc. in Peru.
The opinions issued by the authors in this publication do not necessarily reflect the point of view 
of USAID or of the Government of the United States of America.
USAID/PERU 
PRO-INTEGRIDAD 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT ON 
THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY 
MODEL IMPLEMENTED IN THE 
PUBLIC MINISTRY
 
2 
Contents 
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 3
1. ON THE CONCEPT OF INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY............................................ 4
2. COMPONENTS AND REGISTRATION ASPECTS TO AN ASSESSMENT AND 
EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY IN THE PUBLIC 
MINISTRY.......................................................................................................................... 6
3. COLLECTING INFORMATION, COMPONENTS AND REGISTRATIOIN 
ASPECTS ........................................................................................................................10
3.1. Collecting information .............................................................................................. 11
3.2. Registration components and aspects .................................................................. 11
4. COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF THE FEBRUARY 2014 ASSESSSMENT AND 
ITS UPDATE IN OCTOBER 2015................................................................................17
5. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................22
3 
INTRODUCTION 
USAID Pro-Integridad Project (Project) implemented by Tetra Tech ARD, aims mainly 
to support the Government of Peru in reducing corruption levels and strengthening the 
rule of law through activities closely in line with local initiatives of justice reform and in 
coordination with other international cooperation agencies. 
Within its Objective 2, the Project provided technical assistance to the Public Ministry 
(PM) to adopt and implement the Institutional Integrity Model – IIM1
. This Model refers 
to implanting an organizational culture based in the ethical behavior of the workers and 
the institutional procedures designed to reduce corruption risks and functional lack of 
efficiency. 
On February 2014 the Project presented the PM with the results of an assessment on 
the level of development of the IIM indicators inside the institution which showed the 
ones already developed and the ones pending. This report highlights concrete areas to 
be strengthened in order to implement the IIM and thus strengthen the institutional 
integrity. At that point the PM did not continue with the IIM implementation. 
This situation changed with the appointment of Dr. Pablo Sanchez as Prosecutor 
General. In a meeting held on March 17, 2015, he expressed his interest in promoting 
integrity in the PM and develop the IIM. After that meeting, Jose Luis Echevarria, General 
Manager, ordered the update of the IIM assessment to start implementing it in the PM. 
This present document presents the results of the assessment’s update on the PM, 
finished in November 2015, compared to the assessment finished in February 2014. As 
the document points out, in both instances the PM has reached a score of 27 
registration units fulfilled of a total 57 possible, which places the institution at the “at 
risk situation” but next to get to the “on the path to integrity”2
 portion. 
 
1 Tetra Tech DPK ™ 2012
2
 The progression scale designed for the implementation of the IIM in the Public Ministry considers 6 
aspects and 39 registration units on a discrete scale with the following sections: 
- From 0 to 20 units fulfilled: In at risk situation. 
- From 21 to 34 units fulfilled: On the path to integrity. 
- From 35 to 39 units fulfilled: Integrity. 
4 
1. ON THE CONCEPT OF INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY 
An Institutional Integrity Model (IIM) refers to implanting an organizational culture 
based on the ethical behavior of the workers and the institutional procedures designed 
to reduce corruption risks and functional lack of efficiency. "The IIM development seeks 
reliability, which involves developing a climate of trust both internally and externally, 
that guarantees the concrete fulfillment of the institutional mission, its strengthening, 
renovation and effectiveness, and seeks to guide all the Institution’s human capital 
through the way of transparency and functional and institutional conscience” (Tetra 
Tech DPK, 2012). 
This approach considers two important twists, that the idea of “institutional integrity” 
entails respect to approaches such as “personal values” or “ethics”. This leads to 
consider not only the individual who acts, but the institution, which implies thinking 
about the behavior of the institution rather than the individual's. It is clear that the first 
idea involves the second and for proper conduct of the institution it is necessary to 
construct clear and organized spaces for the correct behavior and action of individuals. 
On the other hand, it is important to consider a practical twist in the “integrity” focus 
because it needs to be understood the structure of an institution not only as an abstract 
concept but as a set of practices that defines that value. Within this approach it is 
practice that allows to account for values (and not necessarily the individual abstract 
values which appear as the center of the actions). Even if both aspects seem 
connected to the daily life, the focus is concentrated in a control of practices and 
actions, procedures and mechanisms of institutional functioning. 
Graph 1 
Tensions in the operative concept of integrity 
Own Production 
The core idea in the approach is to avoid fragmentation of the elements of the 
organizational and institutional structure. Thus, the "institutional integrity" requires 
thinking in the institution as a set of integrated elements and running in the same 
direction (and not as a set of fragmented individuals), and requires that this integration 
is manifested in the effective, specific and recordable institutional practice (and not only 
in speeches and abstract values). 
It is important to understand that these elements work as a whole and not as 
juxtaposed operations in the organizational structure so that integrity cannot be 
established if the "system" is not fully drawn. It is evident that the integrity concept 
Institution / Individual 
Practice / Concept 
Integrity / Fragmentation
5 
means the “whole of something” and the “participation of all the parts of something”. So 
one cannot be “halfway honest” or “honest in half”. 
In order to achieve an integral institutional structure it is necessary to build an 
Institutional Integrity Model – IIM – which pretends to redefine the institutional practices
based on the redefinition of the concrete practices of the individuals and their functions, 
individuals that form the institutions and whose performance (their capacity to act as 
people free to assume responsibilities for their acts) is carried out observing legal 
principles of ethics based in the public service. Thus, the implementation of an IIM 
involves contemplating and applying at least the following operative elements: 
Graph 2 
General components of the Institutional Integrity Model 
Source: Tetra Tech DPK, 2012 
Own production 
These elements appear in a process line marked by the “decision and leadership” of the 
institution’s authorities who promote mechanisms of “human management, 
administration, discipline, merits, dissemination, education, etc.”, looking for concrete 
results that lead to the “certification of integrity”. 
1. The clear definition of the institutional culture 
that should show the human capital, directly 
facing the user and based on the institutional 
ethical principles.
2. The definition and establishment of a 
consequences system, that highlights merits or 
blames the behavior of members of the 
institution expressed through the system of 
promotions, ascents or recognition, or when 
appropriate, the application of the disciplinary 
system.
3. Regulations on public ethics and anti￾corruption.
4. Transparent management of substantive 
procedures of each institution, as well as 
efficiency, efficay and effectiveness of 
administrative, financial and institutional audit 
procedures.
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY 
MODEL (IIM)
6 
Graph 3 
Flow of the institutional integrity certification process 
 
IIM
Decision and 
Leadership
Processes:
 Human 
management
 Administratio
n and 
finances
 Discipline
 Merits
 Process 
management
 Dissemination
, training 
(socializing)
Key Results 
of the MIII:
Ethics
Integrity
Transparency
Resources
Results on 
individuals
Responsibility 
and freedom
Results on users
(Justice)
Results on 
Society
(Credibility)
Organizational
Culture
(Individuals)
Facilitating Agents Results
Integrity Certification
Ethics 
Regulations 
(Policies and 
strategy)
Consequences
Source: Tetra Tech DPK, 2012.
The components of the Model design appear in the flow of certification process and are 
reinforced in that way (see the elements that must be strengthened by the “Decision 
and Leadership” and the “Processes” that need to be built or enhanced related to the 
“Results” in Graph 3). In order to determine which are the aspects to be strengthened 
and built regarding the components and the certification flow it is necessary to 
determine the diagnostic situations in the institutions. 
2. COMPONENTS AND REGISTRATION ASPECTS TO AN ASSESSMENT AND 
EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY IN THE PUBLIC MINISTRY 
How to assess the institutional integrity situation and based on it conduct an evaluation 
on its advance? It involves generating areas to be recorded that truly represent the 
components of the Model identifying the aspects of the situation records. These 
aspects are related to objective and measurable elements (through quantitative or 
qualitative tools) that represent the fields covered by the Model. In the PM Tetra Tech 
DPK has identified nine relevant registration aspects and of monitoring, associated to 
the Institutional Integrity Model (and associated to article 11 of the United Nations 
Convention against Corruption). 
7 
Table 1 
Model Components and Aspects to Record 
Components of the 
Model Aspects to Record Regulation
1. The clear definition of 
institutional culture 
1. Studies on 
culture/organizational 
environment
Inter-American Convention (Art. III￾5) United Nations Convention (Art 
9).
2. Public perception regarding 
the Public Ministry 
Inter-American Convention (Art. III￾11) United Nations Convention (Art 
13).
2. The definition and 
establishment of a 
consequences system 
and a promotion system. 
3. Productivity statistics Inter-American Convention (Art. III￾5) 
4. Studies on 
culture/organizational 
environment
Inter-American Convention (Art. III￾5) United Nations Convention (Art 
9).
3. Regulations regarding 
public ethics and fight 
against corruption. 
5. Regulations related to 
public ethics inside the 
institution
United Nations Convention 
(Preamble, art. 1, 2, 8). Inter￾American Convention (art III-1,2,3). 
6. Public policies and 
prevention of corruption 
practices 
Inter-American Convention (Art. III￾9).
7. Internal measures to 
prevent corruption regarding 
accounting and auditing 
regulations
United Nations Convention (Art 9 y 
12) Inter-American Convention (Art. 
III-10) 
4. Transparent 
management of substantive 
procedures in each 
institution as well as 
efficiency, efficacy and 
effectiveness of 
administrative, financial and 
institutional auditing 
procedures 
8 Management of public 
information and transparency
United Nations Convention (Art. 
10).
9. Participation of society in 
monitoring the institution 
Inter-American Convention (Art. III￾11) United Nations Convention (Art. 
13).
Source: Tetra Tech DKP 
Own Production 
These “aspects” may be divided in two relevant blocks. The first (aspects 1, 2 and 3, 4, 
5) respond to fundamental elements of the institutional integrity model. The second 
(aspects 6, 7, 8 and 9) are fundamental registration aspects due to the characteristics of 
the Public Ministry and to the Open Government indicators 
Registration Aspect 1: Studies of the institutional culture. The IIM entails a 
deep institutional change in order to ensure that the institutional principles and 
values are assimilated by all the institution’s members. The Culture change is a 
complex process and requires prolonged periods that can be shortened from the 
commitment, decision and participation of senior officials. Therefore a key to 
promote culture change must start by knowing the "inner voice" of the institution, 
8 
considering the following criteria: interpersonal relationships (degree to which 
employees help each other and their relations are respectful and considerate); 
management style (degree to which the chiefs support, encourage and give their 
employees participation); sense of belonging (satisfaction derived from their bond 
to the institution, sense of commitment and responsibility in relation to its 
objectives and programs); remuneration (degree of equity in pay and benefits 
from work); availability of resources (extent to which employees have the 
information, equipment and required input from other people and agencies to 
carry out their jobs); stability (degree to which employees see clear possibilities 
of belonging to the institution and feel that people are caring canning or 
dismissed with just criteria); clarity and consistency in direction (degree of clarity 
of senior management on the future of the institution; extent to which the areas’ 
goals and programs are consistent with the criteria and policies of senior direction 
or management); collective values (degree to which institutional values and 
principles are internally perceived) (Tetra Tech DPK, 2012). 
The following assessment registration units have been selected for this aspect: 
Declaration and definition of the values, principles, language and symbols of the 
institution; development of ethical compliance monitoring mechanisms of the 
functions related to the definition of values; development of periodic reflection 
spaces and activities on the value of integrity and ethics in the institution; 
recognition system to actions in line with the meritorious management indicators 
assessment; periodic surveys of identification of disrupting elements in the 
development of institutional values; tools designed, implemented and institutional 
values and satisfaction assimilation and compliance measurement results 
monitored; publication and dissemination of studies on organizational climate 
based on the definition of integrity (structure, functions, perceptions). 
Registration Aspect 2: Study of external perception. Know specifically the 
perception of the users of the services offered by the PM, in order to measure 
the level of acceptance and impact it provides to the public, is a key factor of the 
IIM diagnosis and implementation. The study of perception, according to DPK, 
must include at least the following registration areas: impact of service; opinion 
of leaders and/or specific groups; image of the institutions; effectiveness of the 
service received; waiting time; main aspects perceived as of higher interest for 
direct users; trust or mistrust in the service. On the other hand, it is important to 
incorporate studies of insight, that is, how officials of the PM itself see the entity, 
as inside it there are also dynamics of users and providers of services between 
the different offices, directions and areas. Thus, it is necessary to take into 
account the following criteria: design, development, implementation and regular 
monitoring of qualitative tools (interviews) to measure perceptions of officials; 
develop guidelines on the image, speech on integrity in the PM, and a media 
strategy; Public Ministry’s communication team trained to monitor instruments 
and local and media dissemination of the PM and its integrity approach. 
Registration Aspect 3: Study performance evaluation (productivity and 
effectiveness). The performance study must be focused on learning about the 
competencies of the public servants considering institutional pre-established 
indicators. The criteria proposed by Tt DPK to conduct such study must be 
9 
based on indicators such as: pre-established competencies for each position; 
evaluation indicators; evaluation strategies and instruments; quantitative and 
qualitative measurement reports; efficiency, effectiveness, honesty and quality 
of service indicators; identification of the performance cases not satisfactory 
and/or removal from office. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the 
importance of evaluating the following matters: institutional size measurement 
(conditions, circumstances, complexity, time and workload referred to attention 
and services); measuring production indicators associated to the institutional 
size, suitable tools and work instruments (productivity and output gap); 
determining institutional quality standards; periodic productivity studies 
published after an external evaluation; study of gaps between the size, the 
production indicator and the quality standards expected. 
Registration Aspect 4: Human capital management systems (convening, 
selection, training, performance evaluation). IIM is based on the commitment 
of the officers and servants at the entities where it is implemented. In order to 
achieve this, the PM needs to develop a holistic human capital management 
policy that considers the following criteria: explicit personnel convening 
mechanisms, published, and arranged through office interpenetration control 
mechanisms; study pre-established competencies for each position with 
evaluation instruments (open eligibility criteria); develop an institutional 
performance evaluation system (ethics, dedication, respect, etc.) and of 
personnel individual production that allows to identify, catalogue and appraise 
merits, efficiency, efficacy and productivity; develop a professional improvement 
system related to production requirements; build a training program on basic 
concepts of ethics and integrity; develop impact indicators on professional 
training regarding staff performance and production; quantitative and qualitative 
measurement reports on efficiency, effectiveness, honesty and quality of service 
that include the identification of non-satisfactory performance cases. 
Registration Aspect 5: Regulation related to ethics and/or anti-corruption.
A relevant aspect is the set of rules to promote ethics and address corruption acts 
within the entities. That means that the following criteria are needed to obtain 
information regarding the existence and applicability of regulations inside the 
Public Ministry: implementation of a leading team in charge of the ethics code 
and its follow-up; development of the code of ethical behavior; definition of 
forbidden conducts related to international and national laws and regulations; 
development of a consequences system to i) define sanctions, and ii) monitor the 
sanction to any conduct against the law and regulation of the institution’s ethical 
behavior; develop and sign engagement of the institution’s members; monitoring 
and reports of production and quality of performance of the Processes 
Commission with sanction indicators; mechanisms of internal control 
implemented and functioning. 
Registration Aspect 6: Public policies and practices to prevent corruption. 
The control of corruption is a fundamental issue in developing an Institutional 
Integrity Model and though the development of ethical frameworks within the 
institution is a matter of high importance, this not necessarily works without 
developing concrete elements to prevent corruption translated into public policies 
and practical mechanisms. This aspect records the basic component, the public 
10
policy and its concrete practice as the base elements of the institution: installation 
of a specialized unit or equipment to combat internal corruption; institutional 
criteria developed or anti-corruption plan; development and implementation of 
strategies or practical initiatives for the control and prevention of corruption 
according to typologies (small or large corruption); construct mechanisms to 
follow up on impact measurement of anti-corruption initiatives. 
Registration Aspect 7: Internal measurements to prevent corruption related 
to improved accounting and audit regulations. Corruption involves a serious 
risk to the administration, largely in the field of financial and accounting matters. 
So one of the important aspects of registration is directly related to the 
strengthening of measures to prevent corruption in terms of development of 
accounting and auditing standards: adapting legislation to the standards required 
by the State of Peru for accounting and administration; presence of an 
independent Office of Internal Control; regular audits on the accounting situation 
of the institution; training and induction to the responsible administrative and 
accounting personnel and civil service affairs of the institution; established 
regulations regarding the use of financial and material resources of the institution; 
dissemination of the criteria for the use of financial and material resources of the 
institution; periodic evaluation of effectiveness of regulation, control and audit 
measures to prevent accounting fraud and corruption. 
Registration Aspect 8: Management of public information and 
transparency. One of the most relevant aspects that has direct relationship 
between the State and citizenship is that referred to Access to public information 
and institutional transparency. We hereby present the criteria that need to be 
considered in the assessment and evaluation: adequacy of the criteria of 
transparency and access to public information according to law through an 
application manual; setting up an office in charge of attention to requests for 
public information and institutional transparency; periodic and updated 
publication of the public information of the PM in its web site; affidavit of incomes, 
assets and revenue disseminated through the web; development of a 
measurement of indicators on replies to request for public information and 
transparency; development of a hard and virtual archiving system that is amicable 
and secure for the information provided by the PM; report of the Public Ministry 
on transparency and access to the information with quantified data and the 
efficacy and quality of the replies; and building open and transparent mechanisms 
for involving civil society in the process of construction of public policies in the 
PM.. 
Registration Aspect 9: Participation of society in monitoring the institution.
It means considering that the institution exists because of citizens, to care about 
their claims, but also as guarantee of rights. This aspect registers the opening 
and establishment of institutionalized elements for civil society participation in 
monitoring the institution: citizen observatories as instituted mechanisms; space 
for training and disseminating the institution’s work with the citizenship; and 
mechanisms of attention to claims and complaints of citizens. 
3. COLLECTING INFORMATION, COMPONENTS AND REGISTRATIOIN 
ASPECTS 
11
3.1. Collecting information 
How to apply the instrument? Using two complementary tools: (i) A documentary data 
sheet to determine the status of the institution’s archive information and the objects that 
result are proof of satisfactory fulfillment of a registration unit, and (ii) “Exit interviews” 
(between 5 and 20 questions) that work as contrast and complement of the archive 
search regarding the registration aspects. 
Table 2 
Complementary tools to fill out the Registration Matrix 
Complementary 
tools Record card file Exit interviews
Data source Institutional document 
archive Institutional officers
Instrument Check list derived from the 
registration matrix
Open questionnaire derived 
from the registration matrix 
Quantity 1 application to the current 
universe
8-20 applications until 
saturation
Own production 
3.2. Registration components and aspects 
The components are recorded through the aspects, and the aspects are split into 
registration units, referred to concrete actions and objective elements developed and 
recordable in the field data collection. This logical sequence has resulted in a basic 
instrument to establish a diagnosis of the situation of the Public Ministry and monitor 
compliance of activities and indicators regarding elements laid out and the ability to 
evaluate them. To that end, a matrix for simple register on a double entry table that 
includes the registration elements and units (indicators) for each aspect of the Model has 
been developed 
Thus, the instrument includes i) a column of aspects raised from the Model’s 
components, ii) nine rows with each of the aspects subdivided into registration units 
(indicators of compliance with the integrity standard). Each aspect is divided among five 
and eight registration units whose valuation sets compliance (1) or non-compliance (0) 
of the standard. 
What are the criteria for selection of indicators (record units) and their type of numerical 
weighting? 
The registration units are derived from the aspects, and aspects from the 
components. Thus, registration units are those that, in progressive order, can 
meet the aspects considered in the model.
The aspects of institutional integrity must be met progressively. Thus, the order 
of the location of the record units involved are met from left to right. While there 
may be registration units from the right end satisfied (with rating 1), it may 
12
happen that no units have a history log. That shows that there may exist a 
product but not necessarily will be supported in the institutional integrity model. 
Integrity cannot imply a partial fulfillment. A binary criterion (0-1) is chosen to 
determine compliance with the registration units and no intermediate stops. This 
is because aspects and registration units should be met with the standard of 
integrity (there can’t be "medium integrity"; that is contradictory to the concept). 
How to read the results of the application of information gathering tools and the 
instrument to measure assessment? To do this, one must consider at least three 
relevant issues. 
The first one has to do with the total number obtained from adding registration units 
considered as fulfilled. That amount can be arranged on a pre-built scale and indicates 
a general assessment situation of the institutional status. The second relevant issue 
refers to the progression of the actions and indicators regarding satisfactory fulfillment 
of each aspect, so it is necessary to know if the progressive indicators are met 
progressively of certain stages are skipped. The third topic refers to the quantity in 
registration units that even though have not achieved a satisfactory number, are in 
process to implementation. In this case there are three colors used: green (registration 
unit fully implemented = 1), yellow (registration unit in process to implementation = 1), 
red (registration unit with implementation process not started = 0). 
Weighting in the scale. The instrument should be applied through the 
complementary tools and must fill in the columns indicating 0 or 1. The total sum 
for each row and the total sum of all rows determine the final number within a 
qualitative situation scale. On this scale less than 50% compliance of the possible 
numbers obtained (you can get maximum 57 points) indicates a risk regarding 
the integrity model (less than 28 points). The following quartile (between 28 and 
45 points) shows a not at risk situation, on the way to integrity. Between 45 and 
56 points places the institution at an integrity situation, while total fulfillment of 
indicators equal to 57 values the institution as with integrity 100. 
Progression of registration units. To monitor the progressive compliance of the 
registration units it must be determined what, in a horizontal line from left to right 
(arrow), the criterion of progression from A to H in the columns of registration 
units is. A complete arrow shows complete fulfillment; and incomplete arrow but 
with units counted as satisfactorily from left to right, even if they do not have 
satisfactory registration units, means progressive and stable compliance; an 
arrow with holes between the registration units shows no progression so the units 
are achieved without generating integrity 
13
Table 3 
Matrix of registration aspects and units of the Institutional Integrity Model 
Aspect 
Registration 
Units
A B C D E F G H Σ
1. Studies of 
organizational 
culture/climate
1.A. 
Declaratio
n and 
definition 
of the 
values, 
principles, 
language 
and 
symbols of 
the 
institution
0 1 1. B. 
Development of 
ethical 
compliance 
monitoring 
mechanisms of 
the functions 
related to the 
definition of 
values
0 1 1.C.Development 
of periodic 
reflection spaces 
and activities on 
the value of 
integrity and 
ethics in the 
institution
0 1 1.D. Recognition 
system to actions 
in line with the 
meritorious 
management 
indicators 
assessment 
0 1 1.E. Periodic 
surveys of 
identification of 
disrupting 
elements in the 
development of 
institutional 
values 
0 1 1.F. Tools designed, 
implemented and 
institutional values 
and satisfaction 
assimilation and 
compliance 
measurement 
results monitored
0 1 1.G. Publication and 
dissemination of 
studies on 
organizational 
climate based on 
the definition of 
integrity (structure, 
functions, 
perceptions)
0 1 Σ ≤ 7
2. Study of 
external 
perception on the 
Public Ministry
2.A. 
Design a 
tool to 
integrate 
the 
instrument
s to 
measure 
perception
s on the 
Public 
Ministry
0 1 2.B. Design, 
development, 
application and 
monitoring of 
periodic surveys 
to users and 
citizens on i) 
effectiveness of 
the service, ii) 
impact, iii) timing, 
iv) the aspects of 
higher interest for 
direct users, v) 
trust in the 
service, vi) 
warmth of the 
attention
0 1 2.C. Design, 
development, 
application and 
periodic 
monitoring of 
qualitative 
instruments 
(interviews) to 
measure 
perceptions of 
officers
0 1 2.D. Design, 
development 
application and 
periodic 
monitoring of 
qualitative 
instruments 
(focus groups) to 
study perceptions 
in experts, 
specific groups, 
and media
0 1 2.E.Construction 
of guidelines on 
the image and 
speech on 
integrity in the 
Public Ministry 
and development 
of a media 
strategy
0 1 2.F.Public Ministry’s 
communication 
team trained to 
monitor instruments 
and the local and 
media dissemination 
of the PM and its 
integrity approach
0 1 Σ ≤ 6
14
Aspect
Registration 
units 
A B C D E F G H Σ
3. 
Productivity 
statistics
3. A. 
Measurement 
of the 
institutional 
size 
(conditions, 
circumstances, 
complexity, 
time and 
workload 
regarding the 
services and 
attention)
0 1 3.B. 
Measurement 
of production 
indicators 
associated to 
institutional 
size, tools 
and adequate 
work 
instruments 
(productivity 
and 
performance 
gap)
0 1 3.C. 
Determination of 
institutional 
quality standards
0 1 3.D. Periodic 
productivity 
studies published 
based on 
external 
evaluation 
0 1 3.E. Study on 
gaps between 
the size, the 
production 
indicators and 
the quality 
standards 
expected
0 1 Σ ≤ 5
4. Human 
capital 
management 
systems 
(convening, 
selection, 
training, 
performance 
evaluation)
4.A. Explicit, 
published 
personnel 
convening 
mechanisms 
and arranged 
through office 
interpenetration 
control 
mechanisms
0 1 4.B. Study 
pre￾established 
competencies 
for each 
position with 
evaluation 
instruments 
(open 
eligibility 
criteria) 
0 1 4.C.Development 
of an institutional 
performance 
evaluation 
system (ethics, 
dedication, 
respect, etc.) and 
of personnel 
individual 
production that 
allows to identify, 
catalogue and 
appraise merits, 
efficiency, 
efficacy and 
productivity
0 1 4.D.Development 
of a system of 
professional 
improvement 
referred to 
production 
requirements
0 1 4.E.Construction 
of a training 
program on 
basic concepts 
of ethics and 
integrity
0 1 4.F. 
Construction of 
impact 
indicators of 
professionals 
training related 
to personnel 
performance 
and production
0 1 4.G. 
Quantitative 
and qualitative 
measurement 
reports on 
efficiency, 
effectiveness, 
honesty and 
quality of 
service that 
include the 
identification of 
non￾satisfactory 
performance 
cases 
0 1 Σ ≤ 7
15
Aspect 
Registration 
Units
A B C D E F G H Σ
5.Institution´s 
regulation 
related to 
public ethics 
5.A.Implementation 
of a leading team 
in charge of the 
ethics code and its 
follow-up
0 1 5.B.
Development of 
the code of 
ethical behavior
0 1 5.C. Definition 
of forbidden 
conducts 
related to 
international 
and national 
laws and 
regulations
0 1 5. D. 
Development 
of a 
consequences 
system to i) 
define 
sanctions, and 
ii) monitor the 
sanction to any 
conduct 
against the law 
and regulation 
of the 
institution’s 
ethical 
behavior
0 1 5. E. Develop 
and sign of 
engagement 
letters of the 
institution’s 
members.
0 1 5.F.Monitoring 
and reports of 
production and 
quality of 
performance of 
the Processes 
Commission with 
sanction 
indicators
0 1 5.G.Mechanisms 
of internal 
control 
implemented 
and functioning 
0 1 Σ ≤ 7
6. Public 
policies and 
practices to 
prevent 
corruption
6.A. Creation of a 
specialized team to 
fight against 
internal corruption 
and following up 
the plan
0 1 6.B.Anticorruption 
institutional plan 
approved that 
includes specific 
types of corrupt 
practices
0 1 6.C. 
Development 
and 
implementation 
of strategies 
and practical 
initiatives to 
control and 
prevent of 
small and big 
corruption
0 1 6. D. 
Construction of 
monitoring 
mechanisms to 
measure the 
impact of anti￾corruption 
initiatives
0 1 6.E. Active 
participation in 
inter-agency 
efforts to 
combat 
corruption
0 1 6.F. Annual 
Institutional 
Anticorruption 
Report
0 1 Σ ≤ 6
16
Aspects 
Registration 
units
A B C D E F G H Σ
7. Internal 
measures to 
prevent 
corruption 
related to 
improved 
accounting and 
auditing 
standards
7.A. Adaptation of 
institutional 
regulations to the 
Governmental 
accounting and 
administration 
standards
0 1 7.B.Office of 
Institutional Control 
in place 
0 1 7.C. Regular 
audits on the 
accounting 
situation of the 
institution
0 1 7.D.Regulation 
on the use of 
institutional 
financial and 
material 
resources 
institution 
developed and 
disseminated
0 1 7.E. Training and 
induction in 
administrative and 
financial issues 
provided to 
personnel and 
officials of the 
institution
0 1 7.FDissemination 
of the criteria for 
the use of financial 
and material 
resources of the 
institution
0 1 7. G Quarterly 
assessment on 
effectiveness of 
regulation, control 
and audit 
measures to 
prevent accounting 
fraud and 
corruption
0 1 Σ ≤ 7
8. Management 
of public 
information and 
transparency
8.A. Adequacy of the 
criteria of 
transparency and 
access to public 
information 
according to law 
through an 
application manual 
0 1 8.B. Setting up an 
office in charge of 
attention to 
requests for public 
information and 
institutional 
transparency
0 1 8.E. Periodic 
and updated 
publication of 
Public Ministry's 
public 
information on 
the institutional 
website
0 1 8.D. Affidavit of 
assets and 
revenue 
disseminated 
through the 
website
0 1 8.E. Development of 
a measurement of 
satisfaction indicators 
on replies to request 
for public information 
and transparency 
0 1 8.F. Development 
of a hard and 
virtual archiving 
system that is 
amicable and 
secure for the 
information 
provided by the 
Public Ministry
0 1 8.G. Report of the 
Public Ministry on 
transparency and 
access to the 
information with 
quantified data and 
the efficacy and 
quality of the 
replies and 
classification of 
transparent 
information 
0 1 8.H. Build open 
and transparent 
mechanisms of 
civil society 
participation in 
the process of 
construction of 
public policies in 
the Public 
Ministry 
0 1 Σ ≤ 8
9.Society 
participation in 
the surveillance 
of the 
institution
9.A. Corporate 
strategy regarding 
civil society
0 1 9.B Citizen 
oversight 
committees 
created to prevent 
corruption
0 1 9.C. Periodic 
spaces to train 
and disseminate 
the job done by 
the institution 
with citizens
0 1 9.D. 
Mechanisms of 
attention to 
claims and 
complaints of 
citizens
0 1 Σ ≤ 4
Integrity 100 ΣX = 57
Integrity 45 - 56
On the path to integrity 28 -45 
At risk situation X ≤ 27
17
4. COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF THE FEBRUARY 2014 ASSESSSMENT AND ITS 
UPDATE IN OCTOBER 2015 2015
4.1 Assessment results (February 2014) 
In February 2014 a situation assessment of the IIM was submitted to the Public Ministry. 
The Model for this institution consists of nine registration aspects and 57 registration 
units of progression indicators. 
The results of the assessment showed that the Public Ministry had developed 27 
registration units or progression indicators out of 57. The aspects with greater advance 
at the Public Ministry in this evaluation were three: 
- Aspect 1: Studies of organizational culture/climate. 
- Aspect 7: Internal measures to prevent corruption related to improved accounting and 
auditing regulations. 
- Aspect 8: Management of public information and transparency. 
For these three aspects the progression indicators were fully achieved. 
On the other hand, the assessment revealed that there were two critical aspects (with no 
progression indicator developed): 
- Aspect 3: Productivity statistics.
- Aspect 9: Participation of society monitoring the institution. 
All other aspects showed partial fulfillment of indicators with low progression and 
sustainability. 
The following table shows the scores obtained by the Public Ministry in the assessment 
of February 2014: 
18
Table 4 
Sum of indicators (Assessment of February 2014) 
 Registration Unit
Aspects A B C D E F G H Σ
1. Studies of organizational culture/climate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Σ = 7
2. Public perception regarding the Public Ministry 1 1 0 0 0 1 Σ = 3
3. Productivity statistics 0 0 0 0 0 Σ = 0
4. Human capital management systems (convening, 
selection, training, performance evaluation) 
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Σ = 1
5. Regulation related to public ethics in the institution 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Σ = 2
6. Public policies and practices to prevent corruption 0 0 0 0 0 0 Σ = 0
7. Internal measures to prevent corruption related to the 
improvement of accounting and auditing regulations 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Σ = 7
8. Management of public information and transparency 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Σ = 7
9. Participation of society monitoring the institution 0 0 0 0 Σ = 0
Sum of registration units in the institution X Σ = 27
Integrity 100 ΣX = 57
Integrity 45 ≤ 29
On the path to integrity 28 ≤ X ≤ 44
At risk situation X ≤ 27
Own production
19
4.2 Results of the updated assessment (November 2015) 
As noted above, after the February 2014 assessment, the Public Ministry did not 
continue implementing the IIM. Dr. Pablo Sanchez, after taking office, resumed the 
interest in the Model and charged Mr. Jose Luis Echevarria, General Manager, to lead 
the institutional effort. 
Since the initial assessment several changes took place in the PM, including the end of 
tenure of the former Prosecutor General and the removal from their positions of a 
significant number of managers and directors. For that reason, Mr. Echevarria ordered 
an update of the IIM assessment to start implementation on a real basis. 
The conclusions of the updated assessment report were: 
a) On the institutional climate to develop the Institutional Integrity Model 
The first positive finding after conducting interviews is that there are good conditions to 
start implementing the IIM in the PM. All the officers interviewed express as an important 
strength the leadership of Dr. Pablo Sanchez and his team to promote this kind of policy 
within the institution. 
b) On the Public Ministry situation 
The result of the update report of November 2015 shows the same total result as that of 
the initial assessment of February 2014 (27 registration units achieved out of 57 
possible). According to the evaluation chart designed for the PM, the institution is still at 
the level of “at risk situation”, though only two units moved the “on the path to integrity”. 
But within each aspect evaluated there exist differences between the results of both 
reports. 
The finding shows a landscape view of the institutional integrity in the Public Ministry, 
after checking the three management areas of the institution: administrative 
management, fiscal system, and Forensic Institute. Our opinion is that it would be wise 
to further the collected information in each are from the specific processes in order to 
have a perspective of coordination between them. This is most important to go over what 
some interviewees stated as “isles” in the Public Ministry and represent too an obstacle 
to strengthen the institutional integrity. 
c) On the critical aspects
There are three aspects that will need greater attention to implement the model as they 
are at a null or under development of their indicators: Aspect 4 and Aspect 6 have just 
one indicator fulfilled, and Aspect 9 has zero indicators developed. Aspect 4 is important 
as it refers to human capital management which, in any institution, even more if it is 
integrity wise, results key to reach efficiency. Aspect 6 is vital within this context because 
it refers to policies and practices against corruption. It is important to note that the only 
register fulfilled in this aspect is that related to the participation in inter-institutional 
coordination instances to combat corruption. The Prosecutor General presides the High 
Level Anti-Corruption Commission – CAN, so this indicator is met due to the active 
participation of the PM in this space. Also, Aspect 9 related to citizen participation shows 
zero indicators fulfilled, which is important to consider from the institutional integrity 
perspective as it allows to bring the institution to the citizenship. 
d) On developed aspects 
20
Both Aspect 7 and Aspect 8 show optimal development levels. Aspect 7 referred to 
internal measures to prevent corruption regarding improvement of accounting and 
auditing rules. The PM has seven indicators achieved of seven proposed. As for Aspect 
8, referred to management of public information and transparency, a level of seven out 
of eight indicators proposed have been met. It is important to note that both aspects are 
part of a broader policy of prevention of corruption, but do not overrun Aspect 6 that 
requests reporting on specific regulations and policies of combat and prevention of 
corruption. The importance of this is that is a part of the path to implementation of the 
Model in the Public Ministry. 
21
Table 5 
Sum of indicators (Assessment update as of November 2015) 
 Registration Unit
Aspects A B C D E F G H Σ
1. Studies of organizational culture/climate 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Σ = 4 
2. Public perception regarding the Public Ministry 1 1 0 0 0 1 Σ = 3 
3. Productivity statistics 1 0 1 0 0 Σ = 2 
4. Human capital management systems (convening, 
selection, training, performance evaluation) 
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Σ = 1 
5. Regulation related to public ethics in the institution 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Σ = 2 
6. Public policies and practices to prevent corruption 0 0 0 0 1 0 Σ = 1 
7. Internal measures to prevent corruption related to the 
improvement of accounting and auditing regulations 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Σ = 7
8. Management of public information and transparency 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Σ = 7 
9. Participation of society monitoring the institution 0 0 0 0 Σ = 0 
Sum of registration units in the institution X Σ = 27
Integrity 100 ΣX = 57
Integrity 45 ≤ X
On the path to integrity 28 ≤ X ≤ 44
At risk situation X ≤ 27
Own production
22
5. CONCLUSIONS 
First conclusion. It is stated that a critical factor in the implementation of the 
Institutional Integrity Model is the decision of senior management. In the case of the 
PM, when the assessment results were presented in 2014, there was no political will to 
implement it. It was only after the appointment of Dr. Sanchez that the work started 
again. The first step has been taken with the update of the assessment. Pro-Integridad 
will accompany the Public Ministry to develop a roadmap for its implementation and a 
first dissemination event with directors who will then form a leading team. 
Second conclusion. The political will and institutional leadership is now upon Mr. Jose 
Luis Echevarria, PM General Manager, who is leading the Model and is committed to 
issue a resolution for its adoption to ensure sustainability in the Public Ministry. 
Third conclusion. Regarding the results of the updated assessment, though there is 
no significant quantitative variance regarding the 2014 assessment – both show 27 
progression indicators met out of a total of 57 possible – there has been a qualitative 
variance at the interior of each evaluated aspect. In the first assessment Aspect 1: 
organizational culture and climate had met all its indicators. On the other hand, Aspect 
3: productivity statistics, had no indicator fulfilled. This reveals that the strategic sphere 
of the Public Ministry’s management has increased productivity but some elements of 
organizational climate have weakened, as for example the spaces for reflection on 
ethical practices in performing the work. 
Table 6: 
Comparison assessment of 2014 and update of 2015 
Aspects February
2014
Novemb
er2015
Maximum 
possible
1. Studies of organizational culture/climate 7 4 7
2. Public perception regarding the Public Ministry 3 3 6
3. Productivity statistics 0 2 5
4. Human capital management systems (convening, selection, 
training, performance evaluation) 
1 1 7
5. Regulation related to public ethics in the institution 2 2 7
6. Public policies and practices to prevent corruption 0 1 6
7. Internal measures to prevent corruption related to the 
improvement of accounting and auditing regulations 
7 7 7
8. Management of public information and transparency 7 7 8
9. Participation of society monitoring the institution 0 0 4
Sum of registration units fulfilled 27 27 57
Integrity 100% ΣX = 57
Integrity 45 ≤ X
On the path to integrity 28 ≤X≤ 44 
At risk situation X ≤ 27
23
Fourth conclusion. We finally consider that currently there is a good institutional 
context to implement the Institutional Integrity Model in the Public Ministry.